Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region 7th–5th mill. B.C. 9781407302423, 9781407334158

Citation preview

BAR  S1904  2009   GATSOV   PREHISTORIC CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGES FROM E. THRACE AND S. MARMARA

9 781407 302423

B A R

Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region 7th–5th mill. B.C. Ivan Gatsov

BAR International Series 1904 2009

Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region 7th–5th mill. B.C.

Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region th th 7 –5 mill. B.C.

Ivan Gatsov

BAR International Series 1904 2009

ISBN 9781407302423 paperback ISBN 9781407334158 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302423 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

To Henrieta Todorova

i

ii

Chapter I

Contents

List of illustrations

v

Acknowledgements

ix

I.

History and state of research, methods and objectives

1

II.

The problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition in Northern and Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

9

III.

Systems of raw material procurement and supply in Northern and Eastern Thrace and South Marmara region – 7th and the 5th mill. BC

15

IV.

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria: the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition; the Monochrome Period; White Painted and Dark Polished Pottery – Karanovo I and Karanovo II phases and Dark Painted Pottery – the 7th BC and the 6th mill. BC; Early and Late Chalcolithic period – 5th mill. BC 33

V.

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region – the 7th / 5th mill. BC

VI.

73

Conclusion

121

Bibliography

129

Index of the settlements mentioned in the text

135

iii

iv

History and state of research, methods and objectives

Illustrations Figures 1. Dikilitash microlithes – 1-37.

Page 34

2.

Karanovo I-II. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-11.

36

3.

Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-12. Building horizon I – 1-12.

38

Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch –1-14. Building horizon I – 1-9; Building horizon II – 10-14.

40

Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-10. Building horizon II – 1-10.

42

Azmak – Early Neolithic Layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-5, 7-11; Blade with marginal retouch – 6. Building horizon III – 1-11.

44

Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-12. Building horizon III – 1-12.

46

Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-12. Building horizon IV – 1-12.

48

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Azmak – Early Neolithic Layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1- 4, 7, 8, 10; End scraper – 5; Trapeze – 6; Perforator – 9. Building horizon IV – 1-7; Building horizon V – 8-10. 50

10.

Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-11. Building horizon V – 1-11.

52

Gălăbnik – 1-5; Rakitovo – 6-8; Sapareva Banja – 9, 10; Elešnica – 11-13; Blade tools with high retouch – 1-13.

53

Čavdar – 1-6; Cap. Dimitrievo – Early Neolithic Layer – 7-11; Slatina IV – 12, 13; Pernik – 14, 15. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-15.

54

13.

Karanovo III. “Plate core” – 1; cores – 2-5.

55

14.

Bălgarčevo – 1-5. Cores – 1, 5; End-scraper – 3; Retouched flake – 4; Flake – 2.

56

15.

Topolnitsa – 1-8; Damianitsa – 9-16; Core – 1-3, 9; Micro end-scraper – 4-8, 10, 14-16; End-scrapers – 11,12, Trapeze – 13.

57

Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level I. Blade – 1; End-scrapers – 2, 4; Retouched blade – 3; Blade with cortex – 5; Burin – 6.

58

Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level I – 1, 2; Level II – 3-7. Crested specimens – 1, 7; Burin – 2; End-scraper – 3; Perforators and drills – 4-6.

59

18.

Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level III. End-scrapers – 1-3, 6; Crested specimens – 4, 5.

60

19.

Azmak Chalcolithic Layer. Level III – 1-3; Level IV – 4, 5. End-scraper – 1, 4; Retouched blade – 2; Truncation – 3; Burin – 5. 61

20.

Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level IV. Blades – 1, 3; retouched blade – 2. Crested specimen – 4; End-scrapers – 5, 7; Burin – 6.

11. 12.

16. 17.

v

62

Chapter I 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39. 40. 41.

42.

Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level IV. Crested specimens – 1, 6; end-scrapers – 2-4; Splintered piece – 5; Retouched blade – 7. 63 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer. Level IV. Crested specimen – 1; Blade with cortex – 2; End-scraper – 3; Blade – 4. 64 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer. Level IV. Blades – 1, 3; Blade with cortex – 2, 6; Retouched blade – 4; End-scraper – 5. 65 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level 5. Various – 1; End-scrapers – 2, 4, 5; Flake – 3. 66 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer. Level V – 1-3; Level VI – 4-6. Blade – 1; End-scrapers – 2, 4, 6; Double end-scraper – 3; Blade with denticulated retouch – 5. 67 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level VI. Blade – 1; Crested specimen – 2; Various – 3; Retouched blades – 4, 5; End-scraper – 6. 68 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level VII. Crested specimen – 1; Retouched blade – 2; Point – 3; End-scraper – 4. 69 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level VII. End-scrapers – 1, 3; Burin – 2, 6; Retouched blades – 4, 5. 70 Azmak Chalcolithic Layer, Level VII. Cores – 1, 2; Various – 3; Retouched blade – 4; Cortical specimen – 5. 71 Hoca Çeşme. Chipped disk – 1, 2. Phase 2. 74 Hoca Çeşme. Chipped disk – 1. Phase 2. 76 Hoca Çeşme. Blade tools with high retouch – 1, 3-8. Phase 2. Without stratigraphical position – 2. 78 Hoca Çeşme. Retouched blade – 9; Truncation – 8; Flakes – 1, 6, 10; Blade with trace of usage – 2; Blade – 3-5, 7, 11-13. Phase 2. 80 Hoca Çeşme. Blades – 1-6, 8, 9, 11-16; Flakes – 7, 10, 17. Phase 3. 82 Hoca Çeşme. Blade with denticulated retouch – 7; Perforators – 5; Crested specimens – 6; Blades – 1, 4, 8-13, 15-21; Flakes – 2, 3, 14. Phase 4. 84 Hoca Çeşme. Cores with changed orientation – 1-5; Phase 2 – 2; Phase 3 – 4, 5; Phase 4 – 1, 3. 86 Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 3, 14; End-scrapers – 1, 7-9, 11, 15; Alternated perforator – 13; Truncations – 10, 19; Micro end-scrapers – 2, 16, 21; Retouched flakes – 5, 6, 12; Micro perforator – 4; Segments – 17,18; Various – 20. Period 2. 88 Aşaği Pinar. Pre core – 2; End-scrapers – 1, 5, 9; Retouched blade – 4; Blade with high retouch – 8; Splintered piece – 6; Perforator – 10; Micro-end-scrapers – 3, 11-13; Micro perforator – 14; Blade – 7. Period 2/3. 90 Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 1-5, 8; Splintered pieces – 6, 7. Period 3. 92 Aşaği Pinar. “Plate” core – 1; Cores – 4, 8, 12; End-scrapers – 2, 3, 10, 13, 17; Perforators – 5-7, 14; Truncations – 9, 15, 16; Retouched blade – 18; Retouched flake – 11. Period 3. 93 Aşaği Pinar. Micro end-scrapers – 2, 3, 5-7, 21, 27, 28; Micro-perforators and drills – 4, 8, 10, 11, 17, 22, 29-31, 33-39; Perforators and drills – 16, 23, 32; Fragment of retouched tools – 1, 12, 14, 15, 18, 24-26; Divers – 13; Notched tool – 9, 20; Flake – 19; Period 3. 94 Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 1, 2, 5; Core fragment – 3; End-scrapers – 4, 9, 13; Truncations – 7, 12, 15; Perforator – 10, 16, 17; Notched tools – 14, 15; Retouched flake – 8, 11; Micro-end-scrapers – 6, 23; Micro-perforator – 18-22. Period 3/4. 95 vi

History and state of research, methods and objectives 43.

Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 1, 15; End-scrapers – 7, 12; Fragment of end-scrapers – 2; Truncations – 6, 11, 18, 19; Splintered piece – 3; Perforator – 5; Blade with high retouch – 9; Retouched blades – 10, 14, 16, 17; Micro perforator – 4; Retouched flake – 8; Fragment of retouched blade – 6, 13. Period 3/4 – 2-4; Period 4/5 – 1, 5-19. 96

44.

Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 2, 4; End-scraper – 3; Blade with high retouch – 1; Retouched blade – 7; Notched tools – 5, 6; Retouched flake – 8; Period 4.

97

Aşaği Pinar. Truncation – 2, 3, 5, 11, 46; Perforator – 32; Alternated perforator – 34; Combined tools – 13, 14; Retouched flake – 8; Retouched blade – 1, 12, 37, 45; Micro end-scrapers – 4, 6, 9, 15, 17-19, 22-24, 30, 42; Micro perforators – 7, 16, 20, 21, 25-29, 31, 35, 36, 38-40, 43, 44; Segments – 10, 33, 41. Period 4.

98

45.

46.

Aşaği Pinar. Core – 21; End-scrapers – 18, 37; Perforators – 1, 3, 20; Blade with high retouch – 6; Truncations – 19, 31; Micro-end-scrapers – 2, 12-16, 23-27, 33, 35, 38-40; Micro-perforator – 34; Micro-alternated perforator – 9; Segments – 17, 32, 36; Retouched blades – 5, 30; Notched tools – 7, 10, 11, 22, 29, 41; Fragment of retouched tools – 4, 8, 28. Period 5. 99

47.

Aşaği Pinar. End-scrapers – 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 13, 14; Perforator – 19; Truncations – 20, 21; Retouched blades – 3,15; Notched tools – 4, 8; Retouched flakes – 11; Fragment of retouched tools – 17, 18, 22; Micro end-scrapers – 12, 16. Period 5. 100

48.

Pendik. Perforators – 4,5; End-scrapers – 6,7; Retouched blades – 10, 11, 13, 16; Fragment of retouched tools – 9,17,18; Notched tools – 12,15; Combined tools – end-scraper + perforator – 1-3;Crested blade – 8; Blade – 14. Trenches 1 and 2.

101

Pendik. End-scrapers – 1-4, 6-8, 10; Micro end-scraper – 5; Retouched blade – 17; Retouched flake – 9; Blades – 11-16, 18-22. Trenches 1 and 2.

102

Pendik. End-scrapers – 1, 2, 5; Notched tool – 4, 9,10; Obsidian blades – 6, 7; Blade with marginal retouch – 8; Fragment of retouched tool – 3.

103

Fikirtepe. End-scrapers – 10, 12-15; Perforators – 1, 2, 4; Retouched blade – 3; Notched tool – 5 ; Blades – 6-9, 11.

104

52.

Ilıpınar. Cores – 1-7. Phase X.

105

53.

Ilıpınar. End-scrapers – 1-5, 14; Perforators – 6-12; Retouched blade – 13; Phase X.

106

54.

Ilıpınar. End-scrapers – 1-7, 9, 10; Core – 8. Phase IX.

107

55.

Ilıpınar. End – scrapers – 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14; Perforator – 3, 6; Retouched flakes – 4, 13; Retouched blades – 9-11, Splintered piece – 15. Phase VII – 1-14, Phase VI – 15. 108

56.

Ilıpınar. Retouched blades – 1, 4, 13, 14; Blade with utilization retouch – 11; Denticulated tool – 8; Fragment of macro end-scraper – 7; Perforators – 6, 9, 10; Retouched flake – 3, 12; Truncation – 5; End-scraper – 2. Phases VB – 1-5; Phase VA – 6-14. 109

57.

Menteşe. Chipped disk – 1; End-scraper – 8; Crested specimens – 4, 7; Retouched blades – 3, 5; Notched tool – 6; Blade – 2.

110

58.

Menteşe. End-scraper – 1-6; divers – 7.

111

59.

Menteşe. Crested specimens – 1, 7; End-scraper on blade – 2; Retouched flake – 4; End–scraper on flake – 3, 8; perforator on blade – 5, 6.

112

Menteşe. Blade with denticulated retouch – 1, 4-6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19; Blade with micro retouch – 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 16; Blade with marginal retouch – 9; Blade – 11, 18; Fragment of retouched tool – 12.

113

49. 50. 51.

60.

vii

Chapter I 61.

Menteşe. End-scraper on flake – 1, 2; Fragment of retouched tool – 3 (obsidian); Blade with marginal retouch – 4; Blade with micro retouch – 5; Blade with denticulated retouch – 7, 9; Perforator and drill – 8.

114

62.

Menteşe. Chipped disk – 1; Blade with denticulated retouch – 2; Core – 3-5; Various – 6. 115

63.

Bullet cores – 2, 3, 5-7; Single platform core – 1, 4. Ağaçli – 1-4; Domalı – 5; Fikirtepe – 6, 7.

116

Bullet cores – 1, 3-8; Single platform core – 2. Ilıpınar – 3-6. Phase VI – 3; Phase X – 4; Phase VII – 5, 6; Menteşe – 1, 2; Pendik – 7-8.

117

65.

Bullet cores – 1-9. Mirnoe.

118

66.

Bullet cores – 1-5. Mirnoe – 1- 4; Frontovoe – 5.

119

67.

Bullet cores – 1-11. Bereşti – 1-2; Frumushika – 3-6; Varvarovka – 7-9; Erbiceni – 10; Gura Kamenka – 11.

120

64.

Maps 1.

Prehistoric settlements in the area under study – 7th mill. BC and 6th mill. BC. X – Dikilitash, 1 – Kovačevo, 2 – Koprivets, 3 – Karanovo, 4 – Azmak and Okružna bolnica, 5 – Čavdar, 6 – Capitan Dimitrievo, 7 – Rakitovo, 8 – Elešnica, 9 – Sapareva Banja, 10 – Gălăbnik, 11 – Pernik, 12 – Slatina, 13 – Hoca Çeşme, 14 – Aşaği Pinar, 15 – Pendik, 16 – Ağaçli and Gümüşdere, 17 – Fikirtepe, 18 – Domalı, 19 – Ilıpınar, 20 – Menteşe. 2

2.

Monochrome and Early Neolithic painted pottery settlements in the present Bulgarian lands. Settlements with Monochrome layers: A – Koprivets, B – Pomošhtica, C – Orlovec, D – Pločhite, E – Poljanitsa Platoto, F – Ohoden, G – Vaksevo, H – Krainici. Settlements with Early Neolithic painted pottery layers: 1 – Kovačevo, 2 – Elešnica, 3 – Rakitovo, 4 – Capitan Dimitrievo, 5 – Azmak and Okružna bolnica, 6 – Karanovo, 7 – Sapareva Banja, 8 – Gălăbnik, 9 – Pernik, 10 – Slatina, 11 – Čavdar. 122

3.

Bullet core settlements in NW Pontic and South Marmara region. 1 – Shan-Koba, Fatma-Koba, Murzak-Koba, 2 – Frontovoe, 3 – Kukrek, 4 – Frontovoe I-III, 5 – Mirnoe, 6 – Grebeniki, 7 – Gura Kamenka VI, 8 – Varvarovka, 9 – Soroki, 10 – Frumushika I, 11 – Erbiceni, 12 – Bereşti-Deaul Taberei, 13 – Ağaçli and Gümüşdere, 14 – Pendik, Fikirtepe, 15 – Domalı, 16 – Ilıpınar, 17 – Menteşe.

12

Photos 1.

Ağaçli – bullet cores.

12

2.

Hoca Çeşme – obsidian blades.

13

3.

Fikirtepe – obsidian bullet cores.

13

4.

Azmak – Chalcolithic layer – blades.

21

5.

Azmak – Chalcolithic layer – blades.

43

viii

History and state of research, methods and objectives

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the kindness and help of M. Özdoğan, H. Parzinger, J. Roodenberg, M. Korfmann†, H. Haruylmaz, T. Efe I had, and have, the possibility to work at different sites in NW Turkey and to investigate different chipped stone collections thus making my work possible. I would also like to thank, Nur B. Atlı, D. Binder, G. Coşcunsu, S. Roodenberg, A. Özdoğan, S. Hansen, D. Matsas, E. Karimali, A. Amerman, J. Lichardus†, for their help. I would like to express my gratitude to Y. Boyadžiev – National Archaeological Institute and Museum, P. Nedelcheva and K. Kalinov – New Bulgarian University, B. Meyer-Todorieva, E. Marinova – Sofia University, A. Borin and V. Grancharov – Ministry of Education, Chr. von Elm – Tübingen University. The author wishes to thank B. Ginter, J. K. Kozlowski and B. Drobniewicz – Jagellonian University, Poland. I am very obliged especially to Brian Rose – Pennsylvania University, USA and to the American Research Institute in Turkey – ARIT. Particular thanks are due to the Department of Archaeology, Istanbul University, Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung, Berlin and Netherlands Institute in Turkey.

ix

x

History and state of research, methods and objectives

I. History and state of research, methods and objectives Sea and open to the Southeast. The preference for the geographic and not the historical use of the term Thrace is quite popular among prehistoric scholars and ethnographers and avoids inaccuracies in applying the historical meaning of the term Thrace, which remains vague because of its constant changes in different historical periods (Map 1).

Introduction The main topic of this work is linked with the investigation of the Holocene chipped stone assemblages in the area of South Bulgaria and especially the region of Northern Thrace and NW Turkey (Eastern Thrace and South Marmara region) during the period 7th - the 5th mill. BC. The reason for undertaking this type of research is connected with the important location and key position of present day NW Turkey and Bulgarian lands in the processes of cultural development of the prehistoric population between 7th - the 5th mill. BC. The other reason can be found in the insufficient number of works concerning prehistoric stone technology and typology and system of supply in this region for the period mentioned above. At the same time the present work has the aim of publishing the acquired stone collections and to make them available to interested scholars. Within this work the following topics will be considered: a) Technological and typological analyses of the chipped stone assemblages in Northern and Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region – 7th and the 5th mill. BC. b) Raw material procurement and the systems of supply of the prehistoric population in the regions presented. The research problems concerning the prehistoric periods of this region have been more or less detailed in different publications by different authors (Todorova 2003, 257-328; Özdoğan 2003a) and therefore it would be not necessary to repeat their publications and further below only short information on the sites is furnished, in addition to which the stone assemblages that have been processed by me are presented. The research results till the end of 2005 are presented in this study.

State of research The prehistoric stone technology and typology in the area studied is still insufficient and investigation in this field has a relatively short history. In most of the old publications the importance of stone assemblages and significance of technologies were underestimated. The stone artifacts were mentioned sporadically and were presented without using specialized terminology and without proper graphic documentation and they were not treated equivalently in comparison with the rest of the archaeological material. Very often the artifacts were presented without any information about the separate stages of lithic production; additionally underlined terminological chaos is revealed. In most of the excavations sieving was not practiced and occasionally a random selection of lithic artifacts was made, thus making development and understanding of the production chain impossible. Unfortunately, with some exceptions, there is no exact information concerning the spatial distribution and homogeneity of the flaked assemblages. Very often no connection existed between the geological and stratigraphical data and the context of the lithic assemblages. As far as the later prehistoric periods are concerned, the problems of raw material procurement and supply have been worked more or less partially, limited mostly to the macro description of the stone samples used in the different settlements. It should be added that unfortunately the “geological” side of the research is still falling behind. In many cases the excavations themselves were not accompanied by micro regional research on the raw material sources, and investigations concerning the paleo-environmental conditions. In that way more or less reliable information about the origin of raw material sources, exploited by prehistoric population during the 7th and the 5th mill. BC has been acquired. At present the research concerning practically all aspects of the stone technology has been un-

Northern Thrace. Territorial range The stone assemblages, which are included in this work, have been recorded in the region of Northern Thrace. Concerning the terms Northern and Upper Thrace their use in modern geographic studies will be followed. Under Northern or Upper Thrace we shall understand the Bulgarian part of the Maritsa valley, bordered from the north and west by the Balkan range and its foothills, from the southwest by the Rhodopi mountain, from the east by the Black 1

Chapter I Courtesy by Microsoft Bulgaria

Map 1. Prehistoric settlements in the area under study – 7th mill. BC and 6th mill. BC. X – Dikilitash, 1 – Kovačevo, 2 – Koprivets, 3 – Karanovo, 4 – Azmak and Okružna bolnica, 5 – Čavdar, 6 – Capitan Dimitrievo, 7 – Rakitovo, 8 – Elešnica, 9 – Sapareva Banja, 10 – Gălăbnik, 11 – Pernik, 12 – Slatina, 13 – Hoca Çeşme, 14 – Aşaği Pinar, 15 – Pendik, 16 – Ağaçli and Gümüşdere, 17 – Fikirtepe, 18 – Domalı, 19 – Ilıpınar, 20 – Menteşe.

dertaken mostly withinin the framework of Paleolithic investigations in Bulgaria. Some of the very important results have already been published (Ivanova/Sirakova 1995). In other words in many cases the value and the quantity of the prehistoric chipped stone collections did not correspond to the value of the remaining archaeological material from the different settlements. This situation continued in Northern Thrace until the beginning of the 80’s. Since these years, together with the new investigations of new scholars, the position of the stone assemblages has started to be considered in a different way as an important archaeological source with far reaching effects for the work on this topic. It should be underlined that during the last 20 years, the different aspects of stone industry have begun to occupy a more important position in the studies of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic chipped stone assemblages in the present Bulgarian lands. During two decades a number of stone assemblages acquired by high qualitative research have been published. Thus for the time being after the excavations of J. Lichardus (Lichardus et al. 2000b), V. Nikolov and S. Hiller (Hiller/Nikolov 1997), it was possible to examine the chipped stone assemblages in Northern Thrace with the

help of excellent documentation of the archaeological context. Exact information concerning the spatial distribution and homogeneity of the stone assemblages was received as a consequence. At the same time the research of L. Manolakakis in N. Bulgaria began (Manolakakis 1996, 2005), and that of N. Sirakov and Ts. Tsonev (Sirakov/ Tsonev 1995). The work of N. Sirakov at Durankulak (Sirakov 2002) has raised the level of research into stone technology. At the same time a different kind of interdisciplinary research started such as the research of Y. Boyadžiev (Boyadžiev 1995). Here the research of M. Gurova, who undertakes large scale functional analysis of many prehistoric chipped stone assemblages not only in Bulgaria but also in NW Turkey should be mentioned (Gurova 2001; Gurova/Gatsov 2000; Gatsov/Gurova 2008). The chipped stone assemblages from the Bulgarian territory, which are presented in this work have been already published or will be published elsewhere. Thus the stone materials from the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace, Pernik and Sofia fields - 6000 BC - 5500 BC - Karanovo, Azmak, Capitan Dimitrievo (Гацов 1999), Rakitovo (Радунчева et al. 2002), Pernik, Gălăbnik, Čavdar, Slatina IV, Elešnica, etc., and some Late Neolithic assem2

History and state of research, methods and objectives lections from the surfaces of fossilized sand dunes in the Black Sea region were collected by M. Özdoğan from the Black Sea coastal area of the European and Asian parts of Turkey. One part of the stone material was related to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition period and was included in the “Ağaçli group”. The former have been added to the assemblages from Ağaçli, Gümüşdere and Domalı on the Black Sea coast (Gatsov/Özdoğan 1994, 97-120). Unfortunately because of the very strong impact of human activity in the areas of stone artifacts concentrations the archaeological context of the artifacts is already destroyed. The situation is similar to that in Northern Bulgarian Black Sea coast where chipped stone materials for the Dikilitash collection have been gathered.

blages as well – Bălgarčevo, Topolnitsa, Damianitsa have been processed and further below only the results of their investigations will be used (Gatsov 2001, 101-112). Due to the fact that only the Dikilitash stone collection from the Northern part of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast in present day Bulgarian lands could be related to the period of Pleistocene/Holocene transition, the former has been included in this work (Gatsov 1985, 471-474).

Eastern Thrace and South Marmara region. Territorial range The territory of North-western Turkey includes the Anatolian plateau in Asia and the European part of Turkey, which is known as Eastern Thrace. Anatolia and Eastern Thrace border the Black Sea to the north and the Aegean Sea to the south. The valley of the Maritsa (Meriç or Evros) River forms the western border of Eastern Thrace. The territory of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace are separated by two narrow straights: the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus (Özdoğan 2003b, 105-120; Özdoğan 2006a, 21-28). In this work the area under study includes the South Marmara region and Eastern Thrace (Özdoğan 2000, 165-170).

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and South Marmara region – 7th and 5th mill. BC. In this region the first archaeological activities before the Second World War were connected with the work of M. Mansel, who did some research in the area of Kırklareli. Later on - this time in the 60’s - S. A. Kansu undertook some investigation in this field (Özdoğan 1999, 203-224) and C. Cullberg carried out research in the Iznik area (Cullberg 1964-1965, 132-180). Important information about the Neolithic period in this area has been received from two key sites: Fikirtepe and Pendik. The first one was investigated by K. Bittel between 1952 and 1954. During the period 1952 – 1954 K. Bittel and H. Çambel carried out archaeological research. Fikirtepe is considered as a key site of the Fikirtepe culture. A rich flaked stone collection comes from this settlement, which was investigated by M. Özdoğan. During the second half of the 1960’s D. H. French investigated the Eastern and Southern parts of the Marmara region (French 1967, 49-100; French 1969, 41-98) and about a decade later A. Kansu investigated the Cave of Yarımburgaz, Fikirtepe and Pendik. The research took place between 1964 and 1966 (Özdoğan 1983, 401411). A more intensive survey of Eastern Thrace was conducted through 1980-1989 by the Prehistory Department of the Istanbul University, covering most of the regions of Eastern Thrace (Özdoğan 1999, 203-224). Hoca Çeşme. The settlement was found in 1989 by Dr. S. Başaran. The prehistoric site at Hoca Çeşme is a small mound situated in Eastern Thrace by the deltas of the Meriç/Maritza river, about 5 km from the Aegean cost and ca. 3 km to the east of the town of Enez. Excavation conducted by M. Özdoğan- began in 1990 as a small sounding, and continued as large scale excavations in the years 1991 through 1993. The stone material from this site comes from phases 2, 3 and 4 as catagorized by the excavator. The absolute dates for phases 4-2 of the site lie between 6500-6430 and 5610-5360 cal. BC (Reingruber/

State of research In the regions of Eastern Thrace and South Marmara the weak comparative base still remains more or less the main hindrance to the investigation of prehistoric stone technology. Only a few chipped stone assemblages have been the object of detailed investigation at the moment in Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara regions (Gatsov 2001, 101-112). During recent years, there has been significant new research on the technological aspects of lithic assemblages in Anatolia in general giving a real picture of the stone industry within the framework of the process of Neolithization in Anatolia (Balkan-Atlı 1994; Conolly 1999). As far as the south and the eastern parts of the Marmara region are concerned, it should be underlined that for a relatively long period of time not very much has been done in the field of archaeological research. However, during the past decades, there has been a notable increase; both in the number of surveys and excavations conducted in this region. Among those, the flint chipped stone assemblages from Çalca and Musluçeşme, which have been processed and published are worth noting. The sites were uncovered in 1987 and 1988 and stone material has been gathered by M. Özdoğan, who dated them to the Aceramic Neolithic period (Özdoğan/Gatsov 1998, 209–232). Epi-palaeolithic/Mesolithic sites in the Black Sea Region. Ağaçli, Gümüşdere, Domalı. At the beginning of the 1970’s some chipped stone col3

Chapter I Thissen 2005, 322; Özdoğan 1998, 435-451). Aşaği Pinar. The site is in the European part of Turkey, in the vicinity of the town of Kırklareli, some 60 km., not far away from the Turkish-Bulgarian border. Since 1993 the prehistoric settlement has been an object of intensive archaeological research by the Turkish-German team led by M. Özdoğan and H. Parzinger and has achieved not only very important results, but also a large amount of chipped stone artifacts have been found (Parzinger/Özdoğan 1996, 5-29; Karul et al. 2003). The absolute dates for periods 5-4 fall within the second half of the 6th millennium BC and the beginning of 5th millennium BC, while AP3 and AP2 … “should belong to the first third of 5th millennium BC (Parzinger/Schwarzberg 2005, 69). Pendik. The site is located on the southeastern coast of the Sea of Marmara – ca. 1.5 km to the east of the district centre of Pendik – Istanbul. At the beginning of the last century in the region of the present day city of Istanbul during the construction work connected with the Baghdad railroad the prehistoric settlement at the Pendik Höyük was discovered. Here, in 1965, A. Kansu did a small sounding. Some years later, in 1982, a rescue excavation was carried out by E. Uzunoğlu from the Istanbul Archaeology Museum and by Halet Çambel from the Prehistory Department of Istanbul University (Gatsov 2003b, 283-292). Fikirtepe. The site is located on the southeastern coast of the Sea of Marmara near Kadıköy - now part of the city of Istanbul (Özdoğan 1995, 41-59). The site, first located early in the last century, was excavated by K. Bittel and H. Çambel from 1951-1953 (Bittel 1969) and the material studied by M. Özdoğan (Özdoğan 1999, 203-224) Ilıpınar. The site is located in the plain of Lake Iznik, around 2 km to the west of the lake and 1.5 km to the south of the town of Orhangazi. The research started in 1987 and was led by J. Roodenberg. The absolute dates for the different phases cover a time span between 6000 and 5450 BC (Roodenberg 1992 385-388; Roodenberg/Thissen/ Buitenhuis 1989/90, 61-144; Roodenberg/Thissen 2001; Roodenberg 1995; Alpaslan–Roodenberg, 2006, 47-57). Menteşe. The site is situated on the mound of Menteşe, in the Yenişehir plain, around 25 km to the south of Northwestern Anatolia. In 1996, 1997 and 2000 some test soundings were carried out. The research was done by J. Roodenberg in 2000 and as a result a small collection of flint and obsidian artifacts were collected (Roodenberg et al. 2003, 17-59; Gatsov/Nedelcheva 2007).

