The organization of the Aegean first farming communities through the technological study of the chipped stones. The example of UĞurlu-Zeytİnlİk (Gökçeada Island, Turkey)
p. 43-58
Résumés
Les données actuelles montrent que la diffusion de l’agriculture et de l’élevage du sud-ouest de l’Asie vers le sud-est de l’Europe est le résultat de processus complexes et variés. L’analyse technologique des industries lithiques est une des approches les plus fructueuses pour comprendre l’organisation des premières communautés néolithiques. Cette méthodologie est appliquée à l’étude de l’industrie lithique du site d’Uğurlu-Zeytinlik (île de Gökçeada, Turquie), un village du nord de l’Égée occupé au moins dès le milieu du VIIe millénaire par des agropasteurs. Les résultats préliminaires permettent de reconsidérer la nature des relations du site avec les autres régions durant les premiers siècles de son occupation.
Recent data show that the expansion of agriculture and farming economy from southwest Asia to southeast Europe is the result of complex and varied processes. Technological analysis of chipped stone industries is one of the richest approach to understand how the first Neolithic communities were organized. We applied this method to the study of the chipped stone industry of Uğurlu- Zeytinlik (Gökçeada Island, Turkey), a village in northern Aegean occupied at least from the mid-seventh millennium by agro-pastoralists. Thanks to this preliminary study, we can reconsider the nature of the relations of this site with other regions during the early centuries of its occupation.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Égée, néolithique, technologie lithique, spécialisation, réseaux
Keywords : Aegean, Neolithic, Lithic technology, specialization, networks
Texte intégral
Introduction: understanding the development of the farming economy through the technological study of chipped stones
1There are many ways to study the development of the farming economy from Southeast Asia to Europe. We can consider the chronology of this process through C14 dates (Thissen 2005; Reingruber/Thissen 2009; Brami 2014; Brami/Zanotti 2015), the origins of domestic plants and animals and even people through isotopic and DNA analysis (Budd et al. 2013; Paschou et al. 2014; Scheu et al. 2015; Hofmanová et al. 2016), or even other components of the everyday life of those communities, like the management of domestic animals (Arbuckle et al. 2014). However this kind of studies is not possible everywhere, for example they depend of the state of preservation of the bones. They are also limited in their results.
2Chipped stone studies through the technological approach can give key answers to several important questions about the organization of the first farming communities in this region. In this paper, I will focus on the relations and the contacts between the sites. I will demonstrate that the Neolithic communities were not isolated at all but connected from the start through chipped stone distribution networks linked with specialized productions mastered by very skilled knappers throughout Aegean. We will see that these networks vary a lot in their extension and their organization and indicate very distinctive spheres of exchange and thus of cultural relations.
3We will consider these aspects through the ongoing study of the chipped stones of Uğurlu-Zeytinlik, a Neolithic and Chalcolithic site on Gökçeada Island at the mouth of Dardanelle strait.
4The origins of the farming economy in Aegean (6700-5700 cal. BC)
5The role of local foragers in the development of the farming economy in Aegean is still discussed. According to several scholars, hunters-gatherers-fishers may have developed agriculture and animal breeding independently or influenced by Neolithic groups of Central Anatolia and Levant (Séfériadès 2007; Sampson 2014; Reingruber 2011; 2015; Kotsakis 2001; 2014). Among other arguments, they based this assumption on recent excavations and surveys of Mesolithic sites in several parts of Aegean basin. However, most of these sites belong to the Middle Mesolithic, from the IXth to the beginning of the VIIIth millennium (Sampson 2014). Only a few sites were occupied at the end of the Mesolithic: the caves of Franchthi, Cyclops, Sarakenos and Theopetra (Perlès 2003a; Sampson 2010; 2014). The extreme scarcity of Late Mesolithic sites in contrast with Middle Mesolithic and Early Neolithic ones is striking. Except in some regions like Thessaly or Thrace, this cannot be explained by problems of sites preservation or visibility: Late Mesolithic sites should have been better preserved and more visible than earlier ones because of the sea level rising at the beginning of the Holocene. The alternative explanation is that the peopling of Aegean at the end of the Mesolithic was very limited (Perlès 2001, 24; Horejs et al. 2015, 295).
6In Sarakenos, there may be a short hiatus between the Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic (Sampson 2010, 34; Sampson et al. 2009), in Franchthi, Cyclops Cave and Theopetra, the stratigraphy of the Late Mesolithic levels is unclear because of intrusive material from Neolithic levels. Nevertheless, Perlès argued about the possible acculturation of the last Mesolithic population at Franchthi during the first part of the VIIth millennium (Initial Neolithic, Perlès 2001; 2003a; Perlès et al. 2013, 1012). Local foragers would have adopted agriculture thanks to contacts with farming communities. This site is an exception, and even there the “true” Neolithic started later and corresponds to a complete change of the material culture and of the organization of the settlement (from the cave to the Paralia, Perlès 2001, 44; Perlès et al. 2013).
7In the whole Aegean, the way of life and the material culture of Neolithic people is completely different from the Mesolithic ones. These changes are not only related to agriculture or animal breeding but are also perceptible on architecture, chipped stone tool production, etc. These new techniques and new behaviours cannot be developed from scratch and require very varied and important knowledge and knowhow (Perlès 2003b, 105). Furthermore, some innovations surely arrived from other regions, like most of the domesticated plants and animals, which had no local ancestors (Colledge et al. 2004). Thus, the development of the farming economy corresponds at least partly to the arrival of Neolithic settlers from other regions. In Greece, they may have adopted some “Mesolithic” traditions because of their contacts with local foragers, like funerary practices (incineration) and a type of chipped stone tool (transverse arrowhead, see Perlès 2010, 270).
8The first farming population known so far in the Aegean arrived in Cnossos (Crete) around 6800/6700 cal. BC (Efstratiou et al. 2004). We still ignore the origin of the settlers. At this time, Neolithic communities were already present for centuries on Cyprus and in the Levant (Lebrun 2009; Willcox 2014). Around 6700/6600 cal. BC, Neolithic farmers occupied several sites in Western Anatolia: Ulucak, Çukuriçi and even Uğurlu, as we will see in details thereafter. They may occupied Thessaly too, even if we are still waiting for reliable contexts and reliable dates for such an early occupation (Perlès et al. 2013, 1012). Interestingly, several of these first farming communities share some important characteristics, like the use of red plastered floors and the absence or extreme scarcity of pottery, but they also show important differences, for example the first farmers did not cultivate the same cereal species (Perlès 2001: 155; King et al. 2008). This leads to the assumption that they came from different regions (Perlès 2001, 62; Conolly 2008, 85; Horejs et al. 2015, 205).
