8. Salt in prehistoric Central Anatolia
p. 163-173
Résumés
This paper presents preliminary results on the Central Anatolian Salt Project, which was initiated in 2003. The largest salt lake (Tuz Gölü) is located in Central Anatolia, and archaeological evidence shows that the area around Tuz Gölü was settled since the Palaeolithic period. In Central Anatolia, the earliest archaeological evidence for using salt comes from the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük. The Central Anatolian salt was also mentioned in Hittites cuneiform tablets and ancient writings. Our short-term ethnographic research shows only one traditional mechanism of salt extraction technique; the breaking up of the salt crust with iron tools and processing it into powder with the aid of grinding stones. Salt was used in the leather industry and preserving food in the region. The potters around the Salt Lake region also mix salt into the clay when making pottery. Our archaeological survey was conducted in the southern part of the lake with the aim of finding and investigating potential salt exploitation sites. Some kind of activity areas probably related to prehistoric salt exploitation was found near the Salt Lake.
Cet article présente les résultats préliminaires du projet « Le sel en Anatolie centrale », qui a débuté en 2003. Le lac salé le plus important (Tuz Gölü) est situé en Anatolie centrale, et les indices archéologiques permettent de montrer que la région autour du Tuz Gölü a été occupée depuis le Paléolithique. En Anatolie centrale, les plus anciens témoins archéologiques d’utilisation du sel ont été identifiés sur le site néolithique de Çatalhöyük. Le sel d’Anatolie centrale était également signalé sur les tablettes cunéiformes des Hittites et autres textes anciens. Une brève enquête ethnographique ne permet de rendre compte que d’une seule technique traditionnelle d’exploitation du sel ; l’extraction de la croûte salée avec des outils de fer, le sel étant ensuite mis en poudre à la meule. Dans la région, le sel était utilisé dans l’industrie du cuir et également pour la conservation des aliments. Quand ils préparaient leur terre, les potiers de la région du Lac Salé avaient également l’habitude d’ajouter du sel à l’argile. Notre prospection archéologique a porté sur la région au sud du lac, pour trouver et documenter des sites potentiels d’exploitation du sel. Quelques zones d’activités probablement liées à la production préhistorique de sel ont été découvertes près du Lac Salé.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Tuz Gölü, Anatolie centrale, exploitation préhistorique du sel
Keywords : Tuz Gölü, Central Anatolia, Prehistoric Salt Exploitation
Texte intégral
1The Central Anatolian region is a vast high plateau broken by mountain ranges, some being volcanoes. The land is mostly rolling steppe good for growing wheat and grazing sheep. It was an attractive region for past communities with its plentiful sources, mainly of obsidian and salt. Salt is an essential dietary item for both humans and animals. Although salt has been used from prehistoric times for flavouring, pickling, preserving and curing meat and fish and for tanning, it has also used in culturally significant or emotionally charged situations, for example, religious ritual, parturition or mortuary activity, and a variety of ceremonies involving food (e.g. Potts, 1984, p. 230-231; Kurlansky, 2002, p. 8, 202-205). It is generally accepted that increasing sedentary life would have led to interest in methods of food preservation for long periods. Domestication of animals, processing their skin and the secondary products would also have included salt. In Central Anatolia, the earliest archaeological evidence for using salt comes from the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük. Çatalhöyük consists of a pair of mound in the Konya plain. Neolithic east mound encompasses densely packed mud-brick buildings with a wealth of art and artefacts. It was dated to 7400-6000 cal. BC, Late Aceramic Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic Period (Hodder, 2006). Concentrated salt deposits were found in a number of food preparation and cooking areas and at least in one case salt deposits were found in oven rake-out with food preparation or cooking debris (Building 17, space 170 on the NE platform) along with charred plant remains (Atalay and Hastorf, 2005). However, the possibility of an earlier use of salt comes from the late Aceramic Neolithic site of Musular in Central Anatolia. Musular, dating to 7500- 6500 cal. BC is one of the small, flat satellite sites of a mound settlement of Asikli Höyük. Asikli Höyük is the yet known earliest settlement in Central Anatolia, covers the millennium before Catalhöyük. Excavations at Musular suggest that it is a non-domestic site, related with cattle hunting (Bos primigenius) and its ceremonial activities (Duru and Özbasaran, 2005). Cattlehunting was especially important for the settlement. The size and the age pattern showed that wild cattle were chosen intentionally for hunting. The large quantity of obsidian arrowheads and cutting tools support the idea of hunting and butchering where the dominance of scrapers suggests hide processing. The ongoing use wear analysis on the obsidian industry of Musular seems to support the idea of hunting, cutting and hide processing (personal communication by Dr. L. Astruc, December 2006, Istanbul). Structures at Musular lay mainly on the bedrock. Duru and Özbasaran (2005, p. 23) suggest that the flat bedrock of Musular would also have provided suitable areas for butchering and sharing of hunting animals, as well as other activities.