Methods and objectives In this work all artifacts are processed according to their participation in different periods and their prominent features. The study of chipped stone assemblages includes some steps or analytic procedures carried out independently from one another such as technological – typological, attribute analysis, and geological ones. The former includes macro description of raw material varieties, which have been distinguished. The results from all analysis are put together at the end of the work and thus the final conclusions are formed.

Technological analysis Bearing in mind the main aim of the technological analysis - to point out the most characteristic features of the stone technology and as a result to reveal the structure of the technological process this kind of analysis has been applied. This analysis includes also some steps connected with defining the real proportion among the particular elements (Tixier 1992; Kardulias/Runnels 1995, 74-144). All chipped stone artifacts have been related to a few groups, which are presented below. Cores. The cores are classified according to the number of platforms and flaking surface: single platform, double platform, with change orientation; according to the core morphology: prismatic cores (including bullet ones). In some cases flakes with traces of exploitation were distinguished. Related to the blank types and the stage of exploitation - cores for blades and for flakes, as well as cores in initial, advanced and final stages of exploitation were defined. Cortical specimens. The specimens from this category were divided according to the cortex spreading on the dorsal patterns. To this category were related cortical flakes and cortical blades. The cortical flakes were divided according to the cortex on their dorsal patterns. This way totally cortical specimens, ones with cortex covering more than 50% of the dorsal pattern and ones with cortex covering less than 50% of the dorsal pattern have been distinguished. To the cortical blades entirely cortical specimens and blades with traces of cortex (or one cortical ridge) have been related. Crested specimens. Within the framework of this category relevant crested blades and crested flakes have been distinguished. Flakes. The specimens are classified according to the direction of scars on their dorsal pattern as well as the manner of detachment. This category also includes broken flakes with preserved butt. Blades. Blades are divided according to their shape, section, blade preservation, dorsal pattern, profile, and the manner of detaching. In some cases an additional category

Due to the fact that the assemblages from Hoca Çeşme, Aşaği Pinar, Pendik, Fikirtepe, Ilıpınar and Menteşe were already published or are in print, in this work the results from their study are summarized and presented (Gatsov 2003a, 153-158; Gatsov/Gurova 2008; Gatsov 2008, in print; Gatsov 2008b, unpublished). 4

History and state of research, methods and objectives was created such as blades with silica gloss. The manner of detachment includes pressure, punch or indirect percussion and direct percussion as well. Butt. Flakes and blades are classified also according to their butt: natural, flat, dihedral, linear (punctiform), undetermined, splintered, retouched and broken. Debris The category of debris consists of flake fragments, which include specimens with broken butts, chips from retouching, small flakes – less than 15 mm, undetermined fragments, whose determination of their primary product – flake or blade, is impossible. By the undetermined pieces the ventral surface is not preserved and the determination of the primary product – flake, blade or core, is also impossible.

material varieties and their corresponding groups of stone artifacts, i.e. to the distinguished samples of raw materials relevant groups of artifacts were related. In this way the frequency and proportion of raw material varieties in shape of cores, cortical specimen, crested specimen, flakes, blades, debris and retouched tools categories were estimated. Goals The main goals of this work are to try to distinguish the different production chains, reflecting the usage of different local raw material varieties, the application of different techniques and to reveal the stage of development of the possible specialized activities. The former are considered as: system of technical knowledge, a corpus of cognitive and motor skills (‘know-how’), which are transmitted from generation to generation through long apprenticeship, visual inspection and imitation. This manner formed part of the conscious or sub-conscious cultural traditions (active or passive carriers of cultural traditions). Obviously technological know-how was not linked to particular ethnic or cultural groups. It is important to see how it was transferred, adopted or avoided across the region. Spatial distribution of techniques is an indication of population movement, of trade etc. (E. Karimal, lecture guven in New Bulgarian University, Sofia). Bearing in mind the stage of research in the area under study and the main goals of this work an additional purpose is to create a data base of chipped stone artifacts from the analyzed settlements. The aim is to make an attempt to create a data base and as a consequence to reveal the possible correlation in quantitative and qualitative attributes of debitage and retouched tools. The aim is also to try to detect the main characteristics of stone technology and typology, to investigate the problem of raw material procurement and economy using the available information about the functional determination of flaked artifacts. The present work was undertaken in order to clarify more or less the rather chaotic and incomplete picture of the research of stone technology in the area and period mentioned above and at least partially fill this research gap. A further aim of the present study is to draw attention to the absolute necessity of conducting archaeological investigations in close conjunction with geological, palaeobotanical and palaeontological, etc. research, using the obtained radiocarbon dates. Last, but not least, the present work aims to depict some of the main research problems in the investigations of chipped stone assemblages from South Bulgaria and North West Turkey. The present work can be viewed as an endeavor to reconstruct the lithic production in this area. This reconstruction is essential for understanding some of the most important economic and social features of the prehistoric society in the region under study. Thus the ultimate aim was to

Typological analysis During the work a number of retouched tool types were used. In any particular case typological lists were created for the separate assemblages in the territory and periods presented above. The lists include some types of retouched tools, corresponding more or less to its classical definitions. These lists were created with a set purpose – to investigate the typological structures of the stone assemblages presented below.

Attribute analysis This analysis is understood as a dynamic characteristic of the examined characteristics and aims to estimate the frequencies of the various categories of artifacts and to compare the different assemblages (Hartenberger/Runnels 2001, 255-283). Qualitative attributes formed the basis for categorization and the different categories were continually assessed in order to justify their existence. The attribute analysis was performed separately for flakes, for fragments and chips and blades. The quantitative flake and blade attributes such as length, width and thickness have been estimated as well as their mean values. In cases when considerable changes in the artifact’s dimensions during the preliminary tests were not observed the mean flake and blade values of length, width and thickness are presented together. This is especially valid for the chipped stone assemblages from Hoca Çeşme, Aşaği Pinar and Ilıpınar. The description of the debitage and tools provides the base for further research and discussion of the chipped stone assemblages.

Analysis of patterns exchange This analysis performs the determination of raw material samples used for stone artifact production and investigation of the systems of raw material procurement and the system of exchange as well. In some cases geochemical and petrography criteria have been used in order to define raw 5

Chapter I years calBC Near East-Anatolia Thrace-Marmara 3000 Late Chalcolithic

The Aegean

The Balkans

Moldavia

The Steppes

Eneolithic

Eneolithic

Eneolithic

? Chalcolithic Late Neolithic

4000

Middle Chalcolithic

Caucasus

Chalcolithic Late Neolithic

Late Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Early Neolithic

Late Neolithic Middle Neolithic

Early Neolithic

5000 Early Chalcolithic Early Neolithic

Early Neolithic

Neolithic Neolithic

6000

Late Pottery Neolithic

Mesolithic

Early Pottery Neolithic Mesolithic

Mesolithic Mesolithic

Aceramic ?

Aceramic ?

Mesolithic

?

7000 PPNC PPNB 8000 PPNA 9000 10,000

Mesolithic Proto-Neolithic

11,000 12,000

Epipateoltthic

?

Upper Paleolithic

Upper Paleolithic?

Upper Paleolithic

Upper Paleolithic

Table 1. Simplified chart of the chronological terminology used in different cultural areas around the Black Sea basin (Özdoğan 2006b, 657, Table 1).

6

Upper Paleolithic

History and state of research, methods and objectives make an attempt to reveal and reconstruct the system of activities connected with the production chains functioning in the periods mentioned above in the studied area. Therefore my aim is to try to reveal to what extent some of the cultural divisions made by different scholars, based on different cultural characteristics more or less coincide with the main features of the prehistoric flaked or chipped stone assemblages presented in this work. These assemblages come from the settlements located in the region of Northern and Eastern Thrace and Southern and Eastern Marmara region and they belong to the period between 7th and 5th mill. BC. It should be noted that in this work only the chipped stone assemblages investigated by me have been included. That is why the stone materials

from Northern Greece have not been included irrespective of their importance. This work is thought also to deliver general information about some of the activities of the human groups from 7th–5th mill. BC in such an important region for the prehistory of South Eastern Europe in the light of the processes of culture development of the prehistoric population. The chronological terminology used in different cultural areas around the Black Sea – on the regions of neareast-Anatolia, Thrace-Marmara, The Aegean, The Balkans, Moldavia, The Steppes and Caucasus is presented by M. Özdoğan (Özdoğan, 2006b, 657, Table 1). Additionally a chronological chart is presented (see below).

7

8

7500

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

cal. BC

Agačli group

3

2

1

Menteşe

?

?

Fikir Tepe Pendik

South Marmara Region

IX x

Ilipinar VA-VB VI

V

IV

Aşagi Pinar II III

IV

III

II

Hoca Çeşme

Eastern Thrace

VIII VII VI I-IV

Glbn IV

2

Sl-na El-tsa

Kr-k IV

Lithic assemblages mentioned in the text. Chronological chart.

Okr. Bol. Ko-vo St. Zag. Chavd. IV II Kop-ts III V IV ? Id-II V Pol-tsa Ib VI Ia VII

Bulgaria

EN layer

Ch Layer

EN

LN

Ch

I

II

III-IV II-III, III

IV

V

VI

Kap Azmak Dim-vo K-vo

Blg-vo

St-sko Top-tsa Dam-itsa

Chapter I

The problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition

II. The problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition in Northern and Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

The problem concerning the Pleistocene/Holocene transition in the present day Bulgarian lands is one of the most underestimated but at the same time one of the most important research topics. As a whole this situation reflects the lack of systematic archaeological research. Although interdisciplinary investigations are taking an increasingly important place in Bulgarian prehistory the questions linked with the abovementioned period in some cases are left without answer. On the other hand the key location of this area, and the importance of the evidence from the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods as well, show the necessity of more intensified investigation of the Pleistocene/ Holocene transition period. The insufficient scale of the interdisciplinary research could be considered as the main obstacle to receiving more or less reliable information for the above mentioned period. Different kinds of interdisciplinary research have been undertaken on a large scale for the Paleolithic period and simultaneously for the Neolithic one, while the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic transition is still more or less a blank spot in Bulgarian prehistory. However, a number of studies conducted in some regions in the present Bulgarian lands (Božilova 1986; Božilova/Tonkov 1995; Willis 1994) at least make it possible to some degree to draw conclusions about the palaeo-ecological conditions that existed in Bulgaria at the end of Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. At the same time there are still no summarizing works, including different aspects of the paleoenvironmental research for this period and for that territory. As a rule the investigations concerning the process of accumulation, paleosoil, paleoclimate, paleovegetation, etc., were carried out usually within the framework of given settlements and were rarely orientated to the micro region as well. Although interdisciplinary research was not undertaken on a large scale it is very likely that one of the main reasons for the lack of evidence could also be that human occupation, human impact on the paleoenvironment at that time was poor or even very insufficient. Most probably during that period the territory under study was more or less unpopulated. At this stage of research a time gap

exists between the last Palaeolithic dates, which refer to the 9th mill. BC (N. Sirakov, personal information), and the oldest dates concerning the Neolithic period. The former are obtained from Poljanica-Platoto (Görsdorf/Boyadžiev 1996) and from Kovačevo (Reingruber/Thissen 2005). In other words, until the period between 9th and 7th mill. BC no absolute dates have been related and no archaeological evidence has been found. It should be underlined that present day Bulgarian territory displays no traces of human occupation during the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic periods. There is only one exception – the Dikilitash unstratified collection from the Black Sea shore. Nevertheless these is some scattered evidence from the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition period, which was gathered from the surface of some sand dunes from the nature reserve “Dikilitash”. According to the technological and typological features the collection was related to the period between 9th and 7th mill. BC. In other words this evidence allows us to suggest the existence of some kind of activities before the 8th7th mill. BC in the area under study (Fig. 1.1-37) (Gatsov 2005a, 213-220). Of course, it is not easy to suggest that during the period of transition such a vast area was inhabited. It is more appropriate to accept that this territory was populated on a small or even very small scale, but not totally avoided by the last groups of the hunter-gatherers. Up to now there is not enough information about the process of accumulation in the valleys of some rivers such as the Struma, etc. It is a well-known fact that the hunter-gatherers’ occupation during the period under study was linked with water basins like rivers, lakes and the seashore. As a consequence the location of the camps of the hunter-gatherers in the areas where later on the processes of accumulation took place, makes their recovery difficult. As far as the Earliest Neolithic sites are concerned they were found in virgin soil. No traces of any archaeological sequences containing proof of cultural continuity from the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic to the Neolithic periods have been found. It is very likely that the occurrence of the new type of subsistence strategies is visible in the plains of Thrace, which were used as a main Neolithic homeland 9

Chapter II during the Early Neolithic period. These are well situated mound settlements with constant water supply and outcrop sources in southern Bulgaria can be taken as a proof for a long-term human occupation. Here the question arises as to which elements of the stone technology can be taken into account as an indicator for local or autochthon tradition. In other words, which elements in this technology could be related specifically to the period of the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic? And which elements could be found later on in the Early Neolithic assemblages in the territory under study. The durability of the stone tools plays an important role as a source of cultural information. In some cases the examination of the stone technology can reveal different spheres of domestic and agricultural activities. At the same time the establishing or rejecting of similarities or differences between flake assemblages could prove the occurrence or the lack of common cultural spheres of cultural communication. It is a known fact that the geometric microliths such as trapezes, segments or triangles are very often assigned to the Mesolithic period. It is very common that microliths and especially geometric ones in many cases have been related conventionally to the Pleistocene and to the beginning of the Holocene or Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithis periods. As a rule they have been regarded as the main proof for the existence of a hunter-gatherers population before the Neolithic period and as proof for the existence of a local Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic technological tradition. Microliths have been found at many prehistoric sites in Europe and in many cases were considered as an important feature of the Mesolithic stone assemblages. As far as the Bulgarian lands are concerned, during the last two-three decades microliths including geometrical ones have been identified at different Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites. In Northern Thrace, due to the careful excavation methods used by J. Lichardus at Drama-Gerena, this Middle Neolithic site yielded a number of trapezes and segments with a fixed stratigraphic position. Single specimens of microlithic tools were found in various Neolithic and Chalcolithic assemblages from this area. In this connection the excavation of J. Lichardus at a Middle Neolithic settlement at Drama-Gerena, Northern Thrace deserves special attention. For J. Lihardus the geometrical microlithics found in an area of ca. 300 m2 from the Middle Neolithic settlement site can be linked with the following Early Neolithic Karanovo I-II phases. The total number of chipped stone artefacts from the period mentioned above is 880 specimens including 26 geometric microlithic trapezes and segments. Thus a relatively great number of Neolithic geometrical microliths have been found in well-documented stratigraphic sequence. In this case the time gap between the Mesolithic period and the Middle Neolithic one is more

than 1000 years (Lichardus et al. 2000a, 1-12). A single specimen of trapeze has been recorded among the Karanovo II-III stone material(Gatsov 2005b, Taf.209, 7); segment and micro end-scraper among the assemblage of Karanovo IV have been found, too.(Gatsov 2005b, 379, 380). From the same mound - Karanovo V period a micro end-scraper has been recorded (Gatsov 2005b, Taf.212, 13). From the Neolithic chipped stone industry of Ussoe I (North Eastern Bulgaria - research of H. Todorova) a huge collection of non-geometric tools, such as micro-endscrapers, have been processed (Gatsov 1990, 91-101). A number of trapezes and segments have also been found during the excavations of H. Todorova at Durankulak settlement, North Eastern Bulgaria, which have been published by N. Sirakov and related to the Mesolithic tradition (Sirakov 2002). Additionally geometric and non-geometric microliths have been found at different settlements in the territory of NW Turkey. Unfortunately the lack of stratified sites from the Pleistocene/Holocene transition period could be considered as an additional obstacle to the investigation of stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region. This is valid especially for the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic transition period in the above mentioned area (Özdoğan 2006b, 651- 669). At the same time the excavation at Aşaği Pinar in Eastern Thrace, periods 2, 3 and 4 yielded a large number of microlithic tools such as micro end-scrapers, micro perforators and segments. The site dates back to the second half of the 5th millennium BC and is contemporary to the Early Chalcolithic layer at Tell Azmak – Karanovo V phase. A single specimen of trapeze was found in the Bronze Age settlement of Kanlıgeçit which is located next to the Aşaği Pinar one (Gatsov 2008b, unpublished). As a consequence of these results a very clear contradiction appears between the occurrence of these tools and the uniform system of their dating. It is impossible to interpret their occurrence especially in the level of Middle and Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age context automatically only as a function of some kind of Mesolithic technological tradition, which is valid in any case. In conclusion it may be noted that at some settlements in Bulgaria and NW Turkey microliths come from good excavations. In other words their occurrence in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age to a high degree depends on the level of research. The other problem related to the period 8th – 7th/6th millennium BC in the Northwestern Pontic and South Marmara Regions is the appearance of bullet core technique. In the 60’s D. B. Crabtree pointed out the importance of the pressure techniques, the polyhedral cores and the 10

The problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition prismatic blades, which were reported from many sites in Mesoamerica. Bearing in mind his own experiments as well D. B. Crabtree noted: “… did I reach the conclusion that true replicas could be made by the pressure technique. These experiments have shown that blades and cores made by the use of pressure do have every quality and characteristic of most cores and blades found in Mesoamerica” (Crabtree 1968, 478). This type of core is known also as “conical” or ”pyramidal core” or “pencil-like core” and is characterized by a pressure technique “…that through extensive reduction, larger prismatic-blade cores can give gradually … into small, exhausted, bullet shaped cores… (Wilke 1996). In view of this the bullet cores should be considered a product of a certain stage of pressure technique usage rather than a separate class. Taking into account the distribution of bullet cores K. Szymczak emphasized: “…Looking at the map… we can clearly see that this phenomenon has three main centers; in the Near East, in the East European Lowland and in the Far East. These centers do not seem to have any direct special connection…” (Szymczak 2002, 236). For example in the 80’s and 90’s thanks to the efforts of Italian specialists mainly, bullet cores were reported also from various sites from the present-day territory of Pakistan (Biagi/Mauro 1990, 31-42; Biagi/Veesar 199899, 93-118). In the 80’s new results have been obtained by M. Inizan and M. Lechevallier at the site at Mehrgarh, Pakistan, which is dated to the period between the 7th and 3rd millennium BC: “Le dèbitage par pression concerne uniquement le débitage laminaire. Le fractionnement de la matière première est obtenu par une poussée transmise à une pointe appliquée en un point du nucleus; …Reconnaissance du débitage par pression… se fait d’une part sur les nucleus, où la régularité des nervures évoquent des cannelures, d’autre part sur les produits de “plein débitage“, les lames et les lamelles qui présentent une grande régularité de leurs bords, pratiquement parallèles; ce parallélisme se retrouve évidemment sur les nervures des lames débitées. …Cette technique assure une standardisation de produits laminaires légers, de faible épaisseur et permet de réaliser un plus grand nombre de produits à partir d’un bloc donné de matière première. Toutes les roches ne se débitent pas aisément par pression;… L’obsidienne est le matériau idéal pour ce type de débitage mais le silex, s’il est de texture homogène, s’y prête aussi; toutefois, la force à exercer est supérieure à celle nécessaire pour débiter de l’obsidienne“ (Inizan/Lechevallier 1985, 111-113). From a technological point of view the raw materials selected for pressure blades were usually obsidian and finely grained flint. These raw materials were fractured regularly and the flake ability was a very important feature

in regard to the raw material selection. It is very likely that less resistant raw materials with more or less nodular or tabular shape were selected in order to complete the production tasks. Thus some of the more resistant varieties such as quartzite, chert, etc. were not chosen for this type of blade. The main goal of the bullet core production was the aquisition of blades and bladelets. It was thin and uniformly of a small size blank with a regular shape - blade margins are parallel as well as the scars on the dorsal pattern. As far as the detachment mode is concerned, we can suggest that during the knapping process the bullet specimens were held stable by some kind of a wooden or bone vice probably. In the current study special attention is paid to the appearance of bullet cores in the Black Sea and Marmara regions. I would like to stress on appearance of the bullet cores and the corresponding technique in the regions limited between the Siret River, the Crimean peninsula, the Turkish Black sea coast and the South Marmara region. Recently a number of stone assemblages dated to various periods – from the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic till the Neolithic – have been studied. They were presented as the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic “Ağaçli group” assemblages: Ağaçli, Gümüşdere, Domalı located along the Turkish Black Sea coast and the Early Neolithic assemblages from Ilıpınar, Menteşe, Fikirtepe and Pendik in the South Marmara region. It has already been noted that all of these chipped stone assemblages include bullet cores (Fig. 63.2, 3, 5-7). The bullet cores present one of the most characteristic features of these assemblages – core reduction by means of pressure techniques for obtaining blades and bladelets (Fig. 64.1-8) (Gatsov 2005a, 213-220). At this stage of research it was been proved that the bullet core technique appeared in the vast area between from the Siret river to the Crimea. These are the assemblages from the settlements at Erbiceni (Fig. 67. 10), (Brudiu 1974, 248, Pl. 61:14) and Ripiceni Izvor (Brudiu 1974, 249, Pl. 62: 23, 24) situated between the valleys of the Siret and Prut Rivers and are related to the 8 mill BC. Bullet cores were also found in the settlements at Ghireni, Bereşti-Deaul Taberei (Brudiu 1974, Fig.67. 1, 2), Baneasa I and II and Balabaneşti, which were related to 7th mill BC (Brudiu 1974, 67-70). The same type of core and core reduction technique were also recorded in the sites at Brinzeni I (Кетрару 1973, 143, Fig. 50.25), Frumushika I (Fig. 67.3-6) (Кетрару 1973, 145, Fig. 52.20-23), Varvarovka IX (Fig. 67.7-9) (Кетрару 1973, 147, Fig. 53.1-3), Gura Kamenka VI (Fig. 67.11) (Кетрару 1973, 148, Fig. 54.1,2), Putineşti I (Кетрару 1973, 149), Starie Bedragi (Кетрару 1973, 157, Fig. 58.1, 2), Sarateni (Кетрару 1973, 153), which are related to the 11

Chapter II

Photo 1. Ağaçli – bullet cores.

Courtesy by Microsoft Bulgaria

Map 3. Bullet core settlements in NW Pontic and South Marmara region. 1 – Shan-Koba, Fatma-Koba, Murzak-Koba, 2 – Frontovoe, 3 – Kukrek, 4 – Frontovoe I-III, 5 – Mirnoe, 6 – Grebeniki, 7 – Gura Kamenka VI, 8 – Varvarovka, 9 – Soroki, 10 – Frumushika I, 11 – Erbiceni, 12 – Bereşti-Deaul Taberei, 13 – Ağaçli and Gümüşdere, 14 – Pendik, Fikirtepe, 15 – Domalı, 16 – Ilıpınar, 17 – Menteşe.

Mesolithic period (Кетрару, 1973) and the settlement at Soroki II, layer 3 as well (Маркевич 1974, 142). All are located on the territory of present-day Moldavia. Going further east, we come to the most important Mesolithic sites – Girgevo, Grebeniki and Mirnoe (Fig. 65. -9; Fig. 66.1-4) (Станко 1982, 3). Thanks to V. Stanko’s

investigations we are able to register the appearance of bullet cores or the so-called “pencil core” in chipped stone assemblages from the above listed sites. It should be noted that Mirnoe was dated to 6400-6200 BC, Girgevo – 66006400 BC (Станко 1982). In the same direction we come across the appearance of the above mentioned core type 12

The problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition

Photo 2. Hoca Çeşme – obsidian blades.

Photo 3. Fikirtepe – obsidian bullet cores.

and technique on the territory of the Crimean peninsula – these are the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites Frontovoe I, Frontovoe III (Fig. 66.5), Lugovoe, Tassunovo I, Gornostaevka I, etc. (Мацкевой 1977, 26-27), Murzak koba, Fatma koba and Kukrek. The Kukrek settlement are related to the second half of 8th mill BC (Бибиков et al. 1994). Chronologically the chipped stone assemblages from the Northwest Pontic region – from the Siret River to the Crimea inclusively – covered a huge time span, from the 8/7th till the 6th mill. BC. Bearing in mind the presence of bullet cores in the “Ağaçli group” assemblages, the appearance of conical and sub-conical cores, bullet cores inclusively, can be regarded a marker for the existence of a local substratum in the studied area. This type of core might be taken into consideration as a proof of the existence of local cultures that can be related to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (Gatsov/Özdoğan 1994, 97-120). Further south and east few assemblages have been studied and the results from their technical and typological analysis have been already presented. These are the chipped stone assemblages from the settlements at Fikirtepe, Pendik, Ilıpınar and Menteşe. The cultural layers containing bullet cores are dated to the period between 6400 BC (the earliest layer from Menteşe (Roodeberg et al. 2003, 17-59) and Ilıpınar. – phase VI) and 5650 BC (Roodenberg 1995); there are no absolutes dates available from Fikirtepe and Pendik. However, the chipped stone assemblages from the Ağaçli group and those from Ilıpınar, Pendik, Fikirtepe and Menteşe like those of the pottery share some similarities – the appearance of the bullet core techniques. At the same time all the above mentioned assemblages from the Ağaçli group and the South Marmara region differ com-

pletely from the Early Neolithic stone industries from Northern and Eastern Thrace (Gatsov 2001, 101-112). Hoca Çeşme situated on the territory Eastern Thrace and dated to the Earliest Neolithic yields chipped stone assemblages from phases 4, 3 and 2 displaying totally different technological and typological parameters and there is not a single bullet core found among the stone artefacts. There is not a single bullet core and/or evidence for pressure techniques available from the Earliest Neolithic chipped stone industry dated to 6000-5550 BC from the territories to the north, i. e. the area of Northern Thrace. No bullet specimen was registered from this region in any of the Neolithic or later chipped stone assemblages studied to date. The chipped stone assemblages from Northern Thrace presenting the earliest evidence for human occupation of the region are characterized by punch detachment techniques. They were orientated to blade blank relatively big in size and more or less considerable thickness. No bullet cores were found in the Bulgarian Monochrome assemblages – for example from Koprivets, NE Bulgaria. Neither are bullet cores available from the chipped stone collection from Dikilitash (on the Northern Bulgarian Black sea shore). What we have at this stage of research is that the bullet core techniques appear in the Black Sea region everywhere except the present-day Bulgarian Black Sea coast. At this stage of research the presence of bullet cores and the corresponding pressure technique can be considered an indication that the prehistoric communities living in some parts of Northwestern Turkey (Photo 1; 3) and the Pontic area (Gatsov 2005a) (Map 3) during the 8th/7th/6th millennium BC shared similar technological skills as well as similar technological elements and production goals.