9The following phases of development were probably a heterogeneous process to.
10From 6500 cal. BC, there are many Neolithic sites in the whole Aegean. Some may have been settled by descendants of the first Neolithic communities of this area, but a close examination of the material culture indicates that there were also other processes. For example, the first farmers of Greek Macedonia probably did not come from Thessaly, but from Western Anatolia or even Thrace (Perlès 2003b; 2003c; 2010; Perlès et al. 2013). There may have been other waves of migration of people from Anatolia and/or the Levant: for example, the arrival of new groups may explain the sudden appearance of impressed pottery in the whole Aegean Basin from 6100/6000 cal. BC (Çilingiroğlu 2010; 2016).
11From about 6200 cal. BC at least, the whole Aegean Basin was occupied by farming communities. There is no indication of the presence of “pure” hunters-gatherers-fishers as late as this period.
Uğurlu-Zeytinlik: a key-site to understand the organization of the first farming occupation
12Our knowledge about the development of the farming economy is very uneven from a region to another. We have no or very few information about some regions, like most of the islands and the north-eastern part of Aegean. In this context, Uğurlu is very important to understand the Neolithic of this area (Fig. 1). The site was detected in 1997 and surveyed by Harmankaya and Erdoğu in 1999 (2001). The ongoing excavation, directed by Burcin Erdoğu (Trakya University), started in 2009 (Erdoğu 2011; 2013; 2014). This large mound (about 250x200 m) lies on the slope of Mount İsa near the Pilon stream in the western part of Gökçeada Island (Erdoğu 2014, 158). Because of the position of the site, it is hard to establish the depth of the cultural levels, but in some areas, they are more than four meters deep. Between 2009 and 2015, 767 m² were excavated, including 207 m² for Neolithic structures.
13Uğurlu was occupied from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, but not continuously (Erdoğu/Çevik 2015; Özdoğan, E. 2015).
14There are six phases, based mainly on the pottery styles:
- Phase I is only represented by sporadic finds of the Early Bronze Age on the surface.
- Phase II (ca 4500-4300 cal. BC) and III (ca 5500 cal. BC) correspond to the Chalcolithic period.
- Phase IV (6000-5700 cal. BC) and Phase V (6500-6100 cal. BC) correspond to the Neolithic occupation.
- Phase VI is the earliest occupation reached by a test-pit made in 2015. Thanks to C14 dates, we know that the first inhabitants arrived at least around 6700/6600 cal. BC (Erdoğu 2016).
15We will consider here the Neolithic occupation, between 6700/6600 and 5700 cal. BC. This long period is not homogeneous. For example, there is no pottery at all and there are fragments of red plastered floors only in the earliest levels, but the surface excavated so far remains small (9 m²) and there is no architecture. The pottery of phase V shows some similarities with the one from sites in the eastern Marmara region, like Aktopraklık and the earliest phase of Menteşe (Roodenberg 1999; Roodenberg et al. 2003; Karul/Avcı 2011; Erdoğu 2013; 2014, 160). The buildings are quadrangular and have very thick stone walls. This phase was identified only in the bottom part of the mound and excavated on 78 m². The pottery of phase IV is quite similar from the one of phase V but has also specific features. There are some sherds with impressed decoration (Erdoğu 2014). The architecture is almost the same as in Phase V. This phase, excavated on 120 m², is visible on the upper and the bottom part of the site.
Fig. 1. Map of Aegean with the main raw material outcrops mentioned in the text
An abundant and rich chipped stone industry
16Chipped stones are abundant: so far (before 2016 season), I registered 14 482 artefacts for the whole site, whatever period considered. There are 5 798 chipped stones for Phase IV, V and VI (Table 1). They are coming from distant parts of the mound for phase IV (the upper part, and the lower part), but not for the earlier phases only documented in the lower part of the site. Consequently, they may not be completely representative of the knapping activities during the beginning of the Neolithic. For example, we cannot exclude the presence of knapping areas in some areas not excavated yet, but for the moment, there are very little differences in the composition of the chipped stone industry whatever area the artefacts are coming from. Furthermore, this industry is homogeneous enough (raw materials, techniques, typology) for all three phases to consider it globally.
Table 1. Repartition of the chipped stones for each phase
Raw materials from various origins
17The chipped stones are not patinated but 1412 of them (24.3 %) are altered, most of the time by fire exposure. The raw materials vary a lot. This variety correspond partly to several provenances (Table 2).
Scarcity of good local raw materials
18We accurately surveyed the surrounding of the site (1-3 km) to search for raw material usable for knapping. There are pebbles of bad quality raw materials, like quartz, which are not suitable for blade knapping. The only good raw material is jasper but the pebbles are always smaller than 10 cm in diameter. Uğurlu knappers rarely exploited these raw materials, they represent only 6.7 % of the chipped stones.
Table 2. Uğurlu, Chipped stone industry, raw materials
Abundance of good raw materials in the island
19Gökçeada is a volcanic island rich in good quality raw materials. Flint outcrops were formed by hydrothermal processes. We identified several of them, scattered only on the eastern part of the island. All are of very small extension (a few square meters). Several knapping areas, but without diagnostic chipped stones were found. The distance from Uğurlu – about 20 km – is quite important especially if we consider the mountainous relief. During the Neolithic, it was probably easier to reach this area by boat and it would have been easier to bring back flint blocks, even if the distance would have been longer and the duration of the trip not necessarily shorter than a land crossing of the island. Making the trip to this place, extracting and knapping flint, going back to the site was probably hard to manage in only one day. Consequently, these raw materials should not be considered as “local” but more appropriately as “regional”.
20Because of its volcanic origin, this flint is not homogeneous at all, if we consider it with the naked eye and even with a microscope. Some blocks are brownish, some opaque dark blue with whitish specks, others are beige and quite translucent. The quality too is not homogenous. Some are fine grained, with a conchoidal fracture and suitable for knapping.