2With such a hypothesis of salt, being used in preserving, curing meat and tanning at Musular, the Central Anatolian Salt Project was initiated in 2003 to find out and study the early production and use of salt in Central Anatolia, where the largest salt lake (Tuz Gölü) is located. Tuz Gölü measures ca. 85 x 60 km and the water has a high salt content, up to 33 % saline, which evaporates in summer to form salt crusts some 5-30 cm in thickness (Koday, 1998-99, p. 131). Overall objectives of the Central Anatolian Salt Project are to define the use of salt, the date of its earliest use, the intensity and significance of the salt trade since prehistoric times and its significance in Central Anatolian exchange networks; interpret its social aspects, its symbolic significance in Central Anatolia
I. Prehistoric and Early Historic Sites in the Salt Lake Region
3Archaeological evidence from the Salt Lake (Tuz Gölü) region shows that the area around Tuz Gölü was settled since the Palaeolithic period (fig. 1, p. 165). Palaeolithic tools, revealing a Middle Palaeolithic industry of Mousterian tradition, were found near the eastern shore of the Tuz Gölü (Kansu, 1939; Pfannenstiel, 1941; Müller-Beck, 1960). One Palaeolithic tool, found by Müller-Beck in the same region is claimed to show Lower Palaeolithic ancestry (Müller-Beck, 1960, p. 114). There are no known Mesolithic settlements as yet in the Salt Lake region. On the other hand, Neolithic materials were found in a number of settlements such as Ilıcapınar (Mellaart, 1958; Todd, 1966, 1980), Çatal Höyük II (Omura, 1993, p. 371) and Sapmazköy (Todd, 1966, 1980; Erdogu and Kayacan, 2004). Both Mellaart (1958) and Todd (1966, p. 48) suggested that the salt trade was an explaining factor for the location of Ilicapinar which is located to the northern shore of the Bolluk (Aci Tuz) Lake. There are as yet no excavated Neolithic sites around Tuz Gölü.
Figure 1: Selected Prehistoric sites around Tuz Gölü

Legend: 1. Ilicapinar – 2. Acem Höyük – 3. Sapmakköy – 4. Karabatak – 5. Yavsanlık – 6. Han Höyük – 7. Elemenli Höyük – 8. Catal Höyük II – 9. Karakuyu II.
Source: Composed by B. Erdogu.
4Chalcolithic pottery was found only in 8 sites. An early Chalcolithic painted pottery was found in Elemenli Höyük, the eastern shore of Tuz Gölü (Todd, 1966, p. 44), while early Chalcolithic Tepecik-Çiftlik/Köşk Höyük type of decorated sherds were found in Yayla Höyük (Omura, 1993, p. 372) and Sapmazköy (Erdogu and Kayacan, 2004), east part of Tuz Gölü. Pottery from Karakuyu II, northern part of the Salt Lake shows connections with material excavated in Büyük Güllücek, North Central Anatolia. Similar pottery was also found in Kabakulak, ca. 20 km west of Tuz Gölü (Summers, 1991). In other Chalcolithic sites, Alisar Late Chalcolithic types of materials were reported.
5The Early Bronze Age is marked by an increase in settlement number; about 30 Early Bronze Age settlements have been identified. However, Omura argues that in almost all of the settlements a small number of Early Bronze age pottery has been found (Omura, 1994, 1998, 2000).
6The Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age settlements were also found around Tuz Gölü (Omura, 1998, 2000, 2001). Dating back to the 3rd millennium BC, Acem Höyük has been identified as Burushattum, one of the most important city states of Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BC (Öztan, 1997). It is a large settlement (ca. 800 x 700 m) in southern part of Tuz Gölü. The name of Burushattum was first mentioned in 3rd millennium BC tablets attributed to Sargon of Akkad. In the 2nd millennium BC, a trade route linked Central Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia with tin and textiles moving to Anatolia and silver and copper and gold traded to Northern Mesopotamia (Dercksen, 1996).