13

14

Systems of raw material procurement and supply

III. Systems of raw material procurement and supply in Northern and Eastern Thrace and South Marmara region – th and the th mill. BC

Raw material procurement and supply during the Neolithic Period in Northern Thrace In recent years some research on the determination of raw material varieties used in the stone production and some attempts to reveal the various systems of raw material supply have been done. The classification of the stone artifacts based on the raw materials consists of separating groups of debitage pieces and retouched tools made of one and the same variety of raw material. This classification is aimed at defining the spectrum of the raw material varieties used in the stone production and defining the use of particular raw material varieties for the production of special tool types. In this connection the research of V. Kurcatov should be noted, using mineralogical analysis on raw material varieties from mound Karanovo, phases I and II. About 70% percent of all artifacts from Karanovo I and Karanovo II

assemblages are made from raw material types A and B. More than 50% of all artifacts from both phases – Karanovo I and Karanovo II are made from raw material variety A. This is yellow, yellow–reddish to brown flint, not transparent, with patterns of stripes or spots of various densities. Furthermore, more than 20 percents from all specimens are made from raw material type B. It’s color is dark–grey, grey, grey–beige, grey–brown to reddish and white - grey spots with a non regular shape. The remaining raw material varieties present bad quality flint and have been assigned to the category others (Gatsov/Kurčatov 1997). Further below the distribution of technological categories by raw material varieties A, B and others are presented for the phases Karanovo I and Karanovo II.

50,0%

60,0%

A B Others

A B Others

50,0%

40,0%

40,0% Percent

30,0%

Percent

30,0%

20,0%

20,0% 10,0% 10,0% 0,0%

0,0% Cores

Flakes

Debris

Blades

Tools

Cores

Karanovo I phase. Distribution of technological categories by raw material varieties.

Flakes

Debris

Blades

Tools

Karanovo II phase. Distribution of technological categories by raw material varieties. 15

Chapter III In both phases the frequency of blades made of raw material variety B and retouched tools made of raw material variety A dominated, while the frequency of the other technological categories is low or very low. Both graphs reflected production chains which were orientated to blade acquisition and blade tool manufacturing. At the same time the basic elements of this chain were carried out off the settlements under study in Northern Thrace i.e. the system of high quality flint procurement and supply included sources and workshops at some distance in respect to the given settlement. About other key sites in the same region – such as Azmak, the recent investigations carried out by I. Gatsov and P. Nedelcheva furnished new results concerning the chipped stone assemblages from the Early Neolithic layer, building levels I-V. These observations and results are related to the technological and typological characteristics of the assemblages and the raw material procurement and supply. There are new results available on the basis of the petrographic and geochemical research methods applied in a study on the raw material varieties from mound Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer. All samples were scrutinized in order to study the mineral composition, the rock provenance, the origin and the probable source of the raw material. The results nicely correspond to the archeological data from mound Karanovo, phases I and II (Gatsov/Nedelcheva/Kalchev, unpublished).

terial – varieties 1 and 2 from Karanovo I and Karanovo II phases and varieties 1 and 2 from the Neolithic layer at mound Azmak are as follows: ― the predominant amount of artifacts and raw materials display chalcedony-quartz composition (over 80%). Changeable amounts of opal, clays, carbonate, ferric oxides and organic are present as admixtures; ― the elevated content of SiO2 in the form of quartz, chalcedony and opal defines the basic raw material of the artifacts as chert (siliceous rocks); ― the color of the samples varies a lot and depends on the admixture quantity, as for example the organic imparts black colors, the ferric oxides - yellow to red and dark brown colors (jaspers), the clayey components - grey to black colors. The lack of admixtures makes the samples look semitransparent to transparent. The very characteristic for a part of the artifacts light macroscopically discernible inclusions are represented by opal; ― there is a trend observed that the major part of heavily processed artifacts have of opal, clays, carbonate, organic and ferric oxides, apart from the constantly observed chalcedony-quartz groundmass of gel to cryptocrystalline texture, admixtures. It results in their lower relative firmness that makes them easier to process preserving at the same time their basic quality – cleavage, thus forming sharp cutting edges; ― the major part of artifacts and raw material varieties have unrecognizable silicified detritus or preserved fossils which evidence their sedimentary origin;

Chipped stone assemblages from Azmak – the Early Neolithic Layer – building levels I-V As far as the distribution of the chipped stone specimens by raw material varieties is concerned a similar picture is observed at mound Azmak, the Early Neolithic layer. The chipped stone material comes from five building levels I–V, which referred to the Early Neoithic Layer. Most of the specimens were made of varieties 1 and 2. It was these raw material varieties that were mainly used by the Early Neolithic people from both sites at Karanovo I and Karanovo II as well as mound Azmak – building levels I-V. The description of these varieties is given below: Variety 1 – the sample presents the same characteristics as variety A from Karanovo I phase: yellow, yellow–reddish to brown flint, not transparent, with patterns of stripes or spots of various densities. Variety 2 – the sample displays the same characteristics as variety B from Karanovo II phase: dark–grey, grey, grey–beige, grey–brown to reddish colour and white - grey spots with a non regular shape. The analyses of the raw material samples were made by V. Kurčatov and his conclusions about the flint raw ma-

― part of the samples (non-processed mainly) have igneous origin or they are quartzite. It implies that they have come together with the raw materials and artifacts by chance; ― the presence of many watering crusts in the samples evidence the long duration of the weathering processes which are known to have taken place on the earth’s surface or in the soil layer. This fact can be explained by suggesting that the raw materials have been derived from the surface of natural outcrops; ― comparing the mineral composition and the characteristics of the samples from the stone assemblages from these sites with the rocks from the corresponding regions in Bulgaria (using geological data) it can be suggested that they might be of local origin – i. e. they were taken from the South Bulgarian region; ― in order to prove convincingly the local origin of the raw materials we need a detailed geological study and mineralogical investigation of the corresponding rocks in the presumed areas of raw material sources” (Kurčatov, in print). 16

Systems of raw material procurement and supply Azmak – the Early Neolithic Layer – building levels I-V Distribution of technological groups by raw material varieties. The chipped stone collection includes 563 specimens which referred to the category presented bellow: Category/raw material Cores

1 2

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

Total 2

% ,4

Cortical specimens Crested specimens Debris

10

5

1

3

0

1

5

25

4,4

3

2

0

2

0

0

0

7

1,2

19

1

1

0

2

5

2

30

5,3

Flakes

18

0

0

3

1

3

4

29

5,2

Blades

104 15

6

8

10

17

27

187

33,2

Tools

131 75

12

11

32

18

4

283

50,3

287 98

20

27

45

44

42

563 100,0

Total

Notched tools 2 Trapeze 0 Divers 3 Fragment of retouched tools 9 Total 131

Azmak – the Neolithic Layer - building levels I-V. Distribution of retouched tools by raw material varieties

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total

%

16 19

3

1

7

2

0

48

17,0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

,4

0

0

1

1

3

2

0

7

2,5

3

5

0

0

0

0

0

8

2,8

7

4

0

0

1

0

0

12

4,2

50 25

5

3

6

6

0

95

33,6

35 18

2

3

9

1

2

70

24,7

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

1,1

3

1

0

1

0

3

0

8

2,8

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

3

1,1

0 0 0

0 1 0

1 0 1

4 0 0

2 0 0

10 1 4

3,5 ,4 1,4

1

1

0

2

0

0

13

4,6

75 12 11 32 18

4

283 100,0

In this case a similar picture is observed in respect of the distribution of typological tools by raw material varieties. Two/thirds of all retouched specimens were made on raw material varieties 1 and 2, while the quantity of the remaining samples is very low. As a whole, the raw material structure of Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer assemblages in highest degree repeats the situation in Karanovo I and II phases. No research related to the location of rаw material sources has yet been made. At the same time the appearance of a very high quality flint in all Early Neolithic assemblages in Northern Thrace is already an established fact. The flint is yellow, yellow-reddish to brown or grayish in color, opaque, with patterns of stripes or spots of varying density and it is not transparent. This type of flint was found in the shape of relatively big blades in all sites chronologically related to the first half of the 7th millennium in South and Southwestern Bulgaria. I have to point here to the working hypothesis of Dr. Ch. Nachev concerning this kind of raw material. He thinks that the potential zones for raw material supply during the period under study were the region of the Eastern Rhodope Mountains and the region situated between the Sredna Gora Mountains and the Eastern Rhodope Mountains (Dr. Ch. Nachev, personal information). Unfortunately the exact locations of flint outcrops or flint concentration as well as the locations of the workshops are still unknown. It should be noted that at this stage of research cores from the above mentioned high quality flint were never found at Early Neolithic sites in Northern Thrace. The places for core preparation and core reduction are also unregistered. Bearing in mind the hypothesis of the two specialists in geology, it should be pointed out that at this stage of research it seems very likely that the territory of South Bulgaria was a zone of supply during the Early Neolithic period in view of the high quality flint raw material already described. Notwithstanding the fact that the sources of the flint type used by Karanovo and Azmak Early Neolithic people in Northern Thrace have not been located, it should be suggested that probably a high quality flint concentration was located in the territory of South Bulgaria during the first half of the 7th millennium BC. In general the blade manufacture of Karanovo I and II phases and Azmak-the Early Neolithic layer is of a very high technological level. This blade technology was related to a highly developed level of subsistence activities

Two thirds of all specimens were made of raw material varieties 1 and 2, which are similar to those used in Karanovo I and II sites – samples A and B. In respect to the chipped stone assemblages from mound Karanovo- phases Karanovo I and Karanovo II – the stone collection from Azmak - Early Neolithic Layer displays similar structure and similar raw material variety used in stone production.

Tool type/raw material varieties Blade endscrapers End-scrapers on shorten blade Flake endscrapers Double endscrapers Perforators and drills Blades with high retouch Blades with marginal retouch Retouched flakes Truncations End-scraper+ perforator

1 0 0

17

Chapter III The Middle and Late Neolithic system of raw material procurement and supply in Northern Thrace and SW Bulgaria It is worth noting that the very characteristic blade technology based on high quality flint raw material from the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace was replaced after around 5500 BC by local varieties of low quality raw material together with decisive changes in stone technology towards “technological degradation”. In other words, there are crucial changes in the stone technology that found expression in a “technological degradation” and a use of low quality raw material varieties during the Middle and the Late Neolithic periods. The stone industry after the Early Neolithic period as a whole is characterized by core knapped processing orientated to flake acquisition mostly. The blade high retouched tools made on high quality yellow/yellow reddish flint disappeared. The very characteristic production chain based on exploitation of the abovementioned flint, blade core reduction and blade tool manufacturing, connected with white-painted pottery – Karanovo I, dark polished pottery – Karanovo II, dark painted vessels changed. After 5500 BC in the area of present day South and SW Bulgarian lands the spread of the stone technology was based on local low quality raw material varieties and flake core exploitation. The shift of tool production was framed

derived from an established social, economic and cultural context. Bearing in mind the results of Dr. Kurčhatov’s work and Dr. Nachev’s hypothesis on the possible location of the flint sources during the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace, the existence of a relatively short and middle distance system of supply with the above mentioned high quality flint raw material can be suggested. The distances between the Karanovo-Azmak area and St. Ilia Hills, Sredna Gora Mountain and between the Karanovo-Azmak areas the Eastern Rhodope Mountains is less than 120-130km respectively. On the other hand both geologists pointed out also another possibility – the area of NE Bulgaria. In 2007 intensive research has been undertaken in this region by Dr. Ph. La Porta (La Porta&Assoc.). In other words, as far as the system of raw material supply is concerned the area of NE Bulgaria can’t be excluded either. Here, it should be underlined that to accept or reject one of these hypothesizes one should wait for the final results from Dr. Ph. LaPorta – because without his results the question is still open. The main features of raw material procurement and supply model includes supply with high quality flint varieties A and B during the Karanovo I and Karanovo II phases and respectively similar varieties 1 and 2 characteristic for the Azmak – Early Neolithic Layer. The model is based on blade manufacturing from high quality yellow/yellow/reddish to brown flint with grey spots. The production chain scheme during the period 6000 BC5500 BC in Northern or Bulgarian Thrace is as follows: 1. Outcrop or source – at some distance from the settlement. 2. Workshop - somewhere close or not far from the outcrop or source, but certainty off the settlements 3. Blades and/or ready made tools transported to the sites; 4. Blades and retouched tools usage at the settlement or in the site catchment area; 5. Shifting some blade or/and blade tools via exchange, supply or some other kind of contacts to other sites. 6. For the time being exact places of raw material sources have not been found.

System of supply during the Middle and Late Neolithic period in South and SW Bulgaria.

Source

Workshop

System of supply during the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace. Source/out crop

site Source

workshop

Source

W S

workshop

site

Source

site

Source site

18

Workshop

Source

Systems of raw material procurement and supply within a series of changes connected with the raw material and stone technology in the Middle and Late Neolithic period in South and SW Bulgaria. It should be noticed that some expressive changes in the stone technology, typology and the raw material base were ascertained during the period of the Middle and Late Neolithic in Northern Thrace and Western Bulgaria (Gatsov 2001, 101-112).

Flakes Tools Total

Cores Crested blades Debris Blades Flakes Tools Total

2 0 5

3 4 53

4 4 50

5 0 2

6 0 6

7 0 39

8 2 5

0 32 89

0 62 116

0 9 11

0 5 11

0 23 62

0 15 22

1 227 471

1 1

2 0

3 1

4 1

5 2

6 0

7 0

8 0

Total 5

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

4

6 71 2 80 162

0 4 0 11 15

1 24 1 23 50

1 51 0 68 122

0 6 0 26 34

0 3 1 3 7

0 19 0 25 45

1 7 0 17 25

9 185 4 253 460

In both periods – Early and Late Chalcolithic (designated as Karanovo V and Karanovo VI) – almost 2/3 of all artifacts were made of raw material varieties 1, 4 and 7, while the rest of the samples are present in a considerably smaller quantity. Raw material varieties 2 and 6 display very low frequency in both periods. Here it is worth noting that an attempt to detect the relationship between the type of raw material varieties and some technological and morphometrical features of blades and blade tools was made within the framework of raw material samples 1, 4, 7 and 8. The idea was to search for a relationship between these types of raw material varieties, the manner of detachment, the blank sizes and the possible functional purposes. In this way the artifacts can be separated by technological and morphometrical parameters within the framework of defined subgroups, e. g. these subgroups include artifacts from both periods of the Early and Late Chalcolithic – Karanovo V and Karanovo VI. Raw material variety 1. Two subgroups – 1A and 1B – are distinguished within sample 1 on the basis of technological and morphometrical features of the blade specimens. Subgroup 1A. This group includes mainly blade endscrapers and retouched blades with trace of use. Very often one of the edges is covered by a lateral cortex, while the opposite edge displays traces of use. Probably the lateral cortex was used for accommodation purposes – for holding or hafting? A single crested specimen also belongs to this group. Subgroup 1B. This group consists of narrow and thin unretouched blades detached by pressure as well as by punch. Most of the specimens display traces of use. The distribution of mean blade value of width and

Distribution of technological categories by raw material varieties in Azmak - Early Chalcolithic, period - Karanovo V - building horizons – I-IV

1 5 68

1 7 13

Distribution of technological categories by raw material varieties in Azmak - Late Chalcolithic, period Karanovo VI - building horizons – V-VIII

Raw material procurement and supply in Northern Thrace – an example from Azmak, the Chalcolithic Layer – Building levels I-VIII To the Chalcolithic Layer of Azmak eight building levels were related. To the Early Chalcolithic period labeled as Karanovo V – the building levels from I to IV were linked; while to the Late Chalcolithic one - labeled as Karanovo VI - the building levels from V to VIII were related. Both periods are characterized by the same raw material varieties, whose macro description is given below. Within the framework of the study all chipped stone artifacts are to be related to 8 raw material varieties, including a burnt one (sample 3) (Gatsov/Nedelcheva/Kalchev, unpublished). Description of the raw material samples: Variety 1 – light brown color, very smooth and shiny surface, very good for knapping, semi-transparent at the edges, lack of spots and inclusions; Variety 2 – light and dark brown color, very smooth surface without shine, lack of spots and inclusions, strip structure, not transparent, very good for knapping; Variety 3 – burned; Variety 4 – light brown and grey color, smooth surface without shine, grey inclusions, not transparent, very good for knapping; Variety 5 – the same as flint samples from Karanovo III phases – yellow, yellow–reddish to brown and grayish in colour, opaque, with patterns of stripes or spots of varying density, not transparent flint, very good for knapping; Variety 6 – various; Variety 7 – light and dark brown color, relatively rough surface, very small grey inclusions, good for knapping; Variety 8 – light brown color with large grey spots, very smooth and shiny surface, very good for knapping, semi-transparent at the edges.

Raw material Debris Blades

0 74 147

Total 15 228 19

Chapter III Azmak – Early Chalcolithic period-Karanovo V Subgroup 4A and Subgroup 4B. Distribution of mean blade value of width and thickness

thickness of blades and blades tools within the subgroups 1A and 1B within the frames of the periods Karanovo V and Karanovo VI is presented below. RM 4A

Azmak – Early Chalcolithic period – Karanovo V Subgroup 1A and Subgroup 1B. Distribution of mean blade value of width and thickness RM 1A 1B

W T W T

Minimum 15 3 10 2

Maximum 38 8 17 5

Mean 21,33 5,56 13,42 3,25

4B

Std. Deviation 4,628 1,315 1,932 ,847

W T W T

Minimum 26 5 12 3

Maximum 38 11 31 9

Mean 31,17 8,29 22,19 4,86

Std. Deviation 4,622 2,690 4,002 1,537

Azmak – Late Chalcolithic period-Karanovo VI Subgroup 4A and Subgroup 4B. Distribution of mean blade value of width and thickness

Azmak – Late Chalcolithic period - Karanovo VI Subgroup 1A and Subgroup 1B. Distribution of mean blade value of width and thickness RM Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 1A W 10 32 20,59 4,495 T 3 10 5,39 1,498 1B W 10 19 13,96 2,619 T 2 5 3,52 ,898

RM 1A 1B

W T W T

Minimum 22 5 15 2

Maximum 37 9 29 9

Mean 28,33 7,33 21,97 4,89

Std. Deviation 4,008 1,073 3,687 1,158

The blade mean values of width and thickness in subgroup 4A for the Early and Late Chalcolithic periods are practically similar: 31,17 mm and 28.33 mm, for the width and 8,29 and 7,33 mm for the thickness. As far as the subgroup 4B is concerned the lower blades mean value of width and thickness can be noted. The mean value of width for both periods is 22,19 mm and 21,97 mm. Simultaneously the blade mean value of thickness in subgroup 4B for Karanovo V and Karanovo VI periods is practically the same – 4,86 mm and 4,89 mm. No differences were noticed in the mean value of width in thickness of the blade artifacts from both periods within the framework of subgroups 4A and 4 B for the Early and Late Chalcolithic periods in Azmak. Raw material variety 7. Two subgroups are distinguished within the framework of this sample on the basis of the same technological and morphometrical criteria. Subgroup 7A. This subgroup includes few very narrow blades, whose mean value of width and thickness varies between 9-18mm and 3mm. These blades were detached by pressure. The complete pieces have slightly convex profiles and unidirectional scars on their dorsal patterns; no traces of polishing and use were observed; for some blades an overhang is recorded. Another interesting feature related to these blades is that they fit together and come from one and the same core. They were either detached en situ or at place/places close to the site or were brought at the site together as a final product. Unfortunately there is no information about

Subgroup 1A. No differences were recorded in the mean value of width in thickness of the blade artifacts from subgroup 1A related to Karanovo I and Karanovo II periods. The blade means value of width and thickness in subgroup A for the Early and Late Chalcolithic periods are similar. They are respectively 21.33 mm and 20.59 mm for the width and 5.56 mm and 5,39 mm for the thickness. Subgroup 1 B. Simultaneously a significant lower mean value in subgroup 1B is observable: – mean value of width is respectively the same for Karanovo V and Karanovo VI periods -13,42 mm and 13,96 mm; the mean value of thickness for both periods is also the same- 3,25 mm and 3,52 mm. Raw material variety 4. In framework of this raw material variety - two subgroups of blade artefacts – 4A and 4B – are separated on the base of their technological and morphometrical characteristics. Subgroup 4A. This subgroup consists of massive blades used as blanks for blade end-scrapers. Complete blades (including crested ones) are ca. 130 mm long. These blades are characterized by considerable width – between 28 and 31 mm and thickness between 7 and 8 mm. Some of the pieces have traces of cortex and overhang. Subgroup 4B. The next subgroup includes blades with lower mean values of width and thickness compared to the artifacts from group 4A. Most of them were used as knives and elements of composite tools. 20

Systems of raw material procurement and supply the context they came from – all pieces were identifed and put together due to the refitting techniques used by P. Nedelcheva (Photo 4). From a technical point of view it was not easy to modify such narrow and thin pieces into retouched tools or to use them as blade knives. The recent studies on other chipped stone assemblages suggest probably this type of blank was used mainly for microlithic tools as well as inserts for combined tools. The appearance of mirolithic pieces in these periods is not surprising at all or, perhaps better said, we should be surprised if they are missing. It is beyond any doubt that their presence or absence depends directly on the quality of the research and mainly on the fact whether the layer was dry sieved or not. It is very likely that the appearance of complete blades without traces of use is due to the fact that they were used after they were broken and not before. Such suggestion is supported by the fact that most of the blade fragments – retouched or without retouch – display traces of use. The presence of these whole pieces without traces of use can be interpreted as a “depot” or “storage” of blank for micro tools manufacturing. Probably part of these blades were used as inserts or elements of composite tools, too. The narrow and thin blades from Azmak predetermined these purposes and their sizes excluded to a high degree any other possibilities.(Gatsov/Efe 2005, 111-118). Subgroup 7B. As was observed above – in this subgroup the entire pieces also do not exhibit traces of work; the former have been observed on the fragments only and probably these fragments were used as elements of composite tools or knives. Most of the pieces in this subgroup are blade endscrapers and blades. Almost all end-scrapers were made from massive blades. A few non massive blades related to this group were detached by punch or indirect percussion and their fragments were used as elements of composite tools or knives.

Photo 4. Azmak – Chalcolithic layer – blades. Azmak-Late Chalcolithic period Karanovo VI Subgroup 7A and Subgroup 7B. Distribution of blade mean value of width and thickness RM A B

7B

W T W T

Minimum 9 2 14 3

Maximum 18 3 29 11

Mean 13,60 2,60 19,79 5,31

Maximum 15 4 29 9

Mean 13,14 3,29 20,33 5,75

Std. Deviation 1,345 ,756 4,459 1,765

Within the framework of subgroup 7A the mean value of width displays similar values in both periods – 13,60 mm (Karanovo V) and 13,14 mm (Karanovo VI), while the mean value of thickness for both periods in frame of the same subgroup is respectively 2,60 mm and 3,29 mm. At the same time the blade mean value of width in subgroup 7B is 19,79 mm and 20,33 mm, while the thickness mean value is considerably higher – 5,31 mm and 5,7 mm. In other words some differentiations in blades mean

Azmak - Early Chalcolithic period Karanovo V Subgroup 7A and Subgroup 7B. Distribution of blade mean value of width and thickness RM 7A

W T W T

Minimum 12 2 16 3

Std. Deviation 2,413 ,516 3,755 1,892

21

Chapter III Retouched tools from mound Azmak – the Early and Late Chalcolithic Layer – periods Karanovo V and Karanovo VI. A big number of retouched specimens were found during the excavations at the site and their distribution by raw material varieties and by periods is presented below.

value of thickness in frame of both subgroups – 7A and 7B can be detected. Raw material variety 8. Two subgroups are distinguished within this sample – 8A and 8B, which includes artifacts from both periods – Karanovo V and Karanovo VI. Variety 8A – this subgroup consists of end-scrapers made from blades, which present more or less massive blank. Almost all artifacts display traces of use on their edges. Variety 8B. Some of the blades display crested activities on their dorsal pattern. The more massive items, crested ones inclusively, reach a maximum length of ca. 221 mm The complete pieces have convex profiles and they do not have traces of use, while, as has been already pointed out, the fragments bear traces of polishing and utilization retouches.

Early Chalcolithic layer – period Karanovo V – building horizons – I–IV. Distribution of retouched tools and burin spalls by raw material varieties Tool type/raw material varieties Blade end-scraper End-scraper on shorten blade Flake end-scraper Double end-scraper Perforator and drill Retouched blade Blade with denticulated retouch Truncation End-scraper + perforator End-scraper + truncation Splintered piece Fragment of retouched tool Burin Burin spall Total

Azmak-Early Chalcolithic layer-period KaranovoV. Subgroup 8A and Subgroup 8B.Distribution of mean blade value of width and thickness RM 8A 8B

W T W T

Minimum 17 6 12 3

Maximum 31 6 27 7

Mean 24,00 6,00 19,00 5,00

Std. Deviation 9,899 ,000 7,550 2,000

Karanovo VI. Azmak-Late Chalcolithic layer-period Karanovo VI. Subgroup 8A and Subgroup 8B. Distribution of mean blade value of width RM 8A 8B

W T W T

Minimum 21 5 19 5

Maximum 30 7 20 5

Mean 26,40 6,20 19,50 5,00

Std. Deviation 3,912 ,837 ,707 ,000

1 25

2 3

3 9

4 26

5 0

6 2

7 9

8 6

Total 80

1

0

4

4

0

1

3

2

15

0 3 2 9

0 0 0 1

0 1 2 5

0 0 0 7

1 0 0 6

0 0 0 1

0 0 2 4

0 0 0 1

1 4 6 34

10

1

5

5

1

1

1

1

25

11

1

2

4

0

0

0

1

19

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

4

0

3

1

0

0

1

0

9

5

0

1

11

1

0

2

1

21

2 0 73

0 0 7

0 2 0 2 32 63

0 0 9

0 0 5

0 2 1 0 23 15

6 3 227

Azmak - Late Chalcolithic layer - period Karanovo VI - building horizons – V-VIII.