21This flint is extremely abundant in Uğurlu (86 % of the chipped stones). There are also other varieties most probably of the same raw material (210 chipped stones, 4.8 %). We do not know their exact provenance: the outcrops are very small, and it is even possible that some were overexploited during Prehistory and disappeared.
22We did not identify yet other “regional” raw materials in Uğurlu, although there are several noticeable outcrops in the northeastern part of Aegean. There are flint or flint-like outcrops in the Gelibolu peninsula, more than 40 km from the site (Özbek 2011), in Lemnos, at about 50 km from the site (Efstratiou et al. 2014, 4), in Petrota (Krovili) in Greek Thrace, at about 90 km from the site (Efstratiou et al. 1998, 40) and in the Troad region near Coşkuntepe, at about 80 km from the site (Takaoğlu/Özdemir 2013, 37).
Exogenous exquisite raw materials
23The regional raw materials are not as good as some from very distant regions (more than 100 km), but the latter are very rare in the site.
24There are 23 artefacts (about 0.5 % of the industry) made on a white spotted flint, similar to the so-called “Balkan flint” and most probably coming from northern region. Recent studies about the “Balkan flint” showed that it was actually originated from several outcrops in the central part and northern part of Bulgaria, and maybe from Greek Thrace (Gurova 2012; Gurova/Bonsall 2014, 118 and Manolakakis personal com.).
25The provenance of the 87 obsidian artefacts (less than 2 % of all the chipped stones) is easier to establish. In 2012, Marina Milić made PXRF analysis of the provenance of all the obsidian artefacts discovered so far in Uğurlu (Milić 2014). We also considered the visual aspect: in some cases, it is possible to postulate the provenance on this basis. At least 10 chipped stones are made on obsidian from the Göllüdağ and the Nenezi Dağı, the two most important obsidian outcrops of Cappadocia, about 800 km apart from Uğurlu. At least 58 come from Demenegaki and Adamas on Melos Island, about 400 km apart from Uğurlu.
How the technological study of the chipped stones can give information about the organisation of the Aegean first farming groups
26Considering only the raw materials would be very reductive and would not be very helpful to understand how the Neolithic community of Uğurlu was organized and says nothing about how these raw materials arrived in the site, and about the relations of the site with these regions. The best way to go beyond is to make a technological study, using different concepts.
Techniques and methods: understanding the skills and the culture of the knappers
27Each technique can be identified through the analysis of several characteristics of the chipped stones and each technique implies particular skills (Crabtree 1968; Tixier 1984; Inizan et al. 1999; Pelegrin 1990; 2000; 2006; 2012a). Thanks to experiments, we know that knappers had to learn for years to acquire the knowledge and knowhow to perform some of them, for instance modes 4 and 5 of the pressure technique to make large blades (Binder/Perlès 1990; Pelegrin 2012a) (Fig. 2). We can already notice that pressure blades are quite numerous in the Neolithic phase of Uğurlu, including large ones.
Fig. 2. Experimental reconstitution of the pressure technique
A- Mode 4: standing pressure with a long crutch, B- Mode 5: pressure with a lever.
After Pelegrin 2012a.
Chaînes opératoires: understanding the organization of the knapping activities
28The presence of such blades in the site does not imply that they were made in situ. They could have been made elsewhere and introduced as blanks. The only way to understand the organization of the different steps of the production is to study the chipped stones through the chaîne opératoire concept (Pelegrin et al. 1988; Soressi/Geneste 2011). We consider the manufacture and even the use of an artefact step by step. This concept is especially useful in lithic technology because each chipped stone bears on its upper face the stigmata of the preceding removal. Furthermore, lithic raw materials are not easily reusable and are almost not altered through time. Consequently, in a site, we can find the tools and the by-products and waste linked with their manufacture. Their absence can be meaningful too.
“Raw material economy” and “débitage economy”: understanding the intention of the knappers
29The presence and absence of chipped stones linked with each step of the manufacture of the tools is a very important evidence in order to understand the management of the tool production in a site. However, it would be misleading to consider the whole chipped stone industry together. First, we have to make a sorting of the raw materials because they can be managed in different ways. For instance, most of the time and whatever context considered, we can find chipped stones related to almost each step of the chaîne opératoire of a tool when it is made on a local raw material. Conversely, tools made on raw material from very distant provenance are often (not always) isolated in the chipped stone industries, which means that they were produced elsewhere and introduced in the site as blanks.
30We call “raw materials economy” the way knappers managed raw materials (Perlès 1980).
31Even if we consider only one raw material, we can sometime identify several chaînes opératoires or a very complex one. For instance, in a blade production, we can use not only the blades but also the waste and the by-products as tools. This concept is called “débitage economy” (Inizan 1980).
32The use of these concepts and methods on the study of the chipped stone industry from Uğurlu shows how rich and diversified this industry is.
Local raw materials: presence of at least one good knapper in the site
33There is some evidence of a local production of small pressure blades on jasper (Fig. 3, n° 1-2). The whole chaîne opératoire is represented. This production is very marginal. A local knapper would not have learnt to perform the pressure technique just to make a few blades in his whole life (see Binder/Perlès 1990, 265). There is only two alternatives: these blades were made by an “occasional visiting knapper” or they were made by local knappers who performed the pressure technique also on other raw materials.
34Because of their bad quality, the other local raw materials were not exploitable for skilled blade productions. The knappers made flakes by the direct percussion technique and maybe with the anvil percussion technique too. This production was very expedient and did not require any skill. Even an occasional knapper would have been able to make such flakes.
35Their scarcity indicates that Uğurlu settlers did not depend of these raw materials. They were supplied in good raw materials from more distant provenance.
Regional raw materials: different places, different products
36The débitage economy of the Gökçeada flint is structured at least in two different ways (Table 3). First, there was a production of flakes made by the direct percussion technique. Almost all the steps of the chaîne opératoire were performed in the site. Only the very beginning is little represented: the knappers probably tested the blocks and even removed some parts of the cortex near or on the outcrops, and then they bring these blocks in the site and made flakes. This production was as expedient as the flake production on local raw materials.
Fig. 3. Chipped stone industry from Uğurlu
1, 9, 10- pressure blade cores, 5- pressure blade core fragment; 2, 3, 4, 6, 8- pressure blades; 7-blade (undetermined technique). 1 and 2: local jasper; 3-6 East Gökçeada Flint; 7- White Spotted Flint; 8- Obsidian supposed from the Göllüdağ; 9- Obsidian supposed from Melos; 10- Obsidian from the Nenezi Dağı.
37This raw material was also used to make very nice pressure blades (Fig. 3, n° 3, 4, 6). The majority was made by the standing pressure mode (Pelegrin’s mode 4). Some may have been made by the lever pressure mode (Pelegrin’s mode 5)1. The use of these pressure modes indicates that the knappers were highly skilled. There are two very important questions, still unsolved today: we do not know who made these blades, and we do not know where they did it. For the moment, the presence of a few cores for small blades indicates that at least some of them were made in the site (Fig. 3, n° 5). However, there are little evidence that the largest blades were made here too. We cannot exclude that the blades made by the standing and the lever pressure technique were produced elsewhere, for example on or near the flint outcrops. To solve this question, we have to excavate more and in a larger area just to be sure that the knapping activity was not performed in another part of the village. Nevertheless, it indicates the presence of very skilled knappers at least in the Gökçeada region from the beginning of the Neolithic. These knappers were not necessarily inhabitants of Uğurlu.
Table 3. East Gökçeada flint, technical categories
Exogenous raw materials: a few artefacts transmitted through sporadic contacts
38The chaînes opératoires on the exogenous raw materials are even more incomplete than those for the Gökçeada flint blades.
Obsidian from Cappadocia: a very weak Anatolian connection
39The Nenezi Dağı is one of the obsidian outcrops of Cappadocia, about 800 km from the site. There is only one artefact in this raw material in the site. Curiously, it is a small blade core for small pressure blades (Fig. 3, n° 10). Some parts of the surface were polished, which is completely unusual. Because of its provenance and because of the polished surfaces, this artefact should not be considered as a potential reserve of blanks for the everyday toolkit. Its use remains undetermined.
40There are nine very small pressure blades or fragments of blades from the Göllüdağ (Fig. 3, n° 8). For the moment, there is no indication that they were made in the site; they may have been introduced very occasionally as blanks.
Obsidian from Melos: on the edge of the Aegean networks
41Even if obsidian from Melos is a little bit more frequent (at least 43 blades, 15 flakes/debris, one blade core, Fig. 3, n° 9), it is extremely rare and indicates exceptional, perhaps irregular, contacts with people who had some obsidian chipped stones to share.
42The inhabitants of Uğurlu received some small obsidian blade cores from Melos.
43The cores and the pressure blades are comparable to those found in Greece (see Perlès 1990; Perlès 2004, 17). Their width is about 9.4 mm in average.
44One of the blade is coming from the last stage of the production when the core was already very small. All the flakes are very small, only one bears natural surface on its upper face. There is no crested blade, only two undercrested blades and only one lateral blade. Consequently, the cores were probably prepared in Melos. If we consider the scarcity of the obsidian blades in the site, it is probable that the first and central stages of the blade production occurred between Melos and Gökçeada. When they arrived in the island, the cores were already largely processed. This suggests that there were several steps between Melos and Gökçeada. The final step of the production was made in Uğurlu.
45Two short fragments of pressure blade are a larger (17.5 and 18 mm). They were not made by the same pressure mode (mode 3 or 4 instead of mode 2 or 1), and were probably introduced as blanks.
“Karanovo blades”: contacts with the North?
46Whatever phase considered, white spotted flint artefacts are very rare in the site. For the Neolithic phases, all the 23 artefacts are regular blades, and most are fragments with a deep retouch (Fig. 3, n° 7).
47At least some were made by the indirect percussion technique, we cannot exclude that some were made by the pressure technique. All correspond to the production of skilled knappers.
48The presence of these blades indicates that the Neolithic community had occasional contacts with northern regions. The date of appearance of such blades in the site is not clear yet but they are probably absent of the beginning of the occupation.
A Neolithic community very well integrated in its region but quite isolated from more distant areas
Uğurlu was connected to distant regions
49Uğurlu was integrated to several distinct networks devoted to the distribution of chipped stones made by specialists. Following Perlès (2001, 208 n. 19), a specialist is a knapper who produces not only for his own needs or the needs of his community but also for other communities. His production is distributed by himself through his moves or through networks that can be structured in many different ways (Renfrew 1977; 1984).
50Uğurlu was first connected with far-eastern regions. The distribution network for Cappadocian obsidian (Göllüdağ and Nenezi Dağı) is the most spectacular one because the outcrops are about 800 km apart from the site. For this period, Uğurlu is one of the farthest sites from the source where we find this raw material. Second, the site had contacts with southern regions. Melos obsidian outcrops are about 400 km from the site. Third, the site had contacts with the north. The 23 blades in white spotted flint are most probably coming from outcrops situated in Bulgaria or Greek Thrace. The distance from Uğurlu was more than 100 km.
51However, we cannot conclude that Uğurlu was very well integrated in long distance networks at the beginning of the Neolithic, because this conclusion would overstate the reality. As we stated above, obsidian artefacts and white spotted flint blades are extremely rare. Even if we consider that we know only a minor part of all the chipped stones that circulated during Prehistory, it is not sure that artefacts in these raw materials reach the site each year.
Regional connections were far more important than more distant ones
52The contrast with the importance of Gökçeada flint is very strong. There was most probably a specialized network linked with the distribution of this flint, especially for the largest blades. The scarcity of evidence for the blade manufacture in Uğurlu is not the only evidence for this idea, but we can consider such productions in general. As far as we know, whatever region and period considered, blades made by the standing pressure technique and the lever pressure techniques are always made by specialized knappers (Gibaja et al. 2009; Marquet/Verjux 2012; Pelegrin 2012b among others). There are also many examples of specialized productions of pressure blades made with the other pressure modes (Perlès 1990; Astruc et al. 2007; Binder 2007 among others). There are good reasons for such a pattern. Each knapper has to learn for years to master how to make pressure blades, especially by the mode 4 and 5. Such a long apprenticeship is coherent only if he produces many blades (Binder/Perlès 1990, 265), especially if we consider other constraints such as the acquisition of the raw material. However, the demand for such blades in a small community is too low. He has to produce also to other communities. That is why such productions are specialized in the socioeconomic sense.