The mean value of width in thickness of the blade artifacts from both periods is similar. The blade mean value of width for subgroup 8A is 24,6 mm and 26,40 mm, while mean value of thickness is the same – 6,00 mm and 6,2 mm for both periods. At the same time blade mean value of width and thickness for subgroup B display lower values in respect to the blade artifacts from subgroup 8A. The blade mean value of width is 19,00 mm for Karanovo V period and 19,5 mm for Karanovo VI as well. Simultaneously the mean value of thickness is respectively 6,00 mm and 6,2 mm. Within the framework of subgroups 8a and 8B no differences in their mean values of blade width and thickness for Early and Late Chalcolithic periods can be noted.

Distribution of retouched tools by raw material varieties Tool type/raw material varieties 1 Blade end33 scraper End-scraper on 11 shorten blade Double end1 scraper Perforator and 0 drill Retouched blade 16 Blade with denticulated 5 retouch 22

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

3

7

38

1

0

9

9

100

1

2

6

1

0

3

1

25

0

1

2

0

1

0

1

6

0

1

0

3

0

0

0

4

3

5

7

16

1

3

0

51

2

5

2

1

1

2

3

21

Systems of raw material procurement and supply Model of raw material procurement and supply in Northern Thrace – an example from Azmak, the Chalcolithic Layer – Early and Late Chalcolthic – Karanovo V and Karanovo VI periods.

North-East Bulgaria source

wshop

wshop

wshop source wshop

WS

wshop site

Azmak

Truncation End-scraper + perforator Splintered piece Fragment of retouched tool Various Notched tool Point Burin Total

3

1

1

4

0

0

1

1

11

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

8

1

1

7

1

0

4

1

23

1 0 0 0 80

0 0 0 0 11

0 0 0 0 23

1 1 0 0 68

0 0 2 0 26

0 0 0 0 3

1 0 0 2 25

0 0 0 0 17

3 1 2 2 253

source

wshop

variety 7 recorded at mound Azmak – the Chalcolithic layer. In this context samples from mound Azmak – the Chalcolithic layer and geological samples from the Razgrad region, Northeastern Bulgaria were compared and studied. Here is a quotation from V. Kurchatov’s conclusions: “The identical mineral composition of the samples, the similarities in the trace element contents and the textural analogy of the raw material for the cherts give us reason to assume that the initial raw material (type 7) was taken from one and the same region. Most probably the raw material used at mound Azmak – the Chalcolithic layers originates from the Northern Cretaceous carbonate province (present-day Northeastern Bulgaria – the area situated to the north and northeast of the Razgrad town). Тhis province goes further north into present-day Romanian territory (Hansen et al. 2005, 341-393). The characteristics are: ― the raw material has a sedimentary origin – plant and animal silicified detritus is present; ― the presence of corroded carbonate in all artifacts gives us reason to conclude that the chert rocks resulted from silicification of primary carbonate sediments (formation of chert cores); ― the negligible variations in the Mn content is explained by its irregular distribution in the chert, whereas the elevated contents of Ca and Mn in sample № 61 (quartz

The assemblages from both periods display similar typological structures. More than half of all retouched specimens were made of raw material samples 1 and 4, while the rest of the varieties are presented by a smaller number of retouched pieces. In both periods the most representative tool types such as blade end-scrapers, retouched blades, blade with denticulated retouch and blade truncations were made of raw material varieties 1 and 4. It is also necessary to add some of V. Kurčatov’s recent results regarding possible contacts between mound Azmak – the Chalcolithic settlements, and some regions in Northeastern Bulgaria. This suggestion is based on raw material 23

Chapter III Model of raw material procurement and supply in Eastern Thrace – an example from Hoca Çeşme, phases 4-2. N.Thrace

Source Hoca Çeşme

Source

WS WS WS Source Obsidian

Source

Local raw material

inclusion in the core from Razgrad region, North East Bulgaria) is explained by calcite relics and surface weathering enrichment of Mn-oxides. The latter explains the brownish color of the inclusion surface; ― in order to find out the exact location of the presumed source of raw material, it is necessary to analyze a higher number of artifacts, which have to be correlated with the chert cores found in the Razgrad region” (Kurčatov, in print). If we accept the above presented hypothesis we can presume that blank in shape of blades or/and blade cores were brought from present-day Northeastern Bulgarian territories to Northern Thrace and to the area of mound Azmak especially. In view of this we can suggest that the cultural choice of mound Azmak population included probably two types of long and short (local) distance system of raw material supply. The first type of system was related to flint sources and flint workshops in Northeastern Bulgaria where cores or/ and blades were obtainеd and after that transported to the Northern Thrace area. The second type of system includes raw material extraction and core processing at a place more or less close to mound Azmak or we can even assume that part of the core reduction was done on the spot. It seems very likely that a number of places related to various kinds of activities including core knapping and

processing were functioning in the vicinity of a great site such as mound Azmak. However, it seems more reasonable to wait for the final results from the study in order to decide whether to accept or reject the hypotheses regarding the problem whether part of the raw material in the shape of cores (flint ingots) or/and blades was brought from Northeastern Bulgaria to Northern Thrace during the Chalcolithic period or not. The other problem is whether the local population was involved in the stone procurement, production and transportation of the blank because: “… the techniques of production are similar everywhere and the types appear to be directly linked to their function, leaving little space for stylistic variations. This homogeneity over a very large area raises the problem of who procured the raw materials and who produced the tools” (Perlès 2001, 207). The next problem is related to the probable place of blank modification or tool manufacturing. The lacks of corresponding investigation do not give us the possibility of finding out the correct answer. Raw material procurement and supply during the Neolithic Period in Northwestern Turkey – Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region Raw material procurement at Hoca Çeşme – Phases 2, 3 and 4 Different patterns of raw material procurement and 24

Systems of raw material procurement and supply supply existed on the territory of Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region in the time between the second half of the 7th and first half of the 6th millennium BC. The raw material procurement at Hoca Çeşme was based on three main groups of raw materials, each of them having different physical characteristics. The raw material is represented by microcrystalline quartz, chert and quartzite, all of them being of local origin, which are related to the variety ‘others’. At the same time a small number of flint pieces as well as obsidian ones were considered as of external origin.

Category/phases Cortical flakes Debris Flakes Total

Frequency 13 5 2333 2351

Phase 3 0 1 0 1

Phase 4 2 1 0 3

Total 2 3 1 6

The third component of the raw material procurement at Hoca Çeşme is represented by a few obsidian artifacts in the shape of blades and bladelets. It can be suggested that such blades were brought as finished products and presented some kind of import. It does not seem very likely that local people were able to operate with obsidian: ”… the contrasts between the quality of the production with local raw materials and with obsidian make it very unlikely that they were done by the same knappers” (Perlès 2001, 209). Another question rises in relation with the method of supply with the different type of raw materials. Only in the case of raw material such as chert, quartz and quartzite do we have evidence for the existence of a direct supply with different varieties of local raw materials done by the Hoca Çeşme people. The direct procurement from the sources of obsidian and yellow and yellow/brownish flint with or without grey inclusions seems very unlikely (Perlès 1992, 115-164). In brief one may say that there was a wide-range distribution of a small number of flint and obsidian artifacts in the period under study and on the territory presented, indicating that during this time span there were persons and groups of people who were able to launch long distance exchange and long distance trade dispatch (Gatsov 2008a, in print).

Artefact distribution’ by raw material varieties in Hoca Çeşme assemblages - phases 2, 3 and 4

Flint Obsidian Others Total

Phase 2 0 1 1 2

Percent ,6 ,2 99,2 100,0

Stone assemblages belonging to Hoca Çeşme phases 24 consist of a large number of chipped artifacts. Almost all of them are made of local material. There is a very small number of flint pieces and several obsidian ones. Within the framework of flint raw material two varieties of flint raw material, presented by two small samples, have been distinguished. The first one is from a very high quality dark yellow, yellow/brownish flint with grey inclusions. This type of raw material is presented by 7 blades with high steep and semi steep retouch in phase 2 at Hoca Çeşme. The size of the blades, the quality of the flint and the lack of any corresponding artifacts such as cores, crested and cortical specimens, debris and blades give us ground to regard those as imports from Northern Thrace or from the area of Karanovo and Azmak Early Neolithic settlements. Therefore, we have reason to think that the eastern coast of the Aegean (Hoca Çeşme phase 2) was a place to which the blades with a high retouch (Karanovo I-II blades) were brought from Northern Thrace. It has to be mentioned that the distance in a bee-line between these two settlements is ca. 180-190 km. In such a case the existence of some kind of a wide-range distribution of flint and obsidian artifacts can be suggested and it probably reflected a certain level of knowledge on such a vast area. The second variety of flint raw material is represented by a few yellow-grayish flint artifacts without inclusions, which look different from the previous flint blades described. This type of raw material in the shape of a few small flakes and debris was found and they can be considered accidental and their distribution by phases is presented below.

Raw material procurement at Aşaği Pinar, Eastern Thrace – periods 2-5 The raw material procurement at Aşaği Pinar was based on 22 types of raw material, which were distinguished in Distribution of the artifacts by raw material varieties in Aşaği Pinar assemblages: periods 5 – 2.

30,0%

Percent

20,0%

10,0%

0,0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Raw Material 25

Chapter III Distribution of retouched tools by raw material varieties – periods 5-2. 1 End-scrapers 29 Micro end42 scrapers Perforators 11 and drills Micro perforators 3 and drills Retouched 18 blades Blades with high retouch 8 Retouched 8 flakes Segments 12 Notched 1 tools Truncations 3 Combined 0 tools Splintered 0 pieces Fragments of retouched 17 tools Various 5 Total 157

2 66

3 9

4 0

5 0

6 2

7 4

8 4

9 0

11 1

12 0

13 0

14 0

15 2

16 0

17 46

19 0

21 0

22 1

Burnt 8

Total 172

108 20

0

0

6

4

6

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

33

0

0

1

9

233

33

2

0

0

1

3

4

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

47

0

0

0

5

108

8

1

0

0

3

0

4

0

1

0

1

0

1

2

160

0

0

0

7

191

52

9

1

0

2

3

8

0

2

0

0

0

1

1

23

0

0

1

9

130

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

13

28

3

0

0

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

3

53

31

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

1

0

3

60

11

1

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

19

19

4

0

0

3

1

3

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

17

0

0

0

1

54

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

11

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

1

23

104

9

0

0

4

2

5

0

2

0

0

0

3

2

52

1

0

0

18

219

16 0 490 63

0 1

1 1

0 25

0 19

2 40

0 1

1 13

0 1

0 2

0 1

0 8

0 8

7 408

0 1

0 1

0 4

0 66

32 1310

the chipped stone assemblages from periods 2-5 by their colour, texture, shine and surface defined in the shape of different artifacts. The detailed description of the raw material varieties was made by Dr. J. Zöldföldi from Tübingen University and modified by Prof. G. Borg (Gatsov 2008b, unpublished). Further below the distribution of technological categories by raw material varieties is presented. The analysis of the chipped stone assemblages from the periods under study reveals a determinate tendency connected with the raw material procurement and the economy. The production chain was framed within the exploitation of a few main raw material varieties. The debitage and typological tools made of raw material sample 17 were related to the first group. Sample 17 is reddish brown to grey brown, microcrystalline quartz, layered texture, sharp fracture surface, opaque, very low shine. The second group of raw material varieties includes specimens made of raw material sample 1 and sample 2. Raw material variety 1 is yellow brownish to brownish flint, homogenous texture, white inclusions, middle shine, not so smooth fracture surface, opaque); variety 2 is white to yellow brownish flint, very low shine, smooth surface, opaque, few white and few dark inclusions). To this second group were related also some other va-

rieties, which are described below: sample 3 – flint, microcrystalline quartz, dark grey, homogenous texture, with few white inclusions, low shine, smooth surface, opaque, conchoidal fracture surface; sample 6 – reddish brown to yellow brown microcrystalline quartz with layered structure, opaque, very low shine); sample 7 – reddish brown to yellow brown, microcrystalline quartz, opaque, with few or numerous dark inclusions, very low shine, conchoidal fracture surface); sample 8 – white to reddish, microcrystalline quartz, homogenous texture, semi-transparent, low shine, not so smooth break surface, without inclusions; sample 11 – white quartz, glass shine, without inclusions, rough fracture surface, opaque. The detailed description of all raw material varieties is given in the part devoted to the industry of Aşaği Pinar (Gatsov, 2008, unpublished). The quantity of the other kinds of raw materials is more or less close to zero. As it is shown on the graphs, the raw material structure presents an underlined uniformity – around 90% of the entire quantity of artifacts from all periods under study was connected with raw material varieties 17, 1, 26

Systems of raw material procurement and supply Distribution of technological groups by raw material varieties – periods 5-2. Raw material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Burnt Total

Cores 15 21 5 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 80 0 0 0 1 0 5 134

Cortical specimens 107 83 12 1 6 7 39 10 0 4 22 0 0 1 10 13 176 0 2 2 0 0 6 501

Crested specimens 54 80 4 1 1 9 13 14 0 3 11 1 2 2 7 6 132 0 7 2 0 2 5 356

Debris 349 718 77 6 39 56 156 135 4 24 369 5 42 34 40 41 745 0 33 15 3 17 60 2968

2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11. As far as two obsidian blade fragments from periods 2/3 are concerned after receiving the results of their investigation it should be possible to draw some more precise conclusions about their provenance. Concerning the correlation between the retouched tools and raw material varieties some connections between them should be observed. Certain relations among the defined types of raw material, tool and function typology should be underlined. In this connection raw material variety 17 was used mostly for micro perforators and drills. At the same time most of the end-scrapers, micro end-scrapers, segments, truncations as well as blades with or without modification were made of samples 1 and 2. It is the acquiring of blank and tools from raw material varieties 17, 1 and 2 and to a lesser extent from samples 3, 6, 7, 8, 11 that can be considered as a basic part of the subsistence strategies of the Aşaği Pinar population. It was the population of Aşaği Pinar that turned attention to the connection between the quality of the raw material, the tool manufacturing and the functions. According to the initial results of the geological research, which has been undertaken in the region (M. Özdoğan, personal information) the raw material system

Flake 68 82 8 1 2 8 5 22 1 2 22 3 1 2 6 0 128 1 2 1 0 3 2 370

Blade 157 234 29 0 8 41 27 31 2 4 4 6 1 4 8 15 405 1 4 3 0 5 8 997

Retouched tools 157 490 63 1 1 25 19 40 1 0 13 1 2 1 8 8 408 0 1 0 1 4 66 1310

Total 907 1708 198 10 57 147 261 253 9 37 441 16 48 44 81 83 2074 2 49 23 5 31 152 6636

of procurement and supply, without samples 1 and 2, was linked with the surrounding area. There were different reasons for these type of activities. As a consequence all the elements of the production chain took place en situ. The gathering of the appropriate raw material varieties with various physical characteristics in the shape of different nodules, core preparation, blank acquiring, tool manufacturing and use were processed in the area and periods under study. As evidence of this it should be emphasized that bead workshops or ateliers were functioning at least during the periods 3–4, that explained the appearance of a large quantity of micro perforated, perforated beads and beads with incomplete perforations. In this way a certain connection between some types of retouched tools such as micro perforators and particular raw material variety – in this case sample 17, can be detected. It is not by chance that the predominant amount of this micro tool (more than 70%) was made namely of raw material type 17. As a reason for this primary importance of raw material variety 17 for the micro perforator manufacturing it should be noted the fact that this variety is very firm - the hardness of this type of siliceous rock is 6.5-7 by the Mohs table. At the same time the malachite shows hardness 4 by Mohs (Kurčatov, personal information). 27

Chapter III As far as the raw material varieties 1 and 2 are concerned it should be added the opinion of the geologists working in the area under study. The former suggest that the raw material varieties 1 and 2 come either from the region of Northern Thrace or/and from western direction – from the Çanakkale region (Özdoğan, personal information). Further below the relationship between the raw material variety use, the blank acquiring and the tools manufacturing is presented: ― In the framework of the main raw material groups the connection between raw material – technology - typology and function is presented below: raw material variety 17: - flat concretions → “plate” core → blade blank → micro perforators → beads raw material varieties 1 and 2: - nodules → blade/flake cores → blades: knives/element of composite tools/segments/blade end-scrapers/ truncation/perforators/drills → flakes: end-scrapers/micro end-scrapers/retouched flakes.

Quantitative distribution of micro end-scrapers, microperforators and segments in all period under study by main groups of r.m.varieties:1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 17. 120

100

80

60

40

Micro perforator

Another interesting fact concerning the raw material procurement and economy is related to the presence of single artifacts similar to the most typical ones found at Karanovo I and II and mound Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer. These are few blade fragments with steep and semistep retouch on the edges, which are similar to those from Northern Thrace. The presence of single artifacts in shape of blades with more or less high semi-steep and steep retouches can be regarded as an indicator for a possible earlier occupation at the Aşaği Pinar area.

The above presented features do not deplete the entire set of activities. It is worth noting the appearance of a great number of micro end-scrapers – around 50% in respect of the entire quantity of this tool in all assemblages under study. For their manufacturing mostly raw material type 1 and 2 was used. The former reveals another subsistence strategy connected probably with hide working, etc. Here, the economy of material is considered as a complex production system to which preplanned differential exploitation of different raw material varieties can be related. This preplanned differential exploitation went along with defined techniques for particular tool types and usage. In other words the production chains in all periods under study were fixed in some degree by the limitations imposed by the raw material.

Raw material supply pattern and economy at Ilıpınar – Phases X-VB, the South Marmara Region Further below a short summary on some results concerning the Ilıpınar raw material procurement patterns and economy will be presented (Gatsov/Gurova 2008). The material varieties are divided into two groups: flint – No 1 and obsidian – No 2. In this paper the previously defined groups including the burnt pieces are related to category 1. The total number of the artifacts – flint as well as obsidian are divided into technological groups and raw material varieties. The frequency of all flint varieties is more than 95% in relation to the entire quantity of artifacts, while the obsidian artifacts were found mainly in the earliest phases X and IX. The frequency of flint blade cores is less than 2%. However variations are noted even within this small group. Here are the following blade core variations: single platform cores, double opposite platform cores and “bullet”

Count

20

0 1 Raw Material

3 2

7 6

Micro end-scraper

10 8

17 11

Segment

28

Systems of raw material procurement and supply Distribution of flint raw material by categories and phases.

Distribution of obsidian raw material by categories and phases.

60% 100% 50% 80%

40% 30%

60%

20% 40% 10% 20%

Percent

IX V-B V-A VII VI

Cortical Specimens

Phases

Tools Blades

Percent

cores. The few specimens of micro flake cores are considered a result of a final stage of exploitation and not a separate type. A number of big flakes and flake tools came from all assemblages under study. The existence of massive cores decorticated and knapped off the excavated area can be suggested based on the appearance of these artifacts. Bearing in mind their size we can suppose the existence of core specimens at least 180-200 mm long. However, such cores were not found in the area under excavation during the research. The system of raw material supply was based on three components reflecting different types of activities and labor organization. The first one was related to a direct flint flake supply. The places of flake core decortification, preparation and reduction were identified neither within the settlement, nor in its surroundings. The flake frequency together with the obvious absence of corresponding cores suggests a flake core processing somewhere in the near vicinity of the site and probably it was the flakes (and not the concretions) that were brought on the site territory. The second component is linked with direct supply with relatively small flint nodules and concretions probably taken from the site surroundings aimed at production of blades. In my opinion it is very likely that the blade core reduction was made en situ although places bearing traces of this type of activity were not located. On the other hand, it is quite likely that the blank transformation was made en situ. It is quite easy to retouch the blades and it can provide

X

Cores Crested Specimens

0% Flakes Debris

Crested Specimens Flakes Blades

Cortical Specimens

Tools Cores

X IX V-A VII V-B VI VIII Phases

Debris

0%

an explanation for the abovementioned fact. The marginal and micro retouches that cover different parts of the blades do not change considerably the blank morphology and do not require any special techniques. The third element of the supply system involves obsidian. This imported raw material was brought to the site perhaps in the shape of small concretions. The highest number of obsidian artifacts occurs in phase X – 7.36% and decreases later on, in phase IX it is 2.46%. In the rest of the phases the percentage varies between 1.07% in phase VA and 2.79% in phase VB. In general the obsidian frequency is less than 4% – 3.36% in relation to the Ilıpınar stone industry. On the other hand, the frequency of obsidian artifacts in the earliest phase X reaches 60.93% in relation to the total number of this type of raw material, while in the later phases its frequency decreases sharply. The occurrence of obsidian on the site suggests the existence of an exchange network (Cauvin 1994, 15-22). Bearing in mind the presence of obsidian core fragments and the occurrence of blade specimens as well it could be suggested that the site area was the place where obsidian in the shape of concretion or ready made cores was brought and processed. At the same time it is impossible to be certain who worked the obsidian cores – local people or the ones who brought the cores to the site. The technological skills of the local flint knappers evidenced by the well worked blade cores, the presence of crested blades, trapezoidal blades 29

Chapter III and pressure techniques lead us to believe that the local flint knappers were probably able to operate with the obsidian cores. Two main patterns of functioning of the above presented systems of raw material procurement and supply can be distinguished at Ilıpınar. The first one was based on local flint raw material varieties used in all phases, which were probably obtained at a place not far away from the settlement. In all cases it had free, unrestricted access to the places from where the different local raw material varieties were gathered. The second one was based on obsidian processing. The presence of cores as well as some core derived products suggests that a certain quantity of obsidian cores were used within the framework of the settlement. Whether obsidian concretions were brought to Ilıpınar or it was the ready made cores that were items of supply is still unclear but we are at least certain that core processing was done en situ.

In Eastern Thrace, at Hoca Çeşme phases 4-2, the raw material system of procurement can be considered a model of local direct raw material supply with low and inferior raw material varieties. Behind this model there is a population with a low level of technological skills and very limited knowledge of core knapping and tool manufacturing. At the same time there is evidence for procurement from relatively long distances – for ready made flint tools in the shape of retouched blades from the region of Northern Thrace as well as for obsidian. As was already mentioned above, due to the fact that there is still no data available on the place or places of obsidian sources, it is impossible to define the mechanism of this procurement. At the same time the obsidian artifacts found in a very small quantity indicate the presence of traveling craftsmen who were probably bringing cores to the settlements where the core reduction was done. Theoretically the probable places of obsidian sources were the Central Anatolian region or the present-day Greek territory. Nevertheless that exact locations of outcrops or sources have not been defined as yet, in both cases this was a supply brought from a long distance, even much longer than the flint ones. The situation looks different as far as the assemblages from the South Marmara region are concerned. At Ilıpınar phase X and IX and at Menteşe – the earliest layer – obsidian cores were found. Similar specimens came also from the assemblages from Fikirtepe and Pendik for which no absolute dates are available. Regardless of the locations of obsidian outcrops the people involved in obsidian supply had to travel a considerable distance. The question is who brought and who processed the obsidian – the local population or traveling craftsmen. It seems very likely that obsidian concretions or perform cores were brought to the settlements and then were processed en situ – in all of the abovementioned sites. Bearing in mind the skills of the groups from the above mentioned settlements to obtain flint blades and to manufacture flint tools it can be presumed that members of these groups were able to process obsidian concretions and cores. It was the population of Ilıpınar, Menteşe, Fikirtepe and Pendik who were able to maintain the blade production; the pressure and the indirect percussion techniques were not a secret to them. As far as the supply of local raw material at Ilıpınar, Menteşe, Fikirtepe and Pendik is concerned – in all settlements different raw material varieties were gathered from the surroundings. This kind of procurement did not need any sophisticated methods and the population had enough experience to make the best choice in this relation. The relatively good quality flint in the shape of different type of artifacts is observed in all chipped stone assemblages from these settlements. The best proof is the exploitation of the so-called bullet cores by pressure techniques.

Conclusions More or less different systems of raw material procurement can be distinguished on the territory under study as far as the raw material varieties are concerned. On the territory of Northern Thrace and Sofia and Pernik fields a well developed system based on supply of high quality flint raw material was functioning during the very end of 7th mill.BC and first half of the 6 mill. BC. It was related to the white painted – Karanovo I, dark polished pottery – Karanovo II, dark painted vessels –– 7th/6th mill. BC. As was already emphasized flint cores from this extremely high quality yellow and yellow-reddish raw material were not found in the Early Neolithic sites in Northern Thrace. It can explain the fact that all Early Neolithic flint chipped stone assemblages from Northern Thrace yielded blades and blade tools are of this type of flint variety only. It is impossible to say whether this blank was secondarily modified at workshops or at the site because the excavated soil was not dry sieved and part of the information was lost for ever. On the other hand, the very high degree of artifact concentration made of this kind of flint in mound Karanovo - Karanovo I and II phases and mound Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer gives us reason to define the Karanovo-Azmak population as bearers and keepers of this very highly developed and sophisticated technology. The stone inventories of Karanovo I and II and mound Azmak - the Early Neolithic layer present a unique exception – it is only their assemblages that display an extremely high frequency of the above presented blades because probably it was their territory, and their sources and their job. It is very likely that this population namely organized trips to the flint locations in order to supplement their flint supplies. 30

Systems of raw material procurement and supply In the later periods of occupation at Aşaği Pinar the presence of obsidian is almost 0% – there are only 2 obsidian pieces in the collection consisting of more than 6000 artifacts. The entire raw material structure consists of specimens made of local varieties flint and chert and those of external origin aimed at different purposes and the technological and typological profile of the stone industry and labor organization was totally different. It is interesting to point out that only two pieces typical for Aşaği Pinar industry were found in the chipped stone assemblage of Tell Karanovo – in the Karanovo III phase (Hiller/Nikolov 2005, Taf. 213, 1, Taf. 211, 10). It has to be mentioned that at some point during the time of Karanovo III – Aşaği Pinar 5 periods single artifacts from Eastern Thrace, from Aşaği Pinar period 5 especially, were

found in the Karanovo III settlement, Northern Thrace; this period is dated to ca. 5500-5300/5200 BC (Parzinger/ Schwarzberg 2005, 68-69, 420). These pieces are so identical that the must have the same origin. “Plate” core specimen made of the already presented raw material variety 17 and a micro perforator have already been mentioned. At this stage of research it is not possible to specify whether these two pieces can be considered evidence for contacts between Northern and Eastern Thrace. In conclusion it has to be emphasized that different models of raw material procurement determined by different environmental and cultural factors existed on the territory bordered by the Stara Planina Mountains, the Rhodope Mountains, the Black and the Marmara Seas at the end of the 7th and in the 5th mill. BC.