53We have now to establish the extension and the organization of the network devoted to the manufacture and the distribution of the blades made on the flint from the eastern part of Gökçeada Island. This would give very important information about the connections of the sites in the whole area, and consequently this would give very important information about the way farming economy appeared and was organized in this area.
Cultural implications: Uğurlu in its regional context
54So far, we considered only Uğurlu. If we have a look to the neighbouring regions during the same period (6700/6600-5700 cal. BC), we note that the site and probably the region itself show specific features and cannot be assimilate to other areas in the Aegean.
55Each region is characterized by specific networks, and thus by specific relations between the first agropastoralist communities.
Southern and Central Greece
56In Thessaly and south-eastern Greece (except Crete), the structure of the chipped stone industries is quite homogeneous. Since the beginning of the Neolithic, mobile obsidian knappers wandered this area (Perlès 1990). From Melos, they reached regions as distant as Thessaly. They produced small obsidian pressure blades that are very abundant in the sites of the whole area.
57In addition, we find large standing pressure and lever pressure blade fragments. They are made on a “honey” flint most probably coming from North-western Greece or South Albania (Perlès 2004, 9).
58As we stated above, Melos obsidian blades are extremely rare in Uğurlu. This strongly suggests that the specialized mobile knappers did not reach Gökçeada or very occasionally: if they did regularly, obsidian would be far more abundant. Another difference between Uğurlu and Central-South Greece is the complete absence of lever pressure blade made on a “honey” flint in the Turkish site.
Central-Western Anatolia
59Perlès and her colleagues mentioned the presence of mobile knappers also in the Central-Western part of Anatolia (Perlès et al. 2011). Like in Greece, they were specialized in the production of small pressure blades in Melian obsidian. Nevertheless, in this region the structure of the network is far less clear than in the western part of Aegean. First, there are sites where obsidian is very rare: for instance, this raw material represents no more than 1 % of the chipped stone industry of Ulucak (Milić 2014). Conversely, some sites like Yeşilova, Dedecik and Çukuriçi show very distinct features: Melos obsidian is abundant there meanwhile obsidian from Cappadocia is marginal. In Çukuriçi, about 80 % of the chipped stone industry is made on Melian obsidian and consists on pressure blades, including some by the standing pressure and even the lever pressure modes (Horejs et al. 2015). We still have very few information about the distribution of these large blades. Furthermore, in the same site, we find standing pressure and lever pressure blades made on a flint supposed to be local. This strongly suggests that there were specialists in the site able to perform each mode of the pressure technique (Horejs 2016, 155). We have no information about the distribution of the flint blades neither. In Uğurlu, there is no lever pressure blade in obsidian and only two obsidian blade fragments maybe made by the short crutch (mode 3) or the standing pressure mode (mode 4) of the pressure technique. There is no blade in the Çukuriçi flint.
South Marmara
60Like in Uğurlu, in the south of Marmara Sea, obsidian from Melos and from Cappadocia is very rare, even if the latter is more abundant than in Aegean (Milić 2014). There are also some pressure blades made on flint. Some were made by the standing pressure technique (Balcı 2011), and maybe some by the lever pressure technique (Pelegrin, personal com.; Perlès, personal com.).
61However, as far as I know, these blades are made on varieties of flint different from the flint used for the manufacture of the blades of Uğurlu. This suggests the existence of unknown network(s) devoted to the distribution of standing and lever pressure blades at least in the south of the Marmara Sea.
Thrace and Macedonia
62Up to now, we find no evidence of the standing pressure and the lever pressure technique in Thrace and Macedonia. Obsidian blades are extremely rare and concentrated in Greek Thrace and Eastern Macedonia. In the whole region, especially in Bulgaria from the beginning of the Karanovo culture (ca 6100 cal. BC), the farming communities received white spotted flint blades made at least partly by indirect percussion by specialized knappers. In some sites, like Karanovo, these blades are extremely numerous, far more than in Uğurlu (Gatsov/Nedelcheva 2009; Guilbeau/Erdoğu 2011; Gurova/Bonsall 2014).
Conclusion: a first (and rich) glimpse on complex processes through the technological approach
63The technological approach with the use of different concepts showed us that during the first millennia of its occupation by Neolithic people Aegean was fragmented in several networks linked with the distribution of pressure blades made by skilled specialists. They were made on different raw materials, their dimension (and thus their technique), the organization of the production and the extension of these networks vary from a raw material to another and sometime may vary for the same raw material from a region to another. This is coherent with the current hypothesis about the variety of processes (and people) involved in the development of the farming economy in this area (Perlès 2015; Horejs 2016; Özdoğan 2011; 2014; 2015). However, this description is very general. Many questions remain. We need now to have a closer look to this long period. For example, in Uğurlu the global homogeneity of the chipped stone industry should not hide some variations through time. Moreover, some questions are still unsolved; the most important one is the precise chronology and the organization of each network.
64Once again the technological approach, the chaîne opératoire concept, the débitage and raw materials economy concepts will be crucial to understand when these specialists arrived, when (and how) the networks between the first farming communities were organized and finally how the farming economy was developed in this region.
Bibliographie
Astruc, L. / Gratuze, B. / Pelegrin, J. / Akkermans, P., “From production to use: a parcel of obsidian bladelets at Sabi Abyad II”, in L. Astruc / D. Binder / F. Briois (éds.), Systèmes techniques et communautés du Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient, Actes du 5e colloque international, Fréjus, 2004, Antibes, 2007, 327-341.
Arbuckle, B.S. / Whitcher Kansa, S. / Kansa, E. / Orton, D. / Çakırlar, C. / Gourichon, L. / Atıcı, L. / Galik, A. / Marciniak, A. / Mulville, J. / Buitenhuis, H. / Carruthers, D. / De Cupere, B. / Demirergi, A. / Frame, S. / Helmer, D. / Martin, L. / Peters, J. / Pöllath, N. / Pawłowska, K. / Russell, N. / Twyss, K. / Würtenberger, D., “Data Sharing Reveals Complexity in the Westward Spread of Domestic Animals across Neolithic Turkey”, PLOS One 9-6, 2014, 1-11.
Balcı, S., “The Chipped Stone Industry of Aktopraklık C (Bursa). Preliminary Results”, Anatolia Antiqua 19, 2011, 1-11.