31

32

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria

IV. Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria: the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition; the Monochrome Period; White Painted and Dark Polished Pottery – Karanovo I and Karanovo II phases and Dark Painted Pottery – the th BC and the th mill. BC; Early and Late Chalcolithic period – th mill. BC

Chipped stone assemblages from Northern Thrace, Pernik and Sofia Fields – the 7th – 6th Millennium BC – Karanovo I and Karanovo II, Azmak - the Early Neolithic layer, Rakitovo, Eleshnica, Gălăbnik, Pernik, Slatina V–IV, Čavdar, Capitan Dimitrievo – the Early Neolithic layer. The earliest chipped stone technology related to the white painted, dark polished and dark painted pottery – pottery in Northern Thrace and Sofia and Pernik fields is characterized by the abovementioned highly developed blade industry based on high quality flint. Regular blade blank was used for manufacturing of retouched specimens with high semi steep and steep retouches. The high quality of the flint used for tool making and the possibilities for knapping, which this type of raw material provided, made possible the easy transformation of one type of retouched tool into another. The retouch blades were transmitted into a few tool types such as perforators, end-scrapers and truncations. To the formal tools have been related blades, which underwent secondary modification, and most of them present high steep or semi-steep retouch, which as a rule reduced the blank body to some extent. Those blades have been registered in high quantity among the chipped stone assemblages from Karanovo I and Karanovo II cultural sequences and are completely identical and are defined as “Karanovo I-II” specimens. Almost all formal and non formal tools from the white painted, dark polished and dark painted vessel units display traces of usage, which can be observed by the shape of silica gloss (polishing) and chipping of the edges.

T HE PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TRANSITION. NORTHEASTERN BULGARIA Dikilitash The material comes from an area, ca. 50 sq.km large, covered by fossilized dunes. 11 concentrations of stone artifacts were located by A. Margos on the surface of these dunes. The entire collection includes ca. 350 cores, more than 400 microliths (geometrical and non geometrical ones) as well as a number of flakes and blades (Fig. 1.1-37). The Dikilitash collection comprises flint artifacts dated to different periods. A number of backed pieces with straight or arched backs were found in the material. This fact gives us reason to suppose that the Bulgarian Black Sea coast was within range of the Epi-Tardigravettian influence (Gatsov 1985, 471-474). In this relation the dominance of very short and short end-scrapers, accompanied by quite numerous microliths, including trapezеs can be taken into consideration. The Monochrome Period. Chipped Stone Assemblages from Northeastern Bulgaria. Evidence from Koprivets. The situation does not differ very much as far as the Monochrome period is concerned. Until now it is only the collection from Koprivets, Northeastern Bulgaria has been studied by R. Zlateva-Uzunova (Zlateva-Uzunova, MA thesis, unpublished). The stone collection is characterized by relatively large flakes, flake and blade tools, notch tools mainly. The raw material used was of local origin and had a relatively low quality. 33

Chapter IV

Fig. 1. Dikilitash microlithes – 1-37. 34

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria Here, it should be noted that at this stage of research there is new information about the chipped stone assemblages of mound Azmak – the Neolithic layer; some of the main results are presented below (Gatsov/Nedelcheva/Kalchev, unpublished). Chipped stone assemblages from mound Azmak – the Neolithic Layer In the framework of this layer 5 building horizons have been distinguished by the excavators (Georgiev 1965, 68). The chipped stone material was separated according to information given by them. All building levels – from I to V were related to the Early Neolithic period in Thrace. (See the Chronological chart). The distribution of the technological groups by building levels is presented below.

Irregular Total

Cores Cortical specimens Crested specimens Debris Flakes Blades Tools Total

I 2 4 2 10 8 48 55 129

Distal Mesial Proximal Entire Total

2 25 7 30 29 187 283 563

It has to be noted that the chipped stone assemblages of the building levels I-V display no differences in the main technological and typological features and raw material varieties. This scheme is one and the same for all building levels – except for the unretouched blades and blade tools no other categories or technological groups were defined. Blades. Concerning the blade specimens the type of butt, dorsal pattern, shapes, practicals cross section, profile, fragmentation and dimensions have been taken into consideration. Blade Dorsal pattern Dorsal pattern Frequency Uni-directional 175 Opposite direction 12 Total 187

% 93,6 6,4 100,0

Blade shape/cross section Parallel Divergen Convergent

Triangular 22 9 3

Trapezoid 96 29 6

Multifaceted 8 2 3

1 14

9 187

Stright 3 69 37 3 112

Convex 12 29 23 4 68

Twisted 1 3 2 1 7

Total 16 101 62 8 187

The prevalence of the unretouched blades, most of them displaying traces of use, and the typological tools that constitute more than 2/3 of the total number of the artifacts reveals the existing technological orientation towards blade production, which is typical for the period and for the area. The distribution of technological groups by building levels reveals some selective practices related to the stone artifacts, which was undoubtedly focused on unretouched blades and blade end-scrapers. This was a common practice for a number of sites in Europe in that period. At that time the significance of the stone artifacts was often underestimated; for that reason only part of them were regarded as finds and kept. Another important circumstance is that the excavated soil was not dry sieved. The same is also valid for the stone assemblages from mound Azmak – the later Chalcolithic (see below). Notwithstanding the omissions in the excavation strategy the above presented structure reveals to a great extent the real picture – the reduction practices related to the blade acquirement took place away from the settlement. The processes of decortification, preparation and reduction were probably carried out somewhere near the locations of raw material acquisition but certainly not on the settlement area. The chipped stone assemblages from this part of Thrace – e.g. Karanovo I and II phases, Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer, Capitan Dimitrievo, etc. – are characterized by macro blade technology; cores, flakes and flake tools are absent (Gatsov 2001, 101-112). Only two small core pieces for flakes displaying the final stage of exploitation and multidirectional scars were found. Blade cores with shape and size corresponding to the blade blank are totally missing. Judging from the blade, the entire length the core should have been at least 120–140 mm. However such cores have never been found in any of the Early Neolithic sites under study. The second group in number in all assemblages under study consists of unretouched blades presented by specimens with unidirectional dorsal patterns, trapezoidal cross-section almost regular shape and flat butts. Most of

Total V 0 5 0 1 3 17 23 49

2 133

Blade profile/ fragment

Distribution of technological groups by building levels – I–V building levels II III IV 0 0 0 3 8 5 2 2 1 8 6 5 3 8 7 34 56 32 61 98 46 111 178 96

6 40

Total 126 40 12

35

Chapter IV

Fig. 2. Karanovo I-II. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-11. 36

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria Karanovo – phases I and II. The correlation of thickness and length of highly retouched blades. 6 4 2

8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0

6 4 2 6 4 2

8

t

the blades were derived at an advanced stage of core reduction; a similar way of detaching was applied – by using punch or indirect percussion mainly.

I 10

II 13

III 12

IV 8

V 4

Total 47

0

0

1

0

0

1

1 2 4 15

3 2 2 14

3 2 4 38

0 2 0 17

0 0 2 11

7 8 12 95

18

15

26

8

3

70

0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2

0 5 1 1 1 2 0 0

1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

3 8 3 1 10 2 1 2

1

6

2

3

1

13

55

61

98

46

23

283

10

12

14

16

18 w

20

22

24

the ones from Karanovo I and Karanovo II phases. Blades with marginal retouches are presented by fragments with partial or continuous marginal retouches on one or both edges. End-scrapers are presented mostly by blade specimens. The blade tools such as retouched blades, blade perforators, blade truncations and blade specimens with rounded end – Karanovo I and II type – were shaped by a high semi-steep or steep retouch. The high semi-steep and steep retouches were applied to blades with a minimal thickness of 4 mm. This conclusion is based on the results from P. Nedecheva’s tests related to the width/thickness ratio of the unretouched blades, specimens with marginal retouches and the ones with high semi steep and steep retouches. Concerning the high retouched blade specimens another similarity could be found between the few blade tools from Hoca Çeşme phase 2 and those from the Early Neolithic assemblages in Northern Thrace – phases Karanovo I-II- connected with white-painted and dark polished pottery. In both cases the high semi abrupt and abrupt retouches narrowed the blank very strongly. This could be observed for example in respect to the Karanovo I and Karanovo II phases, Azmak – Early Neolithic layer and Hoca Çeşme – phase 2. These blade tools presented the same tendency. Due to the fact that marginal retouches do not change the blank body their mean values of width and thickness are evaluated together with those of unretouched specimens. Further below the results of two tests made by P. Nedelcheva are presented There is a clear connection between the blade’s mean

Azmak Early Neolithic layers. Retouched tools The distribution of typological tools related to the building levels I -V is given below. Blade end-scrapers End-scrapers on shorten blade Flake end-scrapers Double end-scrapers Perforators and drills Blades with high retouch Blades with marginal retouch Retouched flakes Truncations End-scraper+ perforator End-scraper + burin Notched tools Burins Trapeze Divers Fragment of retouched tools Total

6 4 2 6 4 2 6 4 2 0

t

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 w

Frequency

Frequency

Azmak – Early Neolithic Layer. Building levels I-V. The correlation of thickness and length of highly retouched blades.

Three types of retouched tools prevail over the retouched specimens – blades with high retouch, blades with marginal retouches and blade end-scrapers. The blades with high semi-steep and steep retouches are similar to 37

Chapter IV

4

3 2 1

7

6

5

9

10

8

11

12

Fig. 3. Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-12. Building horizon I – 1-12. 38

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria As far as single specimens of burins are concerned, it has to be noted that it is already known that this type of tool is not present in the chipped stone assemblages in the region and the period under study. At this stage of research we should regard them as finds coming from a mixеd context. The already studied chipped stone assemblages from Karanovo I and II phases as well as from mound Azmak the Early Neolithic layer are characterized by blade manufacturing and typological monotony (Fig. 3.1-12; Fig. 4.114; Fig. 5.1-10; Fig. 6.1-11; Fig. 7.1-12; Fig. 8.1-12; Fig. 9.1-10; Fig.10. 1-11). Bearing in mind the above presented chipped stone collection it is worth presenting the results from the functional analysis of the material made by M. Gurova: “...the study of two collections from the Early Neolithic culture of Karanovo I have been completed - the materials from Tell Karanovo (layers I and II) and the assemblages from Tell Azmak (horizons I-V) that are ascribed to the same Karanovo I culture (Azmak variant). On the basis of the use-wear analysis of the two Early Neolithic collections, the following conclusions can be drawn: – In both complexes the number and the percentage of the retouched tools with traces of utilization is considerably larger (with about 20 percent) than that of the unretouched blades; – The correlation between the type and the function of the tools is variable. Chronologically, this can be explained by the fact that, during the different habitation periods of the tells, different accents were put on various economic activities, such as wood and hide working, butchering, cereal harvesting, etc… These results show a highly developed agricultural practice in Thrace; a fact supported also by the palaeobotanical data and the abundance of sickle inserts. …” (Gurova/Gatsov 2000, 156-158). Here, regardless of some contradiction between “agricultural practice” and “economic activities, such as wood and hide working, butchering” we must agree with M. Gurova that “The materials presented above show that sedentary farming communities had established itself during the Early Neolithic in Thrace (South Bulgaria)” (Gurova/ Gatsov 2000, 155-158) (Fig.11.1-13, Fig. 12.1-15).

3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0

10

12

14

16 w

18

20 t

Frequency

Hoca Cesme – phase 2. The correlation of thickness and length of highly retouched blades.

value of width and thickness. Blades with a lower value of thickness display lower mean values of width. Thinner blades from Azmak – Early Neolithic Layer – especially those with thickness between 2-3mm practically were not modified by high retouches. As is shown on the graph the min. thickness of blades with high semi steep and steep retouches started from 4 mm. The above presented 3 graphs display a clear similarity between them. In the analyzed assemblages the width mean values of blades with high semi steep and steep retouches are lower in respect to those specimens without retouch. In this manner has been confirmed the previous observation that probably the high steep and semi steep retouches could be used to some extent for narrowing the blank body and according to G. Goşkunsu they “… can be a kind of re-sharpening” (Unpublished observation of G. Goşkunsu). The highly retouched blades were the main instrument for implementing various activities (Fig. 2.1-11). The other tool types such as blade end-scrapers are characterized by rounded, rarely oblique and straight fronts, shaped by semi-steep regular retouches. Some of these implements display partial or continuous retouches on their edges. Other types such as blade perforators, blade notched tools and truncations are found in small quantities; the rest of the retouched types were presented by single pieces. The perforators and drills usually have relatively nicely shaped points. Splinter technique was also recorded – presented by flakes with splintered retouch; there are also splintered marks on some of the tools. It is worth noting that no specimens with denticulate retouches were found.

Additionally it should be pointed out that the chipped stone assemblages from mound Azmak Early Neolithic layers (building horizons I-V), which are referred to the same Karanovo I –culture (Azmak variant) present exactly the same technological and typological features, similar structure and the same raw material base. It is very likely that the Early Neolithic Azmak population was involved in the same system of raw material procurement and supply. 39

Chapter IV

Fig. 4. Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch –1-14. Building horizon I – 1-9. Building horizon II – 10-14.II: 10-14. 40

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria The Early Neolithic population from mound Azmak participated in the organization and functioning of the same production chain and took part in the same system of exchange. This population is featured by the same subsistence strategy, which was already presented in the case of the Early Neolithic assemblages from the phases Karanovo I and Karanovo II. In other words, the Karanovo I-II and Azmak Early Neolithic layer groups lived during the same time, in similar conditions, had the same type of social structure, labor organization and practices.

Azmak – Early and Late Chalcolithic periods. Histogram of blade width and thickness’ Periods Karanovo V

Karanovo VI

8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 8 4 0

fine-grained material-flint

concretions, nodules

full decortication

diligent preparation

blades

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 W

T

Count

pressure/punch/soft percussion

II-III, III, III-IV and IV are concerned the former reflected distinct changes which set in raw material base, technology and blank and tool morphometry.

truncations end scrapers perforators and drills retouched blades

Low quality raw material varieties

Up to now only one exception has been registered. At the settlement Slatina IV the flint artifacts have been found in a certain place, which was probably used as a store (Николов 1992, 99-104). As far as the Middle and Late Neolithic in Northern Thrace and Southwestern Bulgaria are concerned some observation should be presented. Significant changes in the Early, Middle and Late Neolithic stone assemblages in South and Southwestern Bulgaria were observed. The Middle and the Late Neolithic technology is characterized by small size flake-blade cores with changed orientation as well as an increase in the number of flakes and use of local low quality raw material. The information available gives us ground to make conclusions based on the study on the collections from Capitan Dimitrievo, Bălgarčevo (Fig. 14. 1-5), Strumsko, Damianitsa and Topolnitsa (Fig. 15. 116). There is recent information about artifacts yielded by Karanovo II/III, III, III/IV and IV phases (Gatsov 2005b, 375-386, Taf. 211.10; Taf. 213.1) (Fig. 13.1-5). As far as the chipped stone assemblages from tell Karanovo – phases

concretions, nodules

partial preparation

soft and hard percussion

flakes and blades

flake end scrapers perforators and drills retouched flakes 41

truncations retouched blades

Chapter IV

3 2

1

6

5 5

7

8

9

10

Fig. 5. Azmak – Early Neolithic layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-10. Building horizon II – 1-10. 42

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria acteristic for the Early Neolithic painted pottery assemblages, was replaced by local raw materials of low quality after ca 5500 BC. Chipped Stone Assemblages from tell Azmak – the Chalcolithic Layer The results from the detailed study on the flaked artifacts from mound Azmak – the Chalcolithic layer by building levels are included in part I of the work written by I. Gatsov, P. Nedelcheva and P. Kalcev (Gatsov/Nedelcheva/ Kalcev, unpublished). A brief summary will be presented here. About the Chalcolithic chipped stone collection from Azmak very interesting observations concerning the technological aspects and social and symbolic meaning are presented it the work of L. Manolakakis (Manolakakis 1996, 2005). The stone material from building levels I-IV – is related to the Early Chalcolithic – Karanovo V period (around KV - ca 4900/4850BC – 4550/4500BC) and the stone material from building levels V-VIII – to the Late Chalcolithic – Karanovo VI period (KVI – 4500/4450BC–4100/4000 BC) (Boyadžiev 1995, 167-172).

Periods Karanovo VI

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

Toll spall Burin Point Notched tool Various Fragment of retouched tool Splintered piece Blade with denticulated retouch End-scraper + truncation End-scraper + perforator Truncation Blade with denticulated retouch Retouched blade Perforator and drill Double end-scraper Flake end-scraper End-scraper on shorten blade Blade end-scraper

Azmal-Chalcolithic layer. Distribution of technological groups by building levels – Karanovo V and Karanovo VI

Total

Percent

0,0%

Humus Periphery (without stratigraphy)

Karanovo V

0

0

5

0

0

4

1 1 1 1 29 20 23 3 0 1 0 0 25 17 40 7 55 39 64 11

1 6 0 11 18

26 422 5 498 960

Early Chalcolithic Late Chalcolithic period - Karanovo V period - Karanovo VI

These results from these observations were confirmed by the results from the study on the stone artifacts from Capitan Dimitrievo. The site is very important due to its Neolithic to the Chalcolithic sequence. We were given the chance to make observations on significant changes related to both prehistoric periods and especially the Neolithic (Gatsov 1999, 115-121). In this connection the macroblade technology that was typical for the Early Neolithic industry does not exist anymore. The high quality yellow flint, which was very char-

Levels VIII VII VI V Cores 0 5 0 0 Crested 0 1 1 2 blades Debris 0 2 2 5 Blades 2 79 24 80 Flakes 0 0 0 4 Tools 0 98 35 120 Total 2 185 62 211

Photo 5. Azmak – Chalcolithic layer – blades. 43

IV 0

III 0

II 0

I 0

0

0

0

0

12 156 0 145 313

Chapter IV

Fig. 6. Azmak – Early Neolithic Layer. Blade tools with high retouch – 1-5, 7-11; Blade with marginal retouch – 6. Building horizon III – 1-11. 44

Chipped stone assemblages from the territories of present-day Bulgaria ― The structures of Azmak – Chalcolithic Layer chipped stone collections corresponds to the basic features of the known so far from the Eastern Balkans lithic assemblages from the this period: ― lack of cores ( 50% cortex 30 27 21 Totally cortical blades 2 8 3 Blades with traces of cortex 59 39 41 Total 316 186 184

Distribution of crested specimens by phases Crested flakes Crested blades Total

Maximum 75 51 52

Mean 31,80 25,74 31,19

Minimum 12 14 12

Maximum 54 54 66

Mean 27,25 25,34 25,92

Std. Deviation 9,73 8,14 7,39

Std. Deviation 8,20 8,09 8,14

Distribution of cortical flake mean values of thickness by phases T Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Minimum 3,00 3,00 3,00

Maximum 34,00 30,00 28,00

Mean 9,63 8,70 8,67

Total 71 13 84

Total 289 4 94 404

% 31,1 ,4 10,5

131 922

11,0 100,0

44,0

In the assemblages under study this category is presented mainly by undetermined fragments and pieces, whose frequency reaches category ca. 55%. One of the possible explanations is that a low quality of the raw material was used and the population presented a low level of technological skills. In assemblages from phase 4-2 a relatively low quantity of flakes without cortex has been registered. Distribution of flake butt’ for all phases Frequency % Natural 194 42,6 Flat 180 39,6 Dihedral 8 1,8 Linear 73 16,0 Total 455 100,0

Distribution of cortical flake mean values of width by phases W Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Phase 4 20 2 22

Distribution of debris types’ by phases Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Flake fragment 107 109 73 Chips from retouching 3 1 0 Small flakes 19 36 39 Undetermined 173 143 88 fragment Undetermined pieces 83 40 8 Total 385 329 208

Distribution of cortical flake means value of length by phases Minimum 16 15 17

Phase 3 22 4 26

The appearance of few specimens of tablets, which revealed platform rejuvenation episode and supposed attempts for continuation of core knapping should be noted. Debris. The category of debris includes flake fragments, small flakes (less than 15 mm), chips from retouching, undetermined fragments and pieces as well.

Total 23 433 78 13 139 686

The frequency of total cortical flakes and specimens with cortex more than 50% on their dorsal patterns is ca. 75% in respect to the entire quantity of artifacts in this category. It is interesting to point out the high frequency of blade with traces of cortex, which reaches 20%, while only few totally cortical blades have been recorded in all assemblages.

L Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Phase 2 29 7 36

Std. Deviation 4,75 4,27 3,66

Distribution of mean value and std. deviation of flake length by phases L Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Any significant changes in the length, width and thickness mean value’ of cortical flakes in the phases under study have not been noted. For most the length mean value is around 32 mm; the width mean value is around 26mm, while the mean value of thickness is ca 9mm. Crested specimens. Within the framework of the crested specimens a relatively small quantity of crested blades and crested flakes have been distinguished.

Minimum 16,00 15,00 16,00

Maximum 70,00 56,00 49,00

Mean 30,13 28,87 27,94

Std. Deviation 8,51 8,25 7,19

Distribution of mean value of flake width by phases W Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Phase 2 9,00 48,00 22,67 7,00 Phase 3 10,00 38,00 22,45 6,47 Phase 4 10,00 38,00 22,10 6,30 75

Chapter V

Fig. 31. Hoca Çeşme. Chipped disk – 1. Phase 2. 76

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region Distribution of mean value of flake thickness by phases: Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Minimum 3,00 3,00 3,00

Maximum 30,00 30,00 28,00

Mean 9,64 8,74 8,68

Dihedral Flat Linear Broken Undetermined Total

Std. Deviation 4,68 4,26 3,67

Among the butts specimens with natural and flat butt totally the prevailing of natural butts is connected with the kind of core preparation - in most of cases the core platforms have been used without any additionally activities. On the other hand probably this was the reason that direct percussion and hard hammer stone was applied. Any abrupt changes in the flake length, width and thickness mean value haven’t been recorded. In all phases under study the mean flake values of length, width and thickness are respectively – ca. 29 mm, ca. 22 mm and ca. 9 mm. The flakes are featured by specimens with multidirectional scars on their dorsal pattern and irregular shape; most of them come from the stage of core preparation and they cannot be consider as a real blank; in most of the cases a direct percussion and hard hammer stone were applied for their detaching (Fig. 33.1, 6, 10; Fig. 34.7, 10, 17; Fig. 35.2, 3, 14). Blades. Among the chipped stone assemblages from phases 2, 3 and 4 a small quantity of blades done on local raw material varieties have been noticed (Fig. 35.8). Distribution of blade dorsal pattern by phases Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Total Unidirectional 48 55 53 156 Opposite direction 12 6 0 18 Total 60 61 56 177

Blade means value of length, width, thickness of all blades from local raw material varieties Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation l 16 63 42,69 11,263 w 5 30 16,06 4,479 t 2 16 5,33 2,667 The chipped stone assemblages from the phases under study are characterized by a small number of blades and blade fragments with an irregular shape. The frequency of blades with a triangular section is very high – ca. 40%, a percentage that is not characteristic for the Early Neolithic assemblages from the region and the period under study. The lower mean value of width- ca.43 mm and relatively high values of width and thickness should be pointed out. This fact should be explained with the low quality of the local raw material varieties, the level of technological skills and the functional demands (Gatsov 2008a, in print). Several obsidian blade fragments were found (Photo 3) three of them are proximal specimens with linear butts and were detached by pressure. No flint unretouched blades were recorded in the assemblages under study. Bearing in mind the occurrence of flake cores in state of exhaustion, the high frequency of cortical specimens and debris as well as the presence of crested specimens, it can be suggested that the core preparation and reduction was carried out either within the framework of the excavated area or at a place close to it. Phase 2 yielded 3 chipped discs with an unclear function (Fig. 30.1, 2; Fig. 31.1). A number of chipped discs were found among the materials from Menteşe (Gatsov/ Nedelcheva 2007), from Keçiçayırı, Central NW Anatolia (Efe et al. 2008, unpublished).

Crosstab. Blade’s shape/section Irregular Convergent sides Divergent sides Parallel sides Total

Triangular Trapezoidal Multifaceted 35 66 5 18 5 5 4 4 1 14 13 7 71 88 18

Total 106 28 9 34 177

Blade’s fragments Complete Distal Mesial Proximal Total

Phase 2 20 6 14 20 60

Phase 3 14 5 13 29 61

Phase 4 11 7 12 26 56

Total 45 18 39 75 177

Retouched tools from Hoca Çeşme. A small number of retouched tools are related to this category and their distribution by types and phases is presented below. Distribution of retouched tools by phases 4 - 2

Distribution of butt types Natural Flat

1 1 37 57 8 177

Tool types Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Blade with high retouch 7 0 0 Blade with marginal retouch 1 1 0 Blade with denticulated retouch 0 0 1

Total 23 50 77

Total 7 2 1

Chapter V

Fig. 32. Hoca Çeşme. Blade tools with high retouch – 1, 3-8. Phase 2. Without stratigraphical position – 2. 78

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Perforator Truncation Fragment of retouched tool End-scraper on flake Total

0 1 1 0 10

1 0 0 1 3

1 0 0 1 3

50,0%

2 1 1 2 16

40,0% 30,0%

The small number of retouched tools is represented by a few flint blade specimens with a high semi-steep retouch. (Fig. 32.1-9). Few pieces made of local raw material varieties such as a blade with marginal and denticulated retouches, perforators, a truncation, end-scrapers and a fragment of a retouched tool were found (Fig. 33.8, 9; Fig. 35.5, 7).

20,0% 10,0%

Retouched tools

Blade

Flake

Debris

Crested specimens

Cortical specimens

Category

Discussion The flake industry of Hoca Çeşme presents some typical features which are completely different in comparison to all chipped stone assemblages dated to the late 7th and the early 6th millennium BC in the South Marmara region, Eastern and Northern Thrace as far as raw materials, technology and typology are concerned. The very small number of retouched tools includes few flint pieces in the shape of retouched blades, which can be regarded as imports. Another question is related to the significance of the blades made of local material both within the stone assemblages and the economic profile of the site; ca. 1/3 of these blades have traces of cortex. The indirect percussion was the mode of detachment for greater part of the specimens; only a few pieces display marks, which can be related to pressure and few specimens were detached by direct percussion. Just a very small part of the blades have traces of use. The occurrence of this type of debitage is probably due rather to some kind of everyday activities, determined by immediate demands than to a carefully planned, organized and specialized production. Probably the Hoca Çeşme population did not need blades in the same degree and way that are typical for other Early Neolithic sites situated on the territory under study. The above presented flake industry yielded by phases 2, 3 and 4 reveals a low level of technological skill and knowledge. It is very likely that the basic part of the economic activities of Hoca Çeşme population was not linked with the blade acquisition and use in comparison with the earliest Neolithic pottery assemblages in Northern Thrace and those from the area of South Marmara (Fig. 33.2-5, 7, 11-13; Fig. 34.1-6, 8, 9, 11-16; Fig. 35.1, 4, 9-13, 15-21).

Cores

Percent

0,0%

General structure and quantitative distribution of technological categories from all periods under study.

intermediate periods: 2/3, 3/4 and 4/5 (Gatsov 2008b, unpublished). The distribution of technological categories reveals a similar frequency in all periods under study. The frequency of retouched tools reaches ca. 20% in all assemblages processed, which is a characteristic feature for the base settlements. It should be supposed that most of the functions connected with tool usage took place en situ. This suggestion is confirmed by the appearance of cortical and crested specimens as well as debris. The frequency of these categories display more than ahalf of the total number of the stone chipped artifacts. In other words, core reduction and blank acquires were carried out en situ in the framework of the settlement, during all periods. As far as the core knapping process is concerned in all assemblages mostly nodules and plate concretions, relatively small in size, were used for receiving of blades, bladelets and small flakes (Fig. 37.3, 14; Fig. 38.2; Fig. 39.1-5, 8; Fig. 40.1, 4, 8, 12; Fig. 42.1-3, 5; Fig. 43.1, 15; Fig. 44.2, 4; Fig. 46.21). Cores. The appearance of a number of core specimens should be noted, which could be related to the so-called “plate” cores, and the fact that the most of them were made of raw material variety 17. The core preparation included shaping the platform and in most of the cases the narrow side was used as flaking surface. As a whole this type of core didn’t go through very diligent preparation. As a rule the core back and the sides were left natural, bearing traces of cortex or natural surfaces. This way the core reduction targeting blade blank acquiring was carried

Chipped stone assemblages from Aşaği Pinar – Periods 2–5 The results from the analysis of 6636 artifacts are presented below. They came from periods 5-2 as well as from 79

Chapter V

Fig. 33. Hoca Çeşme. Retouched blade – 9; Truncation – 8; Flakes – 1, 6, 10; Blade with trace of usage – 2; Blade – 3-5, 7, 11-13. Phase 2. 80

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region 100,0%

were used for the above mentioned tool manufacturing. As a rule most of the flake cores were made of raw material varieties 1 and 2 (Fig. 41.19). Cortical specimen. The quantity of total cortical specimens and pieces whose dorsal pattern is more than 50% covered by cortex put together is almost 2/3 of all artifacts in the framework of this category. Crested specimen. The crested specimens are presented in almost equal quantity of one and two side specimens. On the other hand we should point out the appearance of a plunging specimen, whose quantity is more than 1/4; the quantity of tablets reaches more than 10%. Debris. Within the framework of this category the quantity of flake fragments is ca. 50% in respect of all debris specimens’, followed in number by undetermined fragments, small flakes and chips. In this connection it should be suggested that most of the works connected with blank acquiring, tool manufacturing and use were done en situ. Flakes. The specimens with preserved butts are prepared by a single blow or flat butts – ca. 2/3, followed in number by unprepared or natural and linear ones. The appearance of a high frequency of flakes with unidirectional scars should be connected with end-scraper manufacturing and especially with micro ones.

Period 2 2/3 3 3/4 4 4/5 5

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0% Percent

Retouched tools

Blades

Flakes

Debris

Crested specimens

Cortical specimens

Cores

Category

Aşaği Pinar industry is featured by stone production orientated to obtaining flakes mostly from raw material varieties 1, 2 and 17 of relatively small size. Their mean values of length, width and thickness made on raw material variety 1, 2 and 17 are practically similar: – length ca. 27 mm, width 19 mm and thickness ca. 6 mm Blades. In all assemblages from Aşaği Pinar a big series of blades from raw material variety 17 and from raw material varieties 1 and 2 as well have been recorded (Fig. 38.7). Among the complete artifacts and proximal fragments the specimens with parallels edges and trapezoidal and multifaceted cross-section reaches ca. 2/3 of the entire number of artifacts. All these pieces were related to an advanced stage of core exploitation. These blades were used with or without secondary modification. The specimens with preserved butt are prepared by a single blow or flat butts, followed in number by natural ones, linear (punctiform), dihedral and faceted as well. The appearance of flat butts is connected with exploitation of cores prepared by single blow platforms. As a rule most of these cores are made on raw material varieties 1 and 2. On the other hand most of the plate core specimens are made on raw material variety 17 and display natural platforms. As far as blade mean values of width and thickness is concerned, no differences in their mean values are to be observed. Blades made on raw material varieties 1, 2 and 17 display almost similar mean values. The Aşaği Pinar

Distribution of technological categories by periods.

out from one or rarely two flaking surfaces. Blade and bladelet acquiring was completed mainly by using punch and direct percussion. As a consequence, part of the short thick bladelets should be considered as a final product. Namely this type of blank was used for the production of micro perforators. Here it should be underlined that on the technological level no changes in the core reduction techniques were observed during the periods under study. Except for the above presented “plate” specimens, additionally a number of flake multidirectional cores with irregular shape and relatively small sizes were recorded. The former were featured by a very high level of core reduction and most of these specimens were in a final stage of exploitation. This type of multidirectional cores was used mostly for flake acquisition. Once these relatively small flakes were received part of them were intended for flake end-scrapers and for micro end-scrapers manufacturing. This way two main technological aims should be realized in respect of tool manufacturing in the chipped stone assemblages at Aşaği Pinar – periods 5-2. The first one was linked with blade and bladelet acquizition for micro perforators and drills mainly. For this porpoise mostly raw material variety 17 was used. The second one was characterized by small flakes, part of which 81

Chapter V

Fig. 34. Hoca Çeşme. Blades – 1-6, 8, 9, 11-16; Flakes – 7, 10, 17. Phase 3. 82

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region 2 10 1 1 37 6 0 6 1 1 16 6 7 1 8 14 3 1 5 0 0 0 5 40 1 1 4 2 177

End-scraper on flake End-scraper on blade Semi-circular end-scraper Micro end-scraper Fragment of end-scraper Double end-scraper Perforator on blade Double perforator Bec Micro perforator Drill Retouched blade Blade with high retouch Retouched flake Segment Notched tool on blade Notched tool on flake Truncation Double truncation Combined tool (micro perforator + micro end-scraper) Combine tool Splintered piece Fragment of retouched tool Various Double micro end-scraper Micro drill Perforator on flakes Total

2/3 7 5 1 36 7 0 6 2 0 23 5 20 0 6 10 1 1 7 0 0 1 3 31 6 1 1 0 180

3 15 8 0 62 22 1 24 2 1 59 13 34 2 16 18 3 2 13 0 1 1 8 56 11 1 14 2 389

¾ 8 3 0 28 11 0 8 0 0 24 2 16 2 6 4 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 30 6 0 5 1 163

4 10 10 1 27 3 2 4 1 1 21 8 22 5 8 5 4 0 13 1 0 0 1 20 5 0 3 1 176

4/5 4 8 2 17 4 0 2 1 0 9 3 9 3 5 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 4 1 103

5 10 6 2 23 4 0 4 0 0 7 0 22 0 5 5 2 1 4 0 0 0 3 19 4 0 1 0 122

Total 64 41 7 230 57 3 54 7 3 159 37 130 13 54 60 14 5 53 1 1 2 23 217 33 3 32 7 1310

Distribution of the retouched tools by periods.

stone production was orientated to obtaining a narrow blank, which varies in length between 30 mm and 36 mm. The frequency of the technological categories and the main technological and typological characteristics, dimensions and raw material varieties used are practically the same in all periods under study of the Aşaği Pinar industry.

noted. On the other hand, the most typical feature of the chipped stone assemblages of Aşaği Pinar is the appearance of micro tools (Fig. 37.1, 5-13, 15, 19, 20; Fig. 38.1, 4-6, 8-13; Fig. 39.6, 7; Fig. 40.2, 3, 5-7, 9-11,13-18; Fig. 41.1,13-16, 20, 23-26, 32; Fig. 42.4, 7-17, 20; Fig. 43.2, 3, 5-14, 16-19; Fig. 44.1, 3, 5-8; Fig. 45.1-3, 5, 8, 11-14, 32, 34, 37, 45, 46; Fig. 46.1, 3-8,10, 11, 18-20, 22, 28-31, 37, 41; Fig. 47.1-11, 13-15, 17-22). At this stage of research this is the largest collection of microlithic tools found in Thrace. All chipped stone assemblages under study yielded a large number of microliths. The former include mostly non-geometrical specimens – micro end-scrapers (up to 25 mm long) and micro perforators (up to 25 mm long). In all the material under study the geometrical micro tools in shape of segments are less in number, while the trapezes are absent (Fig. 37.2, 4, 16-18, 21; Fig. 38.3, 14,; Fig. 41.212, 17-19, 21, 22, 27-31, 33-39; Fig. 42.6, 17-19, 21-23;

Retouched Tools In all periods under study the retouched tools frequency is around 1/5 in respect to the total quantity of artifacts The category of retouched implements is subdivided into several major typological groups such as end-scrapers, perforators, retouched blades, notched tools, truncations and composite tools. Besides this some of the retouched implements are represented by a single specimen. The appearance of a number of micro specimens such as micro perforators, micro end-scrapers and segments should be 83

Chapter V

Fig. 35. Hoca Çeşme. Blade with denticulated retouch – 7; Perforators – 5; Crested specimens – 6; Blades – 1, 4, 8-13, 15-21; Flakes – 2, 3, 14. Phase 4. 84

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

50,0%

16,5%

0,58%

Flint Obsidian

40,0%

13,4%

30,0%

20,0%

30,29%

10,0%

39,22%

Category Cores

Fragment and chippes

Flakes

Blades

Tools

End-scraper on flake End- scraper on blade High end-scraper Double end-scraper Perforator on blade Blade with marginal retouch Blade with alternated retouch Blade with micro retouch Retouched flake Notched tool on blade Notched tool on flake Truncation Splintered piece Combined tool Fragment of retouched tool

Percent

0,0%

Pendik. Trench 1. Fig.43.4; Fig. 45.4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15-31, 33, 35, 36, 38-44; Fig. 46.2, 9, 12-17, 23-27, 32-36, 38-40; Fig. 47.12, 16).

Fikirtepe. Two production chains are recorded as far as the chipped stone material is concerned. The first one was related to the exploitation of flake cores and flake production. The flakes were used for flake tool manufacturing and for flat cortical end-scrapers especially (Fig. 51.10, 12-15). The second production chain was related to the blade acquirement (Fig. 51.6-9, 11). Blade cores, prismatic cores, bullet cores inclusively were used for this purpose. Blade tools are represented by perforators and retouched blades mainly (Fig. 51.1-5). These are usually implements with steep or semi-steep retouch on the edges – partial or continuous one. The blade truncations and trapezes occur more rarely (Özdoğan 1983, 401-411; Özdoğan 1999, 203-224). At this juncture it is worth noing the opinion of L. Thissen: “In Northwest Anatolia, the evidence from the site of Menteşe has finally settled the question of the exact date of Fikirtepe sites along the Eastern Marmara … The most probable date for “Fikirtepe” and sites such as Menteşe may be fixed at about 6400/6300 BC” (Thissen 2005, 35). This is confirmed also by the conclusion of. M.-H. Wijnen: “ ... it can be said that the pottery from Menteşe fits perfectly into the Fikirtepe sequence (Gatsov 2006a, 153-158).

The South Marmara region Pendik. Trenches 1 and 2 provide a certain number of cores, crested specimens, blades as well as retouched tools (Fig. 48.8, 14; Fig. 49.11-16; 18-22; Fig. 50.6, 7). The typological structure of both assemblages – from trench 1 and trench 2 at Pendik reveals a predominance of retouched blades and flake end-scrapers over the rest of the tool types (Gatsov 2003b, 283-292). All activities related to the flint and obsidian blade core reduction were done en situ, within the framework of the settlement. The group of retouched tools in both assemblages consists of end-scrapers, perforators, retouched blades, retouched flakes, notched tools and combined tools (end-scraper and perforator) (Gatsov 2003a) (Fig. 48.1-7; 9-13, 15-18; Fig. 49.1-10, 17; Fig. 50.1-5, 8-10). The distribution of flint and obsidian by categories and by trenches is presented. As a whole, the Pendik chipped stone industry displays similar technological and typological features in respect to the other assemblages from the area of South Marmara – Fikirtepe, Ilıpınar, Menteşe. 85

Chapter V

1

2

4

3

5

Fig. 36. Hoca Çeşme. Cores with changed orientation – 1-5; Phase 2 – 2; Phase 3 – 4, 5; Phase 4 – 1, 3. 86

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region Phase Total

80,0% Flint Obsidian

% 100.0

More than 1/2 of the total number of the artifacts comes from the assemblages from phases X and IX, together they make up more than 50% of the entire collection, while in the younger phases their quantity rapidly decreases.

60,0%

40,0%

Flint chipped stone artefacts The core specimens are represented mainly by blade and bladelet specimens to which prismatic and bullet cores are related. (Fig. 52.1-7; Fig. 54.8). The prismatic, semiprismatic and bullet cores were used extremely for blade and bladelets acquisition made by punch and pressure; even in the final stage of the core processing they were reduced to their technical limits and were not transformed into other core types. They are presented by prismatic and semi-prismatic specimens with rounded or semi-rounded striking surfaces as well as bullet cores. The bullet cores can be considered a technological moment related to the very end of the core reduction, a fact that explains their specific “pencil shape”. The presence of bullet cores in the different phases is related to pressure application and an extension of the core reduction as long as it was technically possible. The flake and blade cores were not derived from a single primary concretion. The different types of primary cores are directly related to the peculiarities of the reduction process and this results in the acquisition of different types of blank. In this manner the different strategies included different types of primary concretions, different core types, different mode of detachment and different blanks. The first one was related to the flake core exploitation and flake acquisition. This production chain was based on the flake core exploitation, hard hammer stone and direct percussion techniques. Probably this kind of strategy was related to ad hoc flake acquisition and reveals the lack of particular specialized skills as well as the lack of a high level of labor organization. The flakes are presented by irregular specimens with multidirectional scars on their dorsal patterns; the flat butts prevail in number followed by the linear and natural ones. The second strategy was related to the blade core reduction as well as blade and bladelet blank development and required the existence of more or less well structured and pre-planed production. In most cases the blades have a regular shape, a trapezoidal cross-section, unidirectional dorsal pattern and parallel scars and were related to an advanced stage of the core reduction. The frequency of specimens with lateral cortex is very low; proximal fragments and entire specimens present flat butts and are followed by the linear (punctiform) and natural butts; for their detachment indirect percussion was applied mostly.

20,0%

Fragment of retouched tool

Notched tool on blade

Retouched flake

Blade with micro retouch

Blade with alternated retouch

Blade with marginal retouch

Perforator on blade

Double end-scraper

End- scraper on blade

End-scraper on flake

0,0% Percent

Fr. 3803

Pendik. Trench 2.

According to M. Özdoğan, the chipped stone industries of Fikirtepe and Pendik “…are very significant in general terms and they appear to be a direct offspring of the Epipalaeolithic industries of the region… (Özdoğan 1983, 401-411). Ilıpınar. Phases X–VB As was already mentioned above, the results from the study on the Ilıpınar stone industry are published in a separate volume (Gatsov/Gurova 2008); brief notes concerning the chipped stone technology and typology are presented below. All artifacts of the chipped stone assemblages from Ilıpınar were sorted according to the separate units and technological categories. Artefact distribution by phases: Phase VB VA VI VII VIII IX X

Fr. 358 659 263 556 9 896 1062

% 9.4 17.3 6.9 14.6 .2 23.6 27.9 87

Chapter V

Fig. 37. Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 3, 14; End-scrapers – 1, 7-9, 11, 15; Alternated perforator – 13; Truncations – 10, 19; Micro end-scrapers – 2, 16, 21; Retouched flakes – 5, 6, 12; Micro perforator – 4; Segments – 17,18; Various – 20. Period 2. 88

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region The estimation of the mean values of width and thickness does not show a very high degree of standardization of the blade production. Retouched tools. All typological flint tools that are presented unevenly in the various chipped stone assemblages are included in this category.

60% 50% 40% 30%

Distribution of retouched tools by phases VA 7 5 11 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 34

VB 20 6 25 1 6 0 2 0 1 2 4 0 67

VI 1 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 19

VII 35 3 7 0 4 1 0 0 1 6 8 3 69

IX 138 13 8 0 3 3 3 0 0 8 4 6 186

20%

X Total 121 322 14 41 31 89 0 3 5 25 4 9 0 7 1 1 0 2 13 35 8 25 9 22 206 581

10% 0% Percent

Tool type/phases End-scraper Perforator Retouched blade Denticulated blade Retouched flake Notched tool Truncation Combined tool Lame appointee Splintered piece Fragment Various Totals

2

1

obsidian 3

flint

level

Distribution of flint and obsidian artifacts by levels. categories. The occurrence of these pieces suggests that the core preparation was carried out en situ. Few types of retouched obsidian tools such as blade perforators, retouched blades, retouched flakes, notches and truncations came from phases X, VII, VA and VB. Menteşe. This collection includes a small quantity of flint and obsidian blades and bladelet cores, lots of blades, a lower number of flakes and quite a few fragments and chips. The stone material belongs to three different levels of occupation: 1 – the latest level, 2 – the middle level and 3 – the earliest one, to which 704 artifacts were related (Fig. 57.1-8; Fig. 58.1-7; Fig. 59.1-8; Fig. 60.1-19; Fig. 61.1-9; Fig. 62.1-6).

All assemblages under study are characterized by a typological monotony – the prevalence of the flake tools and end-scrapers especially is apparent. The flake tools followed in number by the retouched blades, perforators, splintered pieces and retouched flakes; as a rule the perforators and drills have well-shaped, almost symmetrical points (Fig. 53.1-14; Fig. 54.1-7, 9, 10; Fig. 55.1-15; Fig. 56.1-14). The rest of the types were recorded as single specimens. The flake tools and especially the flat flake end-scrapers with rounded, semi-circular and circular fronts as well as the blade perforators, shaped by steep and semi-steep retouch are very typical for the Ilıpınar stone industry. It is worth noting the presence of a chisel-like tool (phase X) as well as a lame apointée (phase VII). The analysis of the retouched implements from the Ilıpınar chipped stone assemblages clearly shows a high frequency of the end-scrapers and their primary position in the Ilıpınar chipped stone industry; they constitute 1/2 of all retouched implements in all phases. No changes were recorded as far as the Ilıpınar stone technology is concerned and the main technological and typological characteristics of the stone artifacts in all phases remain more or less the same.

Obsidian artifacts The obsidian cores are represented by single platform items, including bullet ones for blades and bladelets, in the final stage of exploitation mainly with flat or semirounded striking surfaces. Almost half of the artifacts are represented by blades, followed in number by debris; the rest of the categories are represented by single specimens. The unidirectional blades with parallel edges and triangular cross-section mainly were a result of an advanced stage of core reduction. These blades are characterized by linear (punctiform) butts; the manner of detachment was related to the punch applying and to a lower degree – to a soft percussion and also blades detached by pressure has to be pointed out. The flint cores, like the obsidian ones, are represented by single platform items for blades and bladelets. The blades are characterized by an irregular shape and trapezoid and multifaceted cross-section and were detached by pressure, punch and soft percussion. There is a total prevalence of the blades with very low

Obsidian artefacts There is one obsidian blade core fragment yielded by phase X; a small number of crested specimens, flakes and debris were studied within the framework of the other 89

Chapter V

Fig. 38. Aşaği Pinar. Pre core – 2; End-scrapers – 1, 5, 9; Retouched blade – 4; Blade with high retouch – 8; Splintered piece – 6; Perforator – 10; Micro-end-scrapers – 3, 11-13; Micro perforator – 14; Blade – 7. Period 2/3. 90

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30% 20% 20% 10%

10%

0% Percent

cortical specimens

cores

crested specimens

flakes

retouched tools

level

debris

3

2

1

blades

retouched tools

cores

cortical specimens

crested specimens

flakes

debris

blades

Percent

0%

2

1

3

level

Distribution of obsidian artifacts by levels and categories.

Distribution of flint artifacts by levels and categories.

values of thickness. The retouched tools are represented mainly by blade specimens; the denticulated tools prevail followed by blades with micro and marginal retouch, perforators, drills and end-scrapers.

The above presented technological and typological features of the chipped stone assemblages from Menteşe allows to relate them to Ilıpınar, Pendik and the Fikirtepe techno complex.

91

Chapter V

Fig. 39. Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 1-5, 8; Splintered pieces – 6, 7. Period 3.

92

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 40. Aşaği Pinar. “Plate” core – 1; Cores – 4, 8, 12; End-scrapers – 2, 3, 10, 13, 17; Perforators – 5-7, 14; Truncations – 9, 15, 16; Retouched blade – 18; Retouched flake – 11. Period 3. 93

Chapter V

Fig. 41. Aşaği Pinar. Micro end-scrapers – 2, 3, 5-7, 21, 27, 28; Micro-perforators and drills – 4, 8, 10, 11, 17, 22, 29-31, 33-39; Perforators and drills – 16, 23, 32; Fragment of retouched tools – 1, 12, 14, 15, 18, 24-26; Divers – 13; Notched tool – 9, 20; Flake – 19; Period 3. 94

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 42. Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 1, 2, 5; Core fragment – 3; End-scrapers – 4, 9, 13; Truncations – 7, 12, 15; Perforator – 10, 16, 17; Notched tools – 14, 15; Retouched flake – 8, 11; Micro-end-scrapers – 6, 23; Micro-perforator – 18-22. Period 3/4. 95

Chapter V

Fig. 43. Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 1, 15; End-scrapers – 7, 12; Fragment of end-scrapers – 2; Truncations – 6, 11, 18, 19; Splintered piece – 3; Perforator – 5; Blade with high retouch – 9; Retouched blades – 10, 14, 16, 17; Micro perforator – 4; Retouched flake – 8; Fragment of retouched blade – 6, 13. Period 3/4 – 2-4; Period 4/5 – 1, 5-19. 96

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 44. Aşaği Pinar. Cores – 2, 4; End-scraper – 3; Blade with high retouch – 1; Retouched blade – 7; Notched tools – 5, 6; Retouched flake – 8; Period 4. 97

Chapter V

Fig. 45. Aşaği Pinar. Truncation – 2, 3, 5, 11, 46; Perforator – 32; Alternated perforator – 34; Combined tools – 13, 14; Retouched flake – 8; Retouched blade – 1, 12, 37, 45; Micro end-scrapers – 4, 6, 9, 15, 17-19, 22-24, 30, 42; Micro perforators – 7, 16, 20, 21, 25-29, 31, 35, 36, 38-40, 43, 44; Segments – 10, 33, 41. Period 4. 98

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 46. Aşaği Pinar. Core – 21; End-scrapers – 18, 37; Perforators – 1, 3, 20; Blade with high retouch – 6; Truncations – 19, 31; Micro-end-scrapers – 2, 12-16, 23-27, 33, 35, 38-40; Micro-perforator – 34; Micro-alternated perforator – 9; Segments – 17, 32, 36; Retouched blades – 5, 30; Notched tools – 7, 10, 11, 22, 29, 41; Fragment of retouched tools – 4, 8, 28. Period 5. 99

Chapter V

Fig. 47. Aşaği Pinar. End-scrapers – 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 13, 14; Perforator – 19; Truncations – 20, 21; Retouched blades – 3,15; Notched tools – 4, 8; Retouched flakes – 11; Fragment of retouched tools – 17, 18, 22; Micro end-scrapers – 12, 16. Period 5. 100

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 48. Pendik. Perforators – 4,5; End-scrapers – 6,7; Retouched blades – 10, 11, 13, 16; Fragment of retouched tools – 9,17,18; Notched tools – 12,15; Combined tools – end-scraper + perforator – 1-3;Crested blade – 8; Blade – 14. Trenches 1 and 2. 101

Chapter V

Fig. 49. Pendik. End-scrapers – 1-4, 6-8, 10; Micro end-scraper – 5; Retouched blade – 17; Retouched flake – 9; Blades – 11-16, 18-22. Trenches 1 and 2. 102

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 50. Pendik. End-scrapers – 1, 2, 5; Notched tool – 4, 9,10; Obsidian blades – 6, 7; Blade with marginal retouch – 8; Fragment of retouched tool – 3. 103

Chapter V

Fig. 51. Ilıpınar. End-scrapers – 1-5, 14; Perforators – 6-12; Retouched blade – 13; Phase X. After M. Özdoğan.

104

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 52. Ilıpınar. Cores – 1-7. Phase X. 105

Chapter V

Fig. 53. Ilıpınar. End-scrapers – 1-5, 14; Perforators – 6-12; Retouched blade – 13; Phase X. (dot line by M. Gurova). 106

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 54. Ilıpınar. End-scrapers – 1-7, 9, 10; Core – 8. Phase IX. (dot line by M. Gurova). 107

Chapter V

Fig. 55. Ilıpınar. End – scrapers – 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14; Perforator – 3, 6; Retouched flakes – 4, 13; Retouched blades – 9-11, Splintered piece – 15. Phase VII – 1-14, Phase VI – 15. (dot line by M. Gurova).

108

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 56. Ilıpınar. Retouched blades – 1, 4, 13, 14; Blade with utilization retouch – 11; Denticulated tool – 8; Fragment of macro end-scraper – 7; Perforators – 6, 9, 10; Retouched flake – 3, 12; Truncation – 5; End-scraper – 2. Phases VB – 1-5; Phase VA – 6-14. 109

Chapter V

Fig. 57. Menteşe. Chipped disk – 1; End-scraper – 8; Crested specimens – 4, 7; Retouched blades – 3, 5; Notched tool – 6; Blade – 2. 110

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

2

1

3 4

5

6

Fig. 58. Menteşe. End-scraper – 1-6; divers – 7. 111

7

Chapter V

Fig. 59. Menteşe. Crested specimens – 1, 7; End-scraper on blade – 2; Retouched flake – 4; End–scraper on flake – 3, 8; perforator on blade – 5, 6. 112

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 60. Menteşe. Blade with denticulated retouch – 1, 4-6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19; Blade with micro retouch – 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 16; Blade with marginal retouch – 9; Blade – 11, 18; Fragment of retouched tool – 12. 113

Chapter V

Fig. 61. Menteşe. End-scraper on flake – 1, 2; Fragment of retouched tool – 3 (obsidian); Blade with marginal retouch – 4; Blade with micro retouch – 5; Blade with denticulated retouch – 7, 9; Perforator and drill – 8. 114

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 62. Menteşe. Chipped disk – 1; Blade with denticulated retouch – 2; Core – 3-5; Various – 6.