Binder, D., “PPN Pressure Technology: Views from Anatolia”, in L. Astruc / D. Binder / F. Briois (éds.), Systèmes techniques et communautés du Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient, Actes du 5e colloque international, Fréjus, 2004, Antibes, 2007, 235-243.
Binder, D. / Perlès, C.,“Stratégies de gestion des outillages lithiques au néolithique”, Paléo 2, 1990, 257-283.
Brami, M.N., “A graphical simulation of the 2000-year lag in Neolithic occupation between Central Anatolia and the Aegean basin”, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2014, doi:10.1007/s12520-014-0193-4.
Brami, M. / Zanotti, A., “Modelling the initial expansion of the Neolithic out of Anatolia”, Documenta Praehistorica XLII, 2015, 103-116.
Budd, C. / Lillie, M. / Alpaslan-Roodenberg, S. / Karul, N. / Pinhasi, R., “Stable isotope analysis of Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations from Aktopraklık, northern Anatolia”, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2013, 860-867.
Çilingiroğlu, Ç., “The Appearance of Impressed Pottery in the Neolithic Aegean and its Implications for Maritime Networks in the Eastern Mediterranean”, TÜBA – AR 13, 2010, 9-22.
Çilingiroğlu, Ç., “Impressed Pottery as a Proxy for Connectivity in the Neolithic Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean”, in B.P.C. Molloy (éd.), Of Odysseys and oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 10, Oxford, 2016, 75-96.
Colledge, S. / Conolly, J. / Shennan, S., “Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean”, Current Anthropology 45s, 2004, 35-58.
Conolly, J., “The knapped stone technology of the first occupants at Knossos”, in V. Isaakidou / P. Tomkins (éds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in context, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8, 2008, 73-89.
Crabtree, D.E., “Mesoamerican polyhedral cores and prismatic blades”, American Antiquity 33-4, 1968, 446-478.
Efstratiou, N. / Fumanal, M.P. / Ferrer, C. / Urem Kotsos, D. / Curci, A. / Tagliacozzo, A. / Stratouli, G. / Valamoti, S.M. / Ntinou, M. / Badal, E. / Madella, M. / Skourtopoulou, K., “Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Makri, Thrace, Greece (1988-1996) – A preliminary report”, Saguntum 31, 1998, 11-62.
Efstratiou, N. / Karetsou, A. / Banou, E.S. / Margomenou, D., “The Neolithic settlement of Knossos: new light on an old picture”, in G. Cadogan / E. Hatzaki / A. Vasilakis (éds.), Knossos: Palace, City, State, British School at Athens Studies 12, Londres, 2004, 39-49.
Efstratiou, N. / Biagi, P. / Starnini, E., “The Epipalaeolithic Site of Ouriakos on the Island of Lemnos and its Place in the Late Pleistocene Peopling of the East Mediterranean Region”, Adalya XVII, 2014, 1-23.
Erdoğu, B., “A preliminary report from the 2009 and 2010 field seasons at Uğurlu on the island of Gökçeada”, Anatolica 37, 2011, 45-65.
Erdoğu, B., “Uğurlu. A Neolithic Settlement on the Aegean Island of Gökçeada”, in M. Özdoğan / N. Başgelen / P. Kuniholm (éds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, vol. 5 - Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, Istanbul, 2013, 1-33.
Erdoğu, B., “Gökçeada Uğurlu Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report from the 2011-2013 Field Seasons”, Anatolica 40, 2014, 157-178.
Erdoğu, B., “The Neolithic landscape and settlement of the Island of Gökçeada (Imbros, Turkey)”, in M. Ghilardi (dir.), Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée. Geoarchaeology of the Mediterranean Islands, Paris, 2016, 89-94.
Erdoğu, B. / Çevik, Ö., “Batı anadolu kronolojisi terminolojisi: sorunlar ve öneriler”, Anadolu Prehistorya Araştırmaları Dergisi 1, 2015, 29-45.
Gatsov, I. / Nedelcheva, P., “Lithic Production of the Earliest Neolithic on the Territory of Bulgaria”, in I. Gatsov / Y. Boyadzhiev (éds.), The First Neolithic Sites in Central-South-East European Transect. Volume I – Early Neolithic Sites on the Territory of Bulgaria, BAR International Series 2048, Oxford, 2009, 45-55.
Gibaja, J.F. / Terradas, X. / Palomo, A. / Clop, X., Les grans fulles de sílex. Europa al final de la Prehistòria. Actes, Barcelona, 9 i 10 de juny del 2008, Monografies 13, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya, Barcelone, 2009.
Guilbeau, D. / Erdoğu, B., “Des ‘lames de Karanovo’ dans le site néolithique d’Uğurlu (île de Gökçeada, Turquie)”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 135, 2011, 1-19.
Gurova, M., “‘Balkan Flint’ – fiction and/or trajectory to Neolithization: Evidence from Bulgaria”, Be-JA – Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 1, 2012, 15-49.
Gurova, M. / Bonsall, C., “Lithic studies: an alternative approach to Neolithization”, Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 4, 2014, 107-135.
Harmankaya, S. / Erdoğu, B., “Prehistoric survey at Gökçeada, Turkey in 1999”, University of Durham and Newcastle Upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1999/2000 23, 2001, 28-35.
Hofmanová, Z. / Kreutzer, S. / Hellenthal, G. / Sell, C. / Diekmann, Y. / Díez-de-Molino, D. / Van Dorp, L. / López, S. / Kousathanas, A. / Link, V. / Kirsanow, K. / Cassidy, L.M. / Martiniano, R. / Strobel, M. / Scheu, A. / Kotsakis, K. / Halstead, P. / Triantaphyllou, S. / Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. / Urem-Kotsou, D. / Ziota, C. / Adaktylou, F. / Gopalan, S. / Bobo, D.M. / Winkelbach, L. / Blöcher, J. / Unterländer, M. / Leuenberger, C. / Çilingiroğlu, Ç. / Horejs, B. / Gerritsen, F. / Shennan, S.J. / Bradley, D.G. / Currat, M. / Veeramah, K.R. / Wegmann, D. / Thomas, M.G. / Papageorgopoulou, C. / Burger, J., “Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523951113.
Horejs, B., “Aspects of Connectivity on the centre of the Anatolian Aegean coast in the 7th millennium BC”, in B.P.C. Molloy (éd.), Of Odysseys and oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 10, Oxford, 2016, 143-167.
Horejs, B. / Milić, B. / Ostmann, F. / Thanheiser, U. / Weninger, B. / Galik, A., “The Aegean in the Early 7th Millennium BC: Maritime Networks and Colonization”, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289-330.
Inizan, M.-L., “Séries anciennes et économie du débitage”, in Préhistoire et technologie lithique, 11-13 mai 1979, Publications de l’URA 28, Cahier 1 du CRA, Paris, 1980, 28-30.
Inizan, M.-L. / Reduron-Ballinger, M. / Roche, H. / Tixier, J., translated by Féblot-Augustins, J., Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone, Nanterre, 1999.
Karul, N. / Avcı, M.B., “Neolithic Communities in The Eastern Marmara Regions: Aktopraklık C”, Anatolica 37, 2011, 1-15.
King, R.J. / Özcan, S.S. / Carter, T. / Kalfoğlu, E. / Atasoy, S. / Triantaphyllidis, C. / Kouvatsi, A. / Lin, A. / Chow, C.-E.T. / Zhivotovsky, L.A. / Michalodimitrakis, M. / Underhill, P.A., “Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic”, Annals of Human Genitics 72, 2008, 205-214.
Kotsakis, K., “Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece. Continuity, discontinuity or change of course?”, Documenta Praehistorica 28, 2001, 63-73.
Kotsakis, K., “Domesticating the periphery. New research into the Neolithic of Greece”, Pharos 20-1, 2014, 41-73.
Lebrun, A., “La colonisation d’une île : Chypre, état de la question”, in P. Rouillard (éd.), Portraits de migrants, Portrait de colons I, Colloques de la Maison René-Ginouvès 5, Paris, 2009, 43-51.
Marquet, J.-C. / Verjux, C. (éds.), L’Europe, déjà, à la fin des temps préhistoriques. Des grandes lames en silex dans toute l’Europe, Actes de la table-ronde internationale, Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France), vendredi 7 septembre 2007, 38e Supplément à la Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France, Archea/FERACF, Tours, 2012.
Milić, M., “PXRF characterisation of obsidian from Central Anatolia, the Aegean and Central Europe”, Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 2014, 285-296.
Özbek, O., “Trakya’da Neolitik Dönemde Farklı Kayaçların Kullanımı: Öncül Gözlemler”, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, Ankara, 2011, 459-480.
Özdoğan, E., “Current Research and New Evidence for the Neolithization Process in Western Turkey”, European Journal of Archaeology 18-1, 2015, 33-59.
Özdoğan, M., “Archaeological Evidence on the Westward Expansion of Farming Communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans”, Current Anthropology 52-4, 2011, 415-430.
Özdoğan, M., “A new look at the introduction of the Neolithic way of life in Southeastern Europe. Changing paradigms of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life”, Documenta Praehistorica XLI, 2014, 33-49.
Paschou, P. / Drineas, P. / Yannaki, E. / Razou, A. / Kanaki, K. / Tsetsos, F. / Padmanabhuni, S.S. / Michalodimitrakis, M. / Renda, M.C. / Pavolovic, S. / Anagnostopoulos, A. / Stamatoyannopoulos, J.A. / Kidd, K.K. / Stamatoyannopoulos, G., “Maritime route of colonization of Europe”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2014, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320811111.
Pelegrin, J., “Prehistoric Lithic Technology: Some aspects of research”, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9-1, 1990, 116-125.
Pelegrin, J., “Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire : critères de diagnose et quelques réflexions”, in B. Valentin / P. Bodu / M. Christensen (éds.), L’Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciaire, Actes de la table ronde internationale de Nemours, 14, 15, 16/05/1997, Mémoires du musée de Préhistoire d’Île-de-France 7, Nemours, 2000, 73-86.
Pelegrin, J., “Long blade technology in the old world: an experimental approach and some archaeological results”, in J. Apel / K. Knutsson (éds.), Skilled production and social reproduction – aspects of traditional stone-tool technologies, Uppasala, 2006, 37-68.
Pelegrin, J., “Chapter 18 – New Experimental Observations for the Characterization of Pressure Blade Production Techniques”, in P.M. Desrosiers (éd.), The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making. From Origin to Modern Experimentation, New York, 2012a, 465-500.
Pelegrin, J., “Conférence inaugurale. Grandes lames de l’Europe néolithique et alentour”, in J.-C. Marquet / C. Verjux (éds.), L’Europe, déjà, à la fin des temps préhistoriques. Des grandes lames en silex dans toute l’Europe, Actes de la table-ronde internationale, Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France), vendredi 7 septembre 2007, 38e Supplément à la Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France, Archea/FERACF, Tours, 2012b, 15-41.
Pelegrin, J. / Karlin, C. / Bodu, P., “Chaînes opératoires : un outil pour le préhistorien”, in J. Tixier (éd.), Technologie préhistorique n. 25, Paris, 1988, 55-62.
Perlès, C., “Économie de la matière première et économie du débitage : deux exemples grecs”, in Préhistoire et technologie lithique, 11-13 mai 1979, Publications de l’URA 28, Cahier 1 du CRA, Paris, 1980, 37-41.
Perlès, C., “L’outillage de pierre taillée néolithique en Grèce : approvisionnement et exploitation des matières premières”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 114, 1990, 1-42.
Perlès, C., The Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge, 2001.
Perlès, C., “The Mesolithic at Franchthi: an overview of the data and problems”, in N. Galanidou / C. Perlès (éds.), The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives, Studies 10, British School at Athens, Londres, 2003a, 79-87.
Perlès, C., “An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neolithisation in Greece”, Documenta Praehistorica 30, 2003b, 99-113.
Perlès, C., “Le rôle du Proche-Orient dans la néolithisation de la Grèce”, in B. Vandermeersch (éd.), Échanges et diffusion dans la préhistoire méditerranéenne, Actes des congrès nationaux des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, 121e, Nice, 1996, Paris, 2003c, 91-104.
Perlès, C., Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce), Tome III, Du Néolithique ancien au Néolithique final, Bloomington / Indianapolis, 2004.