115

Chapter V

Fig. 63. Bullet cores – 2, 3, 5-7; Single platform core – 1, 4. Ağaçli – 1-4; Domalı – 5; Fikirtepe – 6, 7. 116

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 64. Bullet cores – 1, 3-8; Single platform core – 2. Ilıpınar – 3-6. Phase VI – 3; Phase X – 4; Phase VII – 5, 6; Menteşe – 1, 2; Pendik – 7-8. 117

Chapter V

Fig. 65. Bullet cores – 1-9. Mirnoe. 118

Chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region

Fig. 66. Bullet cores – 1-5. Mirnoe – 1- 4; Frontovoe – 5. 119

Chapter V

Fig. 67. Bullet cores – 1-11. Bereşti – 1-2; Frumushika – 3-6; Varvarovka – 7-9; Erbiceni – 10; Gura Kamenka – 11. 120

History and state of research, methods and objectives

VI. Conclusion

The main problem related to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) evidenced in the territory under study is linked with the lack of artifacts with a reliable stratigraphic context. On one hand it seems very likely that various groups were migrating in this area before the time that the first Pottery Neolithic comers settled here. On the other hand it is very difficult to define a clear line between both periods (Efe et al. 2008, unpublished). In this connection from the present day Bulgarian lands only the chipped stone materials from “Dikilitash” should be related to the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic period. The main technological and typological features of the Dikilitash collection differ from the Mesolithic chipped stone assemblages in the Northwestern Pontic area. These Mesolithic assemblages belong to the Grebeniki culture and are characterized by the exploitation of conical cores (including bullet ones) for blade and bladelets (Станко 1982). On the other hand the collection under discussion has not so far provided any evidence of a connection between those materials and the earliest Neolithic chipped stone inventories – Monochrome and painted pottery Neolithic ones as well. At this stage of research it should be noted that the earliest evidence of Neolithic occupation in the present day Bulgarian lands were connected with the Monochrome Neolithic period in NE Bulgaria and the earliest whitepainted pottery phase in Northern Thrace as well. My observations on the chipped stone material from Koprivetz, Northeastern Bulgaria (Popov 1996; Zlateva, unpublished MA thesis) and Hoca Çeşme as well gave me ground to assume an existence of some parallels in stone technology between both Monochrome sites. The reason for this suggestion is the aforementioned similarities in their technological features and the amorphous nature of their chipped stone assemblages as well. The technological characteristics, which have been already noticed in the chipped stone assemblages from Koprivets and Hoca Çeşme may suggest some parallels between the NE Bulgarian lands and the delta of the Maritsa river during the Monochrome stage. In my opinion the Koprivets stone material is totally different from the painted pottery Early Neolithic assemblages from Northern Thrace as well as Sofia and Pernik fields (Map 2). The main differences between both industries can be found in their main technological and typo-

logical features and raw material base. The core knapping process in Koprivets was orientated toward an exploitation of multidirectional cores made of local raw material varieties of flakes and irregular blades. As far as the chipped stone assemblages from the Neolithic period in Northern Thrace and Pernik and the Sofia field are concerned it should be noted that the technological and typological features of those Neolithic assemblages, which belong to these three groups: white-painted pottery – Karanovo I, dark polished pottery – Karanovo II and dark painted pottery do not show any differences in the stone technology in the chronological frames that covered the time span between ca. 6000 and 5500 BC. The main features of the stone technology during that period are exactly the same. In my opinion the presented high retouched blades made on high quality yellow/yellow/reddish flint can be used as a chronological and cultural marker related to the white-painted (Karanovo I) and dark polished (Karanovo II) ware in Northern Thrace and the dark painted ware in Pernik and Sofia fields. Those similarities can be found in the common type of the raw material used, the similar manner of blank acquiring (realized mostly by indirect percussion), the similar characteristics of the typological tools and assemblage structures. As a whole, the blade blank is characterized by similar morphometrical parameters and the blade specimens derived from the same stage of advance core reduction. These assemblages present similar frequency of the given technological groups, which have been examined in the process of analysis of the stone industry. Probably it was the Early Neolithic people of Karanovo and Azmak that maintained and controlled all the elements of the entire production chain – from raw material obtaining to all stages of core processing and to the artifacts’ use. In this case the area of highest concentration of specimens of the type Karanovo I-II and Tell Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer can be regarded a Center of this technology. Of course this suggestion results not only from the presence of a large amount of these blades in the area mentioned above. The “technological features” have to be scrutinized as part of the entire complex of typical features turning these settlements into key-sites of the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace. At the same time the area of Karanovo and Azmak can also be considered a “departure area” or an area from 121

Chapter VI Courtesy by Microsoft Bulgaria

Map 2. Monochrome and Early Neolithic painted pottery settlements in the present Bulgarian lands. Settlements with Monochrome layers: A – Koprivets, B – Pomošhtica, C – Orlovec, D – Pločhite, E – Poljanitsa Platoto, F – Ohoden, G – Vaksevo, H – Krainici. Settlements with Early Neolithic painted pottery layers: 1 – Kovačevo, 2 – Elešnica, 3 – Rakitovo, 4 – Capitan Dimitrievo, 5 – Azmak and Okružna bolnica, 6 – Karanovo, 7 – Sapareva Banja, 8 – Gălăbnik, 9 – Pernik, 10 – Slatina, 11 – Čavdar.

where the blades could be distributed to the other destinations. It was the modified blades made of a high quality flint that were distributed – even as far as the Maritsa/Meric River estuary – for example similar blades were found among the stone material of the Hoça Ceşme settlement - phase 2. These blades, found in other areas, came there via exchange/or some other kind of contact and this circumstance predetermines their scarcity. In the very beginning of the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace the well organized stone production was part of the substantial strategy of the prehistoric population. It results in the functioning of a highly sophisticated production chain and very well developed system of long distance exchange. The type acquisition, production and distribution required the maintenance of some kind of labor and social differentiation which was related to neither sex nor age. As far as the chipped stone industry is concerned during the period between ca. 6000 and 5500 BC on the territory of Northern Thrace, Sofia field, the same production chain operated – from the acquisition of flint raw material to the tool manufacturing as a final product and usage.

One and the same outcrops of raw material or concentration of high quality flint, with or without inclusions, were used in the Karanovo I and II phases. It is very likely that the same population was responsible for organizing and functioning of the entire production chain. This population was linked with Karanovo I and II settlements and with the Early Neolithic settlement at Azmak. During both phases Karanovo I and II the paleoenvironment, the kind of economic activities, the social organization of the society and the subsistence strategies were the same. In conclusion it should be pointed out that the chipped stone assemblages from phases I and II from Karanovo present exactly the same technological features, similar structures and similar type of raw material. The above listed characteristics are most typical for the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace, Sofia and Pernik fields. At the same time the stone industry from the earliest phases of white-painted and dark polished pottery in Northern Thrace displays clear differences in comparison with the already presented assemblages and those from Eastern Thrace and South Marmara region. The earliest Neolithic flaked assemblages from Northern Thrace reflected a very 122

Conclusion fore 5500 BC – i.e. before the Middle and Late Neolithic ones can be observed. These changes can be detected in the basic raw material and blank structure of the chipped stone assemblages from mound Karanovo – phases IIIII, III, III-IV and IV, Cap. Dimitrievo – Late Neolithic layers, etc. (Gatsov 2005b, 375-386). After ca. 5500 BC the macro blade technology based on exploitation of high quality flint disappeared. Additionally at the other settlements in Southwest Bulgaria the same tendency can also be detected. The significant changes in raw material usage, core type and core reduction blank acquiring and tool manufacturing can be seen in the chipped stone assemblages from the Late Neolithic layers of Bălgarčevo, Strumsko, Damianitsa, Topolnitsa in the Upper and Middle Struma valley. These abrupt changes regarding the system of supplying and stone technology contribute also to a better understanding and building explanatory models of cultural development between the Early Neolithic and the Middle and Late Neolithic cultural units. A serious technological declination as well as an abrupt change in the supply system with a lower quality of local raw material is recorded in all assemblages later than the mid 6th millennium BC. The Early Neolithic sophisticated system of supply and blade acquisitions based on well planed and organized activities was replaced or/and destroyed. In other words the significant differences in the raw material base, technology, typology, and labor organization between Early Neolithic painted pottery assemblages and the Middle and Late Neolithic ones in Northern Thrace and SW Bulgarian lands run parallel in respect to the main cultural units in that region – Early Neolithic on the one hand and Middle and Late Neolithic ones on the other. In conclusion, the existence of a few techno complexes in the area under study is sugested. In the area of South and SW Bulgaria within the framework of the Early, Middle and Late Neolithic periods, technological, typological and raw material features of the lithic assemblages under study demonstrate a certain stability and durability within the framework of each of the above mentioned periods. On the other hand, one other Early Neolithic techno complex in the South Marmara area should be distinguished on the base of the features above described. This techno complex includes the already presented assemblages from Ilpinar, Menteşe, Fikirtepe and Pendik settlements. As far as the Turkish Black Sea coast is concerned, the Ağaçli group is a phenomenon suggesting that the Turkish Black Sea coast was inhabited only during the Epi-Palaeolithic/Mesolithic periods (Gatsov/Özdoğan 1994) and can be regarded as an indicator of the presence of an Epi-Palaeolithic substratum in the area under study: “…represent

sophisticated system of raw material supply, blank acquiring, tool manufacturing and tool usage and exchange. The functioning of the whole production chain in the area during the period under study indicates certain locations with high quality flint raw material concentration. The existing of those places indicates a certain system of control on the flint sources and some kind of right of access as well. As a whole, this kind of production chain suggests that all of the above described activities were done off the settlements. These activities included core preparation, blank receiving and probably tool manufacturing. The next step was transportation of blade and ready-made tools to the settlements and their usage. This fact supposes strong labor organization, which was maintained by the population, or at least of part of it, who lived during the earliest phases of the Neolithic period in Northern Thrace. The subsistence activities of the Early Neolithic communities and the technological tradition were the factors that limited to a certain degree the typological diversity of the stone tools. The earliest Neolithic population inhabiting this area had high lithic technological skills necessary for maintaining a standardized blade production, which needed specialized groups of people. This kind of non-domestic production required a certain degree of labor organization and control. It seems that the groups of hunters and gatherers (if there were any) were not involved in the functioning of the production chain at that time and on that territory. In other words if there was a local population living on this territory prior to the arrival of the first comers, it had no “technological” influence on the establishment of the earliest Neolithic chipped stone assemblages in the area under discussion. Therefore we can make the conclusion that the basic typical features of the production chains in Northern Thrace in the second 6th millennium BC do not follow the Early Neolithic pattern. The stone assemblages from the Middle and Late Neolithic are similar and differ from the Early Neolithic ones. Changes in the basic raw material and blank structure were recorded in the Middle and the Late Neolithic (Gatsov 1999, 119). A different picture concerning the stone technology is observed in the Middle and Late Neolithic in Northern Thrace and Southwestern Bulgaria. The high quality flint raw material variety has been replaced by flint of lower quality, chert and quartzite. Significant differences in raw material base, technology, typology, and labor organization between those assemblages and the Middle and Late Neolithic ones from the present day Bulgarian lands are observed. In other words significant differences between Early Neolithic assemblages, which belonged to the period be123

Chapter VI the indigenous population of the region prior to the arrival of the earliest Neolithic communities” (Özdoğan 1989, 201-215). At the same time there is a technological gap between the Ağaçli group assemblages and the Dikilitash collection. The basic differences can be followed in the main technological features. The Dikilitash collection can be characterized by exploitation of multidirectional flake cores, while the Ağaçli group assemblages are characterized by unidirectional core reduction, whose final stage are bullet cores. Moreover both collections differ completely from the Monochrome assemblages as well as from the Early Neolithic ones on the territory under study. There are clear technological differences between the assemblages of the Ağaçli group and Hoca Çeşme. At the same time the chipped stone industry from Hoca Çeşme differs from the already presented earliest painted pottery Neolithic assemblages in the present Bulgarian lands. The few flint blades with high semi-steep retouch in Hoca Çeşme phase 2 can be regarded as imports from Northern Thrace. On the other hand the abovementioned Monochrome assemblages from NE Bulgaria and Eastern Thrace reflected technological tradition different from any kind of local substratum (Epipapaeolithic/Mesolithic). The same is valid for the Earliest Neolithic Northern Thrace stone assemblages connected with the white-painted pottery. These assemblages did not come under the influence of local Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic technological tradition or the Monochrome one. Here the technological specificity of the Hoca Çeşme chipped stone assemblages should be emphasized as well as at the fact that the reason for their matchless position is still unclear. One of the possible explanations is that the Hoca Çeşme population could be considered as a part of the first wave of Neolithic population, which comes into the region under study in the second half of 7th mill BC. If this theory is correct then the difference in the technology of Hoca Çeşme and the remaining chipped stone assemblages from Northern Thrace and South Marmara region could be considered as a reflection of different cultural process and manners of adaptation. Another interesting fact concerning the raw material procurement and economy is related to the presence of single artifacts similar to the most typical ones found at mound Karanovo – phases I and II and mound Azmak – the Early Neolithic layer. Bearing in mind the latest results from Aşaği Pinar settlement where the fragments of macroblades with high retouches occurred accompanied with white-painted pottery fragments it should be expected that our understanding about the earliest phases of the Neolithic period in Eastern Thrace might change. It is very likely that at the Aşaği Pinar settlement we might be dealing with

the earliest periods. Concerning the appearance of Earliest Neolithic Thrace macro blade stone technology, it is impossible to avoid the question about its initial place of appearance. The former probably was brought from outside Europe – it is very likely that it came from Anatolia but up to now it is impossible to locate the exact area of occurrence of this technology. As was presented above, the other type of core and core reduction techniques took place in the Levant, which allows us to exclude this area from the formation of technological traditions, which are the object of research in this work. In this respect the roots of this technology should be searched for in the Anatolian context. As far as the chipped stone assemblages of Ilıpınar, Fikirtepe, Pendik and Menteşe are concerned they are characterized by usage of a local raw material varieties and most of the activities connected with the stone industry were done in the frameword of a given settlement. At the same time the occurrence of obsidian artifacts in phases X and IX of Ilıpınar, Menteşe and especially of Fikirtepe and Pendik could be considered as imports. The assemblages of Ilıpınar, Fikirtepe, Pendik and Menteşe display certain similarities – exploitation of single platform blade cores, including bullet ones; the presence of similar flat circular or semi-circular flat end-scrapers and blade perforators with well distinguished working parts. The stone technology includes bullet core reduction and exploitation of blade and flake cores as well. The assemblages are featured by similar typological repertoire – more or less massive flake end-scrapers, flat circular and semi circular end-scrapers, blade perforators with well shaped working parts, retouched blades and flakes. As a whole the Early Neolithic assemblages from Ilıpınar, Fikirtepe, Pendik and Menteşe, demonstrate totally different technological features and procurement system in comparison with the Early Neolithic stone assemblages in Eastern and Northern Thrace – Hoca Çeşme, Karanovo I and Karanovo II, Azmak – the Early Neolithic Layers, Capitan Dimitrievo – the Early Neolithic Layer, etc . Another problem is the appearance and the distribution of bullet cores. The occurrence of those cores can be detected in a vast territory during the time of the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. These techniques spread out during the Mesolithic period from the Prut–Seret basin to the Crimean Peninsula inclusive and also in the area of the Turkish Black Sea coast and Anatolia. For a reason still unknown the present-day Bulgarian territories are exceptional and no bullet cores were found there – no bullet cores are available from the stone collection from Dikilitash, the Monochrome assemblages or from the stone assemblages from the earliest Neolithic levels with white painted pottery – Karanovo I, dark polished pottery – Karanovo II and the dark painted pottery assem124

Conclusion blages – the 7th and the 6th millennium BC. We are still not certain whether the absence of bullet cores is due to the lack of research or it reflects existing technological typical features characterizing the stone technology which developed on this territory in the period mentioned above. One of the probable explanations could be that the present–day Bulgarian Black Sea coast was influenced by the Mesolithic tradition of the Lower Danube. Further to the south on the Turkish Black Sea coast and in the South Marmara region of particular interest is a certain technological differentiation occurring in the frequency of the bullet cores and pressure and punch techniques. These are the already known assemblages from Ağaçli group, which have been related to the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic periods and they could be considered as local Black Sea Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic units. At the same time these types of cores occur also in the Early Neolithic assemblages of the South Marmara region – Ilıpınar, Fikirtepe, Pendik and Menteşe. All studied assemblages from the Marmara region display similarity with the Ağaçli group and the reason for this assumption is the appearance of bullet cores. Therefore we can suggest that the Early Neolithic assemblages from the South Marmara region were influenced to a certain extent by the local technological tradition in the shape of the above presented bullet core reduction technique that survived from the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic periods. By the end of 7th millennium B.C. Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara region were affected by the Neolithization processes. In this respect the occurrence of bullet core techniques can be considered as evidence of the existence of some local elements in the formation of some of the earliest Neolithic flint industries in the area of the South Marmara region. It is very likely that the Epipalaeolithic/ Mesolithic population connected with bullet technology left some legacy in the stone industry of the earliest Neolithic population in the region of South Marmara. Simultaneously some parallels for the Early Neolithic South Marmara assemblages’ – Ilıpınar, Fikirtepe, Pendik and Menteşe should be searched for also in the area of Central Anatolia- single platform prismatic cores, typical for Anatolia, high end-scrapers and flat semicircular and circular ones, blade perforators with well defined working part. Bearing in mind the task – this research solely confined to the lithic data and how this data corresponds with the cultural sequences in the territory under study, we should come back to the stone industry. The already presented technological and typological differences between those stone assemblages reflected an amalgam of different processes. According to M. Özdoğan “The original components

of the Neolithic package did not move together, and, accordingly, sites in the newly settled area will reveal different random collections of elements found somewhere in the core area – “unevenness of the evidence” on origins and diffusion” (College/Conolly/Shennan 2004, 52). Here it should be added that on a technological level one of the most significant differences between Anatolia and the Levant is the occurrence of naviform core reduction techniques. This type of core has not been registered on the territory under discussion. The defining of the Levantine province was based on this type of core by S. K. Kozlowski and G. Gebel. The former included namely reduction of naviform double striking platform cores (Kozlowski/Gebel 1994). The same idea was expressed by L. A. Quintero and P. J. Wilke”… The distinctive naviform core-and blade technology formed the basis of many flaked industries of the Early Neolithic of the Levant” (Quintero/Wilke 1995, 17). The former is very characteristic for the Levant chipped stone assemblages. This technique does was not used in Central Anatolia except for Kaletepe, a site whose production was aimed at the Levant area (Binder 2002, 79-80). In this respect the research of N. Balkan-Atlı and D. Binder gave very important information about the naviform technology at the Kaletepe workshop (Balkan-Atlı/Binder 2000, 199-214). In recent years some evidence has been recorded concerning the possible similarities in the weed data and genetic one between the Konya plain and Northern Thrace. According to Dr. E. Marinova some similarities between the weed assemblages from Çatal Hüyük and those from the Early Neolithic period in Northern Thrace – for example Karanovo, Capitan Dimitrievo-Banjata mogila, can be seen (E. Marinova, personal communication). In general the crop and weed assemblages from the Bulgarian Neolithic show a clear connection with the East Mediterranean and the Near East. Two crop species known from the Bulgarian Neolithic – chick pea (Cicerarietinum) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus/cicera) indicate clear connections with Anatolia. Especially this concerns the grass pea (Lathyrus sativus/cicera), which was probably added later to the Near Eastern crop assemblage. The weed assemblages found in the Karanovo culture also suggest connections with Anatolia (Marinova 2002; Marinova 2006a, 189-195; Marinova 2006b). The models of Neolithization and the content of these processes are very strongly discussed and the interested scholars present very often different and contrary opinions. Up to now some basic models or hypotheses for the explanation of the spread of the earliest farming in Europe have been promoted. All of them more or less pursue one and the same task – to formulate the most appropriate hypothesis about the contents of Mesolithic/Neolithic transition, 125

Chapter VI which can be referred to as indigenism, demic diffusion, and leapfrog colonization (Biagi 2002, 148). As far as the territory under study is concerned there is no evidence for the existence of adequate local stratum, which could be taken into account as an indicator of local development of agriculture. The paleo botanic date indicates that “…In these manifold environmental conditions in the 6th millennium BC the first agriculture was introduced to Southeast Europe and a more active interaction of human population and vegetation started. This was connected with the introduction of the new technology activities: forest clearance, crop cultivation, collecting of wild plant resources etc. which leave traces in the settlement layers and some wet sediments around the sites” (Marinova 2006a, 189-195). The botanical evidence research of E. Marinova on the one hand and practically the lack of archaeological evidences on the other confirms the cultural discontinuity at the turn of the Pleistocene and Holocene on the territory of Bulgaria. The other problem is connected with the direction of human movement during the period under study. As it was already settled the “island-hopping route for Early Neolithic settlement, in which migrant-farmers arrived from coastal Anatolia in a “jump-dispersal” process, is therefore more likely”(College et al. 2004, 42). In this situation the Greek islands can be considered as a part of the maritime connection during the Neolithic movement of human dispersal. In this respect E. Peltenburg presents “…a model of divergent paths of social organization amongst early farming communities brought about by emigration in the 9th millennium calibrated BC from Southeast Asia to Cyprus” (Peltenburg 2001, 85-86). On the other hand C. Broodbank and T. Strasser suggested that the Aegean was navigable and gave very interesting information about the “technical aspects” of seafaring (Broodbank/Strasser 1991, 233-245). According to both authors unfortunately due to the weak knowledge about the latest hunter-gatherer groups on the one hand and the earliest Neolithic one on the other, it is still impossible to conclude with great certainty “… whether Crete and Greece were first settled by farming communities whose origins were in Anatolia or Cypro-Levantine groups followed a coastal Anatolian and “islandhopping” route to the Aegean” (Broodbank/Strasser 1991, 233-45). As far as the option of maritime or leapfrog colonization is concerned – the opinion proposed by Van Andel and C. Runnels accepts the spread of Earliest Neolithic farmers by sea and the origin of the Neolithic farming “ …has been sought in the Levant or Southern Anatolia … but Anatolia being the closest” (Van Andel/Runnels 1995, 495).

Recently new results came from Cyprus. For the time being few Neolithic sites have been investigated on the island, which are related to the first half of the ninth millennium BC. At the same time no evidence of indigenous foragers and wild progenitors of domestic species connected with the end of the Pleistocene – beginning of Holocene transition, have been registered. According to recent results it was possible to conclude that “there was much earlier permanent migration and colonization by Neolithic farming communities” (Colledge/Conolly/Shennan 2004, 41). According to C. Perlès “…an island-hopping route, from the Anatolian or Levantine coasts to mainland Greece, can be considered as equally plausible. Navigation has been known in Greece since the Late Pleistocene, as indicated by the presence of Melian obsidian in the Final Pleistocene and Early Holocene levels from Franchti. The colonization of islands such as Cyprus, Corsica and Sardinia, even before the Neolithic, confirms a widespread of agriculture … it is probable the regular navigation in the Aegean, whether for fishing or procurement of raw materials, led to a widespread knowledge of the landmasses that existed far away” (Perlès 2001, 60). Results about the “archaeobotanical evidences for the spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean” have been recently published.(Colledge/Conolly/Shennan 2004). It should be stressed that their work contains very rich archaeobotanical data associated with radiocarbon dates, which covered a time span between ca. 21,000 bp and ca. 5,500 bp. As a whole, the information comes from around 200 sites. The former were located in the area from Southern Iran to Northwestern Europe as well as in countries from the Eastern Mediterranean. At the time being there is no doubt that the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas have been navigated for thousands years and both seas played a significant role in the human dispersal during the process of Neolithzation At the same time some questions are raised about the Neolithic penetration through Western Anatolia in the region of south of Marmara. Apart from the coastal possibilities, some motion in westward directions along the plateau is indicated. Up to now there are is no direct evidence for this suggestion. Nevertheless the exiting lithic data from the end of 7th/first half of 6th mill. BC in the region under study raised some questions about the connections with Central Anatolia on the grounds of the appearance of single platform core reduction techniques, which differ with the Levant area. As was mentioned above, in the Levant area’ the naviform core reduction techniques are dominant. At the same time the already presented archaeobotanic data of E.Marinova shows a defined connection between Konya plain of South Central Anatolia and Northern Thrace at the beginning of 7th mill. BC. 126

Conclusion About the possible connections between Central Anatolia and Balkans the results of R. King, P. Underhill and R. Pinhasi coming from archaeogenetical data are presented, too. In their research Roy King and Peter Underhill connected painted pottery with tell settlements, clay sealing stamps and ceramic figurines and they are making an attempt to reveal the space correlation (or geographic correlation) of the painted pottery and clay figurines and the frequencies of Y-chromosomal haplotypes. The former were suggested as genetic signatures supposing Neolithic migrations from the Levant and Anatolia into Europe in framework of the process of Neolithization. R. King and P. Underhill started from the conception that „certain symbolic/ideological product may be strongly associated with males who carried Y-chromosome haplotypes that participated in demographic events associated with the Neolithic period.” (King/Underhill 2002, 707-714). The archaeological record was used for examination of 25 populations … from Syria, Lebanon, Turkey (PPNB), etc. and from South East Europe: Sesklo, Starčevo, Karanovo, Körös, Vinča and Cris, and other parts of Europe: „The highest frequency of Eu9 is in the sample from Turkey (40%). The Turkish genetic samples were all from Konya, which is within 100 km of the significant site of Çatal Hüyük and coincident with van Andel and C. Runnels (1995) modified model of Neolithic demic diffusion from south central Anatolia. … Bulgaria with 12% exhibit ... relatively high proportions of the 12f28kb haplotype and densely settled Early Neolithic sites” (King/Underhill 2002, 712). A little bit later R. Pinhasi underlined “... the first farmers that colonized Europe did not originate from the Near East, but rather from central Anatolia. Their bestrepresented population type is the one from Çatal Hüyük,

which represents the successful culmination of the 2000 years of agricultural development in Anatolia. This suggests that these farmers first arrived in southeast Europe through western Anatolia, and not by sea travel through the Greek Islands. The remarkable homogeneity among the first farmers, taken together with the differentiation between them and Mesolithic populations from these regions, implies a lack of admixture between farmers and hunter-gatherers, and supports an initial logistic dispersal without admixture” (Pinhasi 2003, 41). The idea presented above turns the discussion in one direction, which in my opinion is very important – the significance of western Anatolia in the process of Neolithization and the interesting and valuable suggestion of movement via western Anatolia. In this context it should be added that the basal layer of Menteşe settlement has been dated to 6400 cal. BC. This fact indicates that it is “the oldest village in Northwestern Anatolia” (Roodenberg et al. 2003, 36) and might indicate that this part of Anatolia was inhabited much earlier. Those dates give a new perspective to the idea of M. Özdoğan (Özdoğan/Gatsov 1998, 209-232) about the western expansion of Neolithic cultures. According to M. Özdoğan: “The picture thus emerging from Anatolian sites implies a number of controversies about the conventional view of the Neolithic, sufficient to incite a new debate to reevaluate or to rethink some basic issues” (Özdoğan, 2002, 154). Here it should be pointed out that despite all evidence regarding the significance of the maritime connections the existence of some additional roads of movement of the first Neolithic groups is not excluded. It is hard to believe that such a complex process, lasting for a long time, was linked only with one direction of human movement and dispersal, using only maritime connections.

127

128

Conclusion

Bibliography

Alpaslan–Roodenberg 2006 S. Alpaslan–Roodenberg, Death in Neolithic Ilıpınar. In: I. Gatsov, H. Schwarzberg (eds.). Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: Present State of the Research of the Early Neolithic (Langenweissbach (Leiden, 2006), 4757. Beier&Beran.

Božilova/Tonkov 1995 E. Božilova, S. Tonkov (eds), Advances in Holocene Palaeoecology in Bulgaria, (Sofia–Moscow 1995). Pensoft Publ. Boyadžiev 1995 Y. Boyadžiev, Chronology of Prehistoric Cultures in Bulgaria. In: D. Bailey, I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Madison 1995), 149-191. Prehistory Press.

Balkan–Atlı 1994 N. Balkan–Atlı, La Neolithisation de L’Anatolie (Paris 1994). Institut Français D’Etudes Anatoliennes D’Istanbul. De Boccard Edition-Diffusion.

Boyadžiev 2006 J. Boyadžiev, The role of absolute chronology in clarifying the Neolithization of the eastern half of Balkan Peninsula. In: I. Gatsov, H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: Present State of the Research of the Early Neolithic (Langenweissbach (Leiden, 2006), 7-14. Beier&Beran

Balkan–Atlı/Binder 2000 N. Balkan–Atlı, D. Binder, L’atelier néolithique de Kömürcü-Kaletepe: Fouilles de 1999. Anatolia Antiqua, VIII, 2000, 199-214. Biagi/Mauro 1990 P. Biagi, C.Mauro, Geoarchaeological investigation on the Rohri Hills (Sind, Pakistan). South Aegean Archaeology, part I, 1987, 31-42.