Perlès, C., “Grèce et Balkans : deux voies de pénétration distinctes du Néolithique en Europe ?”, in J.-P. Demoule (éd.), La révolution néolithique dans le monde, Paris, 2010, 263-281.
Perlès, C., “Neolithic Anatolia as seen from the West”, in M. Özdoğan / N. Başgelen / P. Kuniholm (éds.), The Neolithic in Turkey 6. 10500-5200 BC. Environment, settlement, Flora, Fauna, dating, symbols of belief, with views from North, South, East and West, Istanbul, 2015, 403-432.
Perlès, C. / Takaoğlu, T. / Gratuze, B., “Melian obsidian in NW Turkey: Evidence for early Neolithic trade”, Journal of Field Archaeology 36-1, 2011, 44-52.
Perlès, C. / Quilès, A. / Valladas, H., “Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece)”, Antiquity 87, 2013, 1001-1015.
Reingruber, A., “Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean”, Documenta Praehistorica 38, 2011, 291-305.
Reingruber, A., “Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The radiocarbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean”, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 147-158.
Reingruber, A. / Thissen, L., “Depending on 14C Data: Chronological Frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe”, Radiocarbon 51-2, 2009, 751-770.
Renfrew, C., “Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution”, in T.K. Earle / J.E. Ericson (éds.), Exchange systems in prehistory, New York, 1977, 71-90.
Renfrew, C., “Trade as action at distance”, in C. Renfrew (éd.), Approaches to social archaeology, Cambridge, 1984, 86-134.
Roodenberg, J., “Investigations at Menteşe Höyük in the Yenişehir Basin (1996-97)”, Anatolica 25, 1999, 21-36.
Roodenberg, J. / Van As, A. / Jacobs, L. / Wijnen, M.-H., “Early Settlement in the Plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia). The Basal Occupation Layers at Menteşe”, Anatolica 29, 2003, 17-59.
Sampson, A., Mesolithic Greece 9000-6500 BC. Palaeoenvironment, Palaeoeconomy, Technology, Athènes, 2010.
Sampson, A., “The Mesolithic of the Aegean Basin”, in C. Manen / T. Perrin / J. Guilaine (éds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque Transitions en Méditerranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs, Toulouse, 14-15 avril 2011, Arles, 2014, 189-207.
Sampson, A. / Kozłowski, J.K. / Kaczanowska, M. / Budek, A. / Nadachowski, A. / Tomek, T. / Miękina, B., “Sarakenos Cave in Boeotia, from Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age”, Eurasian Prehistory 6-1-2, 2009, 199-231.
Scheu, A. / Powell, A. / Bollongino, R. / Vigne, J.-D. / Tresset, A. / Çakırlar, C. / Benecke, N. / Burger, J., “The genetic prehistory of domesticated cattle from their origin to the spread across Europe”, BMC Genetics 16-54, 2015, 1-11.
Séfériadès, M., “Complexity of the processes of Neolithization: Tradition and modernity of the Aegean world at the dawn of the Holocene period (11–9 kyr)”, Quaternary International 167-168, 2007, 177-185.
Soressi, M. / Geneste, J.-M., “The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to Lithic Analysis: Studying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutionary Perspective”, in G.B. Tostevin (éd.), Reduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire and Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis, PaleoAnthropology, Special Issue, 2011, 334-350.
Takaoğlu, T. / Özdemir, A., “Çoşkuntepe. A Neolithic Village in the Coastal Troad”, in Özdoğan M. / Başgelen, N. / Kuniholm, P. (éds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations & New Research, Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, Istanbul, 2013, 35-43.
Thissen, L., “Coming to grips with the Aegean in Prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework, 10.000-5500 cal. BC”, in C. Lichter (éd.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium calBC, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20-22 May 2004, Istanbul, 2005, 29-40.
Tixier, J. (éd.), Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 2, économie du débitage laminaire, IIIème table ronde de technologie lithique (Meudon-Bellevue, octobre 1982), Paris, 1984.
Willcox, G., “Les premiers indices de la culture des céréales au Proche-Orient”, in C. Manen / T. Perrin / J. Guilaine (éds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée, Actes du colloque Transitions en Méditerranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs, Toulouse, 14-15 avril 2011, Arles, 2014, 47-58.
Notes de bas de page
1Pressure blade in the earliest phase may be smaller than in the later phases.
Auteur
-
Denis Guilbeau
Univ Paris Nanterre, CNRS, univ Paris Lumières, UMR7055 Préhistoire et Technologie, Nanterre, F-92000
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Mort dans la ville
Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra-muros en Anatolie, du début de l'Age du Bronze à l'époque romaine
Olivier Henry (dir.)
2013
La Cappadoce méridionale de la Préhistoire à l'époque byzantine
3e Rencontres d'archéologie de IFEA, Istanbul 8-9 novembre 2012
Aksel Tibet, Olivier Henry et Dominique Beyer (dir.)
2012
Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday
5e Rencontres d'archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 21-22 novembre 2014
Alice Mouton (dir.)
2017
Merging Techniques & Cultures: Technological Approaches in Archaeology
6e Rencontres d'archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 24-25 novembre 2015
Martin Godon (dir.)
2018
Karia Arkhaia. La Carie, des origines à la période pré-hékatomnide
4e Rencontres d'archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 14-16 novembre 2013
Olivier Henry et Koray Konuk (éd.)
2019
Le Mort dans la ville
Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra-muros en Anatolie, du début de l'Age du Bronze à l'époque romaine
Olivier Henry (dir.)
2013
La Cappadoce méridionale de la Préhistoire à l'époque byzantine
3e Rencontres d'archéologie de IFEA, Istanbul 8-9 novembre 2012
Aksel Tibet, Olivier Henry et Dominique Beyer (dir.)
2012
Hittitology today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday
5e Rencontres d'archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 21-22 novembre 2014
Alice Mouton (dir.)
2017
Merging Techniques & Cultures: Technological Approaches in Archaeology
6e Rencontres d'archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 24-25 novembre 2015
Martin Godon (dir.)
2018
Karia Arkhaia. La Carie, des origines à la période pré-hékatomnide
4e Rencontres d'archéologie de l'IFEA, Istanbul 14-16 novembre 2013
Olivier Henry et Koray Konuk (éd.)
2019