Broodbank/Strasser 1991 C. Broodbank, T. Strasser, Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonization of Crete, Antiquity, 65, 1991, 233-245.

Biagi/Veesar 1998-99 P. Biagi, G. Mohiuddin Veesar, An Archaeological survey in the neighborhood of Thari in the Thar desert (Sind, Pakistan). Ancient Sindh 5, 1998-99, 93-118.

Broodbank 2000 C. Broodbank, An Island archeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge 2000).

Biagi 2002 P. Biagi, A review of the Late Mesolithic in Italy and Its Implications for the Neolithic Transition. In: A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest, Colloquia and Conference Papers 6 (Boston, Massachusetts 2002), 133-156.

Brudiu 1974 M. Brudiu, Paleoliticul Superior şi Epipaleoliticul din Moldova. Academia de Ştiinte şi Politice a R.S. Romania, Biblioteca de Arceologie, Seria Complementară 2, (Bucureşti 1974).

Binder 2002 D. Binder, Stones making sense: What obsidian could tell about the origins of 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 BC (Istanbul 2002), 79-90. Ege Yayınları.

Calley/Grace 1988 S. Calley, R. Grace, Technology and Function of Micro-borers from Kumartepe (Turkey). BAR, S 411 (Oxford 1988), 69-82.

Bittel 1969 K. Bittel, Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadköy (Istanbul). Istanbuller Mitteilungen 19/20, 1969, 1-19.

Cauvin 1994 M.-C. Cauvin, La circulation de l’obsidienne au Proche - Orient Neolithique. In: H. G. Gebel, S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic chipped stone industries of the Fertile Crescent, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and environment 1, 1994, 15-22. Ex oriente. Berlin.

Božilova 1986 E. Božilova. Palaeocological Conditions and Changes of the Vegetation of Eastern and South –Western Bulgaria during the Last 15 000 years. (Sofia 1986), Institute of Biology, Sofia University Press.

College/Conolly/Shennan 2004 S. College, J. Conolly, S. Shennan, Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45, Supplement., 2004, 41-42. 129

Bibliography Conolly 1999 J. Conolly, The Çatalhöyük Flint and Obsidian Industry. BAR, International Series 787, Oxford.

nique during 7-th – 6-th Millennium BC. In: C. Lichter (ed.), How did farmers reach Europe? BYZAS 2, WestLB, 2005, 213-220.

Crabtree 1968 D. Crabtree, Mesoamerican polyhedral cores and prismatic blades. American Antiquity 33, № 4, 1968, 446-478.

Gatsov 2005b I. Gatsov, Feursteinartefakte. Typologie. In: St. Hiller, V. Nikolov (Hrsg.), Karanovo, Band IV.1 Tekst; Phoibos Verlag, (Wien 2005), 375-386; Band IV.2 Taf. 209, 7; Taf.212, 13.

Cullberg 1964-1965 C. Cullberg, 10 Tells Aux Environs de Bursa. Meddelanden Fran Lunds Universitets 64-64, 1964-1965, 132-180. Historiske Museum.

Gatsov 2006a I. Gatsov, The state of research into the problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition. In: I. Gatsov, H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: Present State of the Research of the Early Neolithic (Langenweissbach 2006), 153-158.

Efe/Gatsov/Nedelcheva 2008 (unpublished) T. Efe, I. Gatsov, P. Nedelcheva, The Neolithic settlement of Keçıçayırı near Seyitgazi, Eskişehir. Finlayson 2001 B. Finlayson, Island colonization, insularity or mainstream? In: E. Peltenburg, A. Wasse (eds.), Neolithic Revolution, Oxbow books (2001), 15-22.

Gatsov 2006b I. Gatsov, Neolithisation process between Anatolia and Balkans: lithic perspective from the Marmara Sea region. In: M. Spataro and 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-22th, 2005. Quaderno 12-2007, (Trieste 2006), 119-129.

French 1967 D. French, Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia I. The Iznik Area. Anatolian Studies 17, 1967, 49-100. French 1969 D. French, Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia II. Anatolian Studies 19, 1969, 41-98.

Gatsov 2008a (in print) I. Gatsov, Chipped stone assemblages from Hoca Çeşme settlement, Eastern Thrace, NW Turkey. Phases 2, 3 and 4.

Gatsov 1985 I. Gatsov, Early Holocene Flint Assemblages form the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. In: C. Bonsal (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (Edinburgh 1985), 471-474.

Gatsov 2008b (unpublished) I. Gatsov, Chipped stone assemblages from Aşaği Pinar settlement, Eastern Thrace - periods 2-5.

Gatsov 1990 I. Gatsov, L’industrie lithique du site néolithique d’Ussoe. Studia Praehistorica, 10, 1990, 91-101.

Gatsov/Özdoğan 1994 I. Gatsov, M. Özdoğan, Some Epi-palaeolithic sites from NW Turkey. Ağaçli, Domalı, Gümüşdere. Anatolica 20, 1994, 97-120.

Gatsov 2001 I. Gatsov, Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic, Neolithic Periods. Chipped stone assemblages from Southern Bulgaria and Northwest Turkey: Similarities and Differences. TÜBA-AR IV, 2001, 101-112.

Gatsov/Kurčatov 1997 I. Gatsov, V. Kurčatov, Neolithische Feursteinartefakte. In: S. Hiller, V. Nikolov (Hrsg.), Karanovo, Die Ausgrabungen im Sudsektor 1984-1992 (Salzburg 1997) Band I.1, 213–227. Band I.2 Tafeln, Taf. 92-94.

Gatsov 2003a I. Gatsov, The latest results from the technological and typological analysis of chipped stone assemblages from Ilıpınar, Pendik, Fikirtepe and Menteşe, NW Turkey. Documenta Praehistorica XXX, 10th Neolithic Studies (Lubljana 2003), 153-158.

Gatsov/Efe 2005 I. Gatsov, T. Efe, Some observations on the EBII Chipped stone artifacts from Küllüoba (near Eskişehir) in inland Northwestern Anatolia. Anatolia Antiqua, XIII, 2005, 111-118.

Gatsov 2003b I. Gatsov, Chipped stone assemblages from Pendik. Technological and typological analysis. In: M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann, N. Başgelen (eds.), From Village to Cities. EarlyVillage in the Near East. Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, vol. 1, 2003, 283-292. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Gatsov/Nedelcheva 2007 I. Gatsov, P. Nedelcheva, Chipped stone assemblages from Menteşe and the problem of earliest occupation of South Marmara region. In: Kozlowski, Nowak (eds.), Mesolithic/Neolithic interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin, BAR International Series 1726, 7-20.

Gatsov 2005a I. Gatsov, Some observations about bullet core tech130

Bibliography Gatsov/Gurova 2008 I. Gatsov, M. Gurova, Chipped stone assemblages from Ilıpınar, Part I. In: J.J. Roodenberg, S. Roodenberg (eds.), Life and dead in a prehistory settlement in Northwest Anatolia. The Ilipinar excavations III, (2008), 227-268. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

sion a Mehrgarg, Pakistan. La tombe d’un tailleur? Paléorient II/I, 1985, 111-113. Ivanova/Sirakova 1995 S. Ivanova, S. Sirakova, Chronology and Cultures of the Bulgarian Palaeolithic. In: D. Bailey, I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology 22 (Madison 1995), 9-54. Prehistory Press.

Gatsov/Nedelceva/Kalčev (unpublished) I. Gatsov, P. Nedelceva, P. Kalčev, Azmak – Neolithic and Chalcolithic chipped stone industries.

Kardulias/Runnels 1995 N. Kardulias, C. Runnels, Artifact and assemblage: The finds from regional survey of the Souther Argolid, Greece. In: C. Runnels, D. Pullen, S. Langdon (eds.), The prehistoric and Early Iron Age pottery and the lithic artifacts, Vol. I, (Stanford Iniversity press 1995) 74 -144.

Georgiev 1965 G.I. Georgiev, The Azmak mound in Southern Bulgaria, Antiquity XXXIX, 153, 1965, 6-8, p.V-VII. Gorsdorf/Boyadžiev 1996 J. Gorsdorf, Y. Boyadžiev, Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14 C Datierungen von bulgarischen archaeologischen Fundplätzen. Eurasia Antiqua, Band 2, 1996, 121-122.

Karul/Eres/Ozdogan/Parzinger 2003 N. Karul, Z. Eres, M. Ozdogan, H. Parzinger, Aşaği Pinar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur. Archäologie in Eurasien, Band. 15 Studien im Thrakien-Marmara –Raum, Band 1. DAI Eurasien-Abteilung. Verlag Philip von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein.

Gurova 2001 M. Gurova, Analyse fonctionnelle des assemblages en silex d’Ilıpınar, phases X et IX. In: J. Roodenberg, L. Thissen (eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavation II, Pihans 93 (Leiden 2001) 297-325. Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten.

King/Underhill 2002 R. King, P. Underhill, Congruent distribution of Neolithic painted pottery and ceramic figurines with Ychromosome lineages. Antiquity 76, 2002, 707-714.

Gurova/Gatsov 2000 M. Gurova, I. Gatsov, Research Problems of the Early Neolithic Flint Assemblages in Thrace (Bulgaria). In: S. Hiller, V. Nikolov (Hrsg.), Karanovo, III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Wien 2000), 155163. Phoibos Verlag.

Kozlowski/S.K. Kozlowski, 1982 J.K. Kozlowski, S.K. Kozlowski, Origin of the Cipped stone industries of the Early Farming cultures in Balkan. In: J.K. Kozlowski (ed.). Lithic industry from the multi-layer site Vlasac in Yugoslavia, 11-110. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe (Warszawa-Kraków 1982).

Hansen et ali 2005 S. Hansen, A. Dragoman, A. Reingruber, I. Gatsov, J. Görsdorf, P. Nedelcheva, S. Oanţă-Marghitu, B. Song, Der kupferzeitliche Siedlungshügel Pietrele an der Unteren Donau. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen im Sommer 2004. Eurasia Antiqua 11, 2005, 341-393.

Kozlowski/Gebel 1994 S.K. Kozlowski, H.G. Gebel, Concluding Remarks on Chipped Lithics Techno-Taxa and Interaction Spheres Throughout the 9th to 6th Millenium BC. In: H.G. Gebel, S.K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped stone industries of the Fertile crescent (Berlin 1994), 595-601.

Hartenberger/Runnels 2001 B. Hartenberger, C. Runnels, The organization of flaked stone production at Bronze Age. Hesperia 70/3, 2001, 255-283.

Kurčatov (in print) V. Kurčatov, Stone raw material varieties from Azmak – Neolithic and Chalcolithic layers. Annuary of Department of Archaeology, vol. 7, Sofia.

Hiller/Nikolov 1997 S. Hiller, V. Nikolov, Karanovo I. Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984–1992, (Wien 1997). Phoibos Verlag.

Lichardus/Gatsov/Gurova/Iliev 2000a J. Lichardus, I. Gatsov, M. Gurova, I. Iliev, Geometric microliths from the Middle Neolithic site Drama-Gerena (South Bulgaria) and the problem of Mesolithic tradition in South-Eastern Europe. Eurasia Antiqua 6, 2000, 1-12.

Hiller/Nikolov 2005 S. Hiller, V. Nikolov, Karanovo IV. Die Ausgrabungen im Nordsüd-Schnitt 1993–1999. In: S. Hiller, V. Nikolov (eds), Band IV. (Salzburg 2005), Taf. 213,1; Taf. 211,10).

Lichardus et al. 2000b J. Lichardus, A. Fol, L. Getov, F. Bertemes, R. Echt, R. Katinčarov, I. K. Iliev, Forschungen in der mikroregion von Drama (Südostbulgarien). Zusammenfassung der Hauptergebnisse der bulgarisch-deutschen Grabun-

Inizan/Lechevallier 1985 M. Inizan, M. Lechevallier, La taille du silex par pres131

Bibliography gen in den Jahren 1983-1999. (Bonn 2000). Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.

Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian perspective. Journal of European Archaeology, 5.2, 1997, 1-33.

Manolakakis 1996 L. Manolakakis, Production lithique et émergence de la hiérarchie Sociale: L’Industrie lithique de l’ énélithique en Bulgarie (Premiére moitié du IVe Millénaire), Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 93, No 1, 1996, 119-123.

Özdoğan 1997b M. Özdoğan, Anatolia from the last glacial Maximum to the Holocene climatic optimum: cultural formations and the impact of the environmental setting. Paléorient, 23/2, 1997, 25-38. Özdoğan 1998 M. Özdoğan, Hoca Çeşme: An Early Neolithic colony in the Balkans? In: P. Enreiter et al. (eds.), Man and the Animal World. In Memoriam S. Bökönyi (Budapest 1998), 435-451. Archaeolingua.

Manolakakis 2005 L. Manolakakis, Les industries énéolithiques de Bulgarie. (Rahden/Westf. 2005), Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.

Özdoğan 1999 M. Özdoğan, Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia. M. Özdoğan (ed.), Neolithic in Turkey (Istanbul 1999), 203-224. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Marinova 2002 E. Marinova, Archaeobotanical study on Neolithic Agriculture in Modern South Bulgaria. Archeologia XLIII, H. 4, 2002, 13-24. Marinova 2006a E. Marinova, Archaeobotanical studies of the Bulgarian Neolithic. The current state of research and perspectives for future studies. In: I. Gatsov, H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: Present State of the Research of the Early Neolithic (Langenweissbach 2006) 187-194. Beier&Beran.

Özdoğan 2000 M. Özdoğan, The Appearance of Early Neolithic Cultures in Northwestern Turkey. Some Problems, In: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds) Karanovo III Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Wien 2000), 165-170. Phoibos. Verlag. Özdoğan 2002. M. Özdoğan, Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia. A critical overview. In: R.T.J. Cappers, S. Bottema (eds), The dawn of farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, subsistence, and environment 6, (Berlin 2002), 153-159. ex orient.

Marinova 2006b E. Marinova, Vergleichende paläoethnobotanische Untersuchung zur Vegetationsgeschichte und zur Entwicklung der prähistorischen Landnutzung in Bulgarien. Dissertatuiones Botanicae, Band, 401, J. Cramer in der Gebrüder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung Berlim. Stuttgart 2006.

Özdoğan 2003a Özdoğan, The prehistory of Northwestern Turkey. A synoptic overview of the latest evidence. In: D. V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent research in the prehistory of the Balkans. Publication of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, No. 3. (Thessaloniki 2003), 329-368.

Milojčič 1949 V. Milojčič, Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittelund Südosteuropas (Berlin 1949). Özdoğan 1983 M. Özdoğan, “Pendik: A Neolithic Site of Fikirtepe Culture in the Marmara Region.” In: R.M. Boehmer, H. Hauptmann (eds.). Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleisasien, Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, (Mainz 1983), 401-411.

Özdoğan 2003b M. Özdoğan, The Black Sea and Sea of Marmara and Bronze Age Archaeology – an archaeological predicament. In: G. Wagner, E. Pernicka, H.-P. Uerpmann (eds), Troa and the Troad. (Berlin 2003), 105-120. Springer.

Özdoğan 1989 M. Özdoğan, Neolithic cultures of Northwestern Turkey. In: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II (Budapest 1989), 201-215.

Özdoğan 2005 M. Özdoğan, The Expansion of Neolithic Way of life. What We know and what we do not know” C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe?, BYZAS 2, DAI Abteilung Istanbul, Ege Yayınları. 13-27.

Özdoğan 1995 M. Özdoğan, Neolithic in Turkey. The status of Research. In: Reading in Prehistory. Studies presented to Halet Çambel (Istanbul 1995), 41-59. Graphis Yayınları.

Özdoğan 2006a M. Özdoğan, Neolithic cultures at the contact zone between Anatolia and the Balkans-Diversity and homogeneity at the Neolithic frontier”, In: I. Gatsov, H. Schwarzberg (eds.) Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic, 2128. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach.

Özdoğan 1997a M. Özdoğan, The beginning of Neolithic Economies in 132

Bibliography Özdoğan 2006b M. Özdoğan, Coastal Changes of the Black Sea and Sea of Marmara in Archaeological Perspective, In: V. Yanko-Hombach et al. (eds.) The Black Sea Flood Question, 651-669. Springer, Dordrecht.

Roodenberg 1995 J. Roodenberg, The Ilıpınar Excavations I. Five Seasons of Fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987-91 (Istanbul 1995). Nederlands Institute Voor Het Nabije Oosten, Leiden.

Özdoğan/Gatsov 1998 M. Özdoğan, I. Gatsov, The Aceramic Neolithic period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica 24, 1998, 209-232.

Roodenberg/Thissen/Buitenhuis 1989/90 J. Roodenberg, L. Thissen, H. Buitenhuis, Preliminary report on the archeological investigations at Ilıpınar in NW Anatolia. Anatolica 16, 1989/90, 61-144.

Parzinger/Özdoğan 1996 H. Parzinger, M. Özdoğan, Die Ausgrabungen in Kırklareli und ihre Bedeutung für die Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. Berihte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 76, (Mainz an Rhein 1996), 5-29. Verlag Philip von Zabern.

Roodenberg/Thissen 2001 J. Roodenberg, L. Thissen, The Ilıpınar Excavations II. Nederlands Institute Voor Het Nabije Oosten, Leiden. Roodenberg/van As/Jacobs/Wijnen 2003 J. Roodenberg, A. van As, L. Jacobs, M. H. Wijnen, Early settlement in the plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia). Anatolica 29, 2003, 17-59.

Parzinger/Schwarzberg 2005 H. Parzinger, H. Schwarzberg, Aşaği Pinar II. Die mittel-und spätneolithische Keramik. Archäologie in Eurasien, Band. 18. Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum Band 2. (Mainz 2005). Verlag Philip von Zabern.

Sirakov/Tsonev 1995 N. Sirakov, T. Tsonev, The Late Eneolithic flint assemblages from the tell Yunatsite (South Bulgaria). In: B. Ginter, B. Drobniewich, B. Kazior, M. Nowak, M. Połtowich (eds.), Problems of the Stone Age in Old World. Jubilee book dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Kozlowski (Krakow 1995), 343-367.

Peltenburg 2001 E. Peltenburg, Social space in early sedentary communities of Southeast Asia and Cyprus. In: E. Peltenburg, A. Wasse (eds.), Neolithic Revolution. New perspectives on south west Asia in light of recent discoveries on Cyprus, (Oxford 2001), 71-89. Oxbow books.

Sirakov 2002 S. Sirakov, Flint artefacts in prehistoric grave-good assemblages from the Durankulak necropolis. In: H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak. Bd. II (Berlin, Sofia 2002) 213-246.

Perlès 1992 C. Perlès, Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece (1992). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5/2, 1992, 115-164. Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). Cambridge University Press.

Stefanova 1996 T. Stefanova, A Comparative Analysis of Pottery from the ‘Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon’ and ‘Karanovo I Horizon’ and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Proçilo XXIII, 1996, 15-38.

Pinhasi 2003 R. Pinhasi 2003. A new model for the spread of the first farmers in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica XXX, 10th Neolithic Studies, 2003, 1-47.

Szymczak 2002 K. Szymczak, A problem of the bullet shaped cores: A global perspective, Światowit, Tom IV (XLV), Fasc. B., 2002, 229-242.

Quintero/Wilke 1995 L.A. Quintero, P.J. Wilke, Evolution and economic significance of naviform core-and-blade technology in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 21/1, 1995, 17-33.

Thissen 2005. L.Thissen, Coming to grips with the Aegean in Prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework, 10,0005500 cal. BC. In: C. Lichter (ed), How did farmers reach Europe? BYZAS 2, WestLB, 2005, 29-40. Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.

Reingruber/Thissen 2005 A. Reingruber, L. Thissen, 14 C dates for the Aegean catchment (Eastern Greece, Southern Balkans and Western Turkey) 10.000-5.500 cal. BC. In: C. Lichter (ed.), How did farmers reach Europe? BYZAS 2, WestLB, 2005, 295-327. Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.

Tixier 1992 J. Tixier, Technology of knapped-stone (Meudon 1992). Todorova 2003 H. Todorova, Prehistory of Bulgaria. In: D.V. Grammenos (ed.), Recent research in the prehistory of the Balkans. Publication of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, No3 (Thessaloniki 2003) 257-328.

Roodenberg 1992 J. Roodenberg, Ilıpınar, un nouveau site préhistorique dans le nord-ouest de l’Anatolie. Studia Praehistorica, 11-12, 1992, 385-388 133

Bibliography Van Andel/Runnels 1995 T. H. Van Andel, C. N. Runnels, The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69, 1995, 481-500.

Маркевич 1974 В.И. Маркевич, Буго-днестровская культура на територии Молдовии (Кишинев 1974). Издательство «Штиинца».

Weninger/Alram-Stern/Clare/Danzeglocke/Jöris/Kubatzki/Rollefson/Todorova/Van Andel 2006 B. Weninger, E. Alram-Stern, E. Bauer, L. Clare, U. Danzeglocke, O. Jöris, C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. Todorova, T. van Andel, Climate Forcing due to the cal 8200BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the Eastern Mediterranean. Quaternary Research 66, 2006, 401-420.

Мацкевой 1977 Л. Г. Мацкевой, Мезолит и неолит восточного Крыма (Киев 1977). Николов 1987 В. Николов, Струмският път през ранния неолит. Векове 2, 1987, 39-48. Николов 1990 В. Николов, Проблемът за централобалканските миграционни пътища през ранния неолит - интердисциплинарен подход. Интердисциплинарни изследвания ХVІІ, 1990, 9-24.

Willis 1994 K.J. Willis, The Vegetational History of the Balkans. Quaternary Science Review, 19, 1994, 769-788. Wilke 1996 P. J. Wilke, Bullet-Shaped Microblade Cores of the Near Eastern Neolithic: Experimental Replicative Studies. In: S. K. Kozlowski, H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions (Berlin 1996), 289-310.

Николов 1992 В. Николов, Раннонеолитно селище от Слатина. Разкопки и Проучвания XXV (София 1992). Николов 2000 В. Николов, Още за контактите между Анатолия и Балканите през VІ хил. пр. Хр. In: В. Николов (съст.), Тракия и съседните райони през неолита и халколита (София 2000), 7-13.

Zlateva-Uzunova 2006 (in print) R. Zlateva-Uzunova, Early Neolithic Stone Assemblages from Ohoden-Valoga Site, Building N01. Archaeologia Inventa (2006).

Попов 1996 В. Попов, Периодизация и хронология на неолитните и халколитните култури от поречието на р. Русенски Лом (Русе 1996).

Бибиков/Станко/Коен 1994 С. Н. Бибиков, В.Н. Станко, В.Ю. Коен, Финальный палеолит и мезолит горного Крыма. (Одесса 1994). Издательство Весть.

Радунчева/Мацанова/Гацов/Ковачев/Георгиев/Чакалова/Божилова 2002 А. Радунчева, В. Мацанова, И. Гацов, Г. Ковачев, Г. Георгиев, Е. Чакалова, Е. Божилова, Неолитно селище до гpад Ракитово. Разкопки и Проучвания ХХІХ (София 2002).

Златева-Узунова Р. (MA thesis, unpublished) Р. Златева-Узунова, Раннохолоценски кремъчни ансамбли от поречието на р. Русенски Лом. Гацов 1999 И. Гацов, Кремъчни ансамбли от неолита и късния халколит. В: В. Николов, Селищна могила Капитан Димитриево. Разкопки 1998-1999, (София-Пещера 1999), 115-121.

Станко 1982 В. Н. Станко, Мирное проблема мезолита степей Северного Причерноморья (Киев 1982). Издательство “Наукова Думка”.

Кетрару 1973 Н. А. Кетрару, Памятники эпох палеолита и мезолита. Археологическая карта молдовской СССР, 1 выпуск (Кишинев 1973). Издательство «Штиинца».

Чохаджиев 2002 С. Чохаджиев, Бележки относно неолитизацията на българските земи. Годишник на Археологически музей Пловдив, ІХ, 1, 2002, 17-18.

Коен 1991 В. Коен, Финалний палеолит горного Крима (Киев 1991).

134

Bibliography

Index of the settlements mentioned in the text Ağaçli xii, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 73, 116, 124, 125, 130 Aşaği Pinar x, xi, xii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 79, 81, 83, 88, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 124, 130, 131, 133 Azmak ix, x, xii, 2, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 121, 122, 124, 131, 132

Kanlıgeçit 10 Karanovo ix, xi, xii, 2, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 55, 96, 97, 99, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 134 Keçiçayırı 77 Koprivets xii, 2, 13, 33, 47, 49, 51, 121, 122 Körös 127 Kovačevo xii, 2, 9, 51, 122 Krainici xii, 122 Kukrek xii, 12, 13 Küllüoba 131

Balabaneşti 12 Bălgarčevo ix, 2, 41, 56, 123 Baneasa I 12 Bereşti xii, 12, 120 Brinzeni I 12

Lugovoe

13

Çalca 3, 73 Capitan Dimitrievo xii, 2, 33, 35, 41, 122, 124, 125 Çatal Hüyük 125, 127 Čavdar ix, xii, 2, 33, 54, 122 Cris 127

Menteşe xi, xii, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 30, 77, 85, 87, 89, 91, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131 Mirnoe xii, 12, 13, 118, 119 Musluçeşme 3, 73

Damianitsa ix, 2, 41, 57, 123 Deaul Taberei xii, 12 Dikilitash ix, xii, 2, 3, 9, 13, 33, 34, 121, 124, 125 Domalı xii, 2, 3, 11, 12, 73, 130 Durankulak 2, 10, 134

Ohoden xii, 47, 122, 134 Okružna bolnica xii, 2, 47, 122 Orlovec xii, 122

Elešnica Erbiceni

Pendik

xi, xii, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 30, 85, 87, 91, 101, 102, 103, 117, 123, 124, 125, 130, 132 Pernik ix, xii, 2, 30, 33, 54, 121, 122 Poljanica Platoto 9 Putineşti I 12

ix, xii, 2, 53, 122 xii, 11, 12, 120

Fatma koba 13 Fikirtepe xi, xii, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 30, 85, 87, 91, 104, 123, 124, 125, 129, 130, 132 Frontovoe I xii, 12, 13 Frontovoe III 13 Frumushika I xii, 12

Rakitovo ix, xii, 2, 33, 53, 122 Ripiceni Izvor 11 Sapareva ix, xii, 2, 53, 122 Sarateni 12 Sesklo 127 Shan xii, 12 Slatina IV ix, 2, 41, 54 Soroki II 13 Starčevo 127 Starie Bedragi 12 Strumsko 41, 123

Gălăbnik ix, xii, 2, 33, 49, 53, 122 Girgevo 13 Gornostaevka I 13 Grebeniki xii, 12, 13, 121 Gümüşdere xii, 2, 3, 11, 12, 73, 130 Gura Kamenka VI xii, 12 Hoca Çeşme x, xii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 24, 25, 30, 37, 49, 51, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 121, 124, 130, 132

Tassunovo I 13 Topolnitsa 2, 41, 123 Varvarovka IX Vinča 127

Ilıpınar xi, xii, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 28, 29, 30, 85, 87, 89, 91, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 117, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 133 Kaletepe 125, 129

Yarımburgaz

135

12 3

136