7During the Late Bronze Age, Anatolia was controlled by the Hittites. Salt in both Hittite and Luwian is always written with the Sumerogram MUN (Watkins, 1997). Many different cities which related to salt production have been mentioned in cuneiform tablets (Erkut, 1990). However, the bronze tablet of Hattuša (Boğazköy) gives important information related to Tuz Gölü. The tablet records a treaty of Tudhaliyas IV with Kuruntas, King of Tarhuntassa. Tarhuntassa was located somewhere in Central Anatolia, most probably Kızıldağ (Dinçol et al., 1999). The passage from the tablet was translated by Watkins (1997, p. 33) as follows:
And if they drive up the Hulaya river land to Great Saltlick Rock « salli lapani waniya », let them not take the saltlick rights « lapanaliyanza » away from him (Kurunta). It is (they are) given to the king of Tarhuntašša and he may (regularly) take the salt.
8Watkins (1997, p. 32) and Melchert (1993, p. 125) agree that lapan- must have the Luwian word for « saltlick ». However, salli lapani waniya was translated by Otten (1988) as « the great summer pasture and the saltlick ». It would be possible the salli lapani waniya could be « the Salt Lake » (Tuz Gölü) of Central Anatolia.
9Ancient writers also mentioned salt in Anatolia. Pliny is the most important ancient writer on salt. He gives the example of the Phrygian and Cappadocian salt lakes, of which the most important was Lake Tatta – Tuz Gölü (Historia Naturalis XXXI, XLI, 84). In modern times the annual yielded of salt from Tuz Gölü has been estimated at 300 000-380 000 cwt, sufficient by itself for the 8 million inhabitant of classical Anatolia. Tuz Gölü was also mentioned by Strabo as a natural salt pan (Geography XII, 5, 4).
II. Surveys in the Salt Lake Region
10A short-term ethnographic and archaeological survey around Tuz Gölü has been carried out within the framework of the Central Anatolian Salt Project. On the basis of interviews in the present-day villages, two traditional mechanisms of salt extraction techniques were identified (Erdogu and Fazlioglu, 2006). The first technique was the breaking up of the salt crust with iron tools and processing it into powder with the aid of grinding stones. Villagers cut the salt into blocks and later the blocks of salts were transported in leather bags to the settlements in camel caravans. In the settlements salt blocks were ground to a powder with the aid of a grinding stone using a hand mill (fig. 2, p. 167). In some villages mortars and pestles were also used for powdering salt. The second technique was to collect brine along the coast of the Lake and to store it in clay pots to allow it to evaporate. This information comes from the village of Kızılkaya, ca. 50 km south-east of Tuz Gölü (Ertuğ-Yaraş, 1997). Periodically, the grandparents of villagers put large clay vessels on donkeys and travelled to Tuz Gölü. They filled the vessels with moist salt. Natural evaporation occurred by the time they returned to their village. Later, they broke the vessels to extract salt. The people around the Tuz Gölü generally use salt in the leather industry (fig. 3, p. 168) and also preserving meat.
Figure 2: A grinding stone for salt from Ulukisla

Source: Photo B. Erdogu, July 2004.
Figure 3: Salted animal skin

Source: Photo M. Özbasaran, September 2006.
11Archaeological surveys were started in 2003 in the south-east part of Tuz Gölü in the Aksaray region and continued till 2006 (Erdogu and Kayacan, 2004; Erdogu and Fazlioglu, 2006). The aim of finding and investigating potential salt exploitation sites was designated as to understand the sites in the context of the Neolithic settlements in Central Anatolia. In the south-east part of Tuz Gölü large scale sedimentation occurred between 18 000 and 13 000 years ago and formed a wide terrace along the lake side. The sedimentation occurred in this period as a result of a change in the water level, which rose 10-30 m causing the lake to expand up to the southern edge of the basin (Kashima et al., 1998). Just before the Holocene, the water level of Tuz Gölü began to fall and the south part of the basin terraced. Archaeological sites were found on the first terrace of the lake which rose slightly above the recent salt flats. It is a low, completely flat and dry terrace almost without any vegetation.
Figure 4: Karabatak

Source: Photo B. Erdogu, July 2005.
12Among archaeological sites Karabatak is noteworthy where 13 concentrations characterized by prehistoric pottery and chipped stone industry together with some medieval pottery were found (Erdogu and Fazlioglu, 2006). Concentrations were discovered in ca. 2 km radius and the largest concentration is about 80 x 80 m in size while the smallest concentration is 20 x 20 m in size (fig. 4, p. 168). Most concentrations were situated on some kind of beach ridges. In prehistoric times probably a small lake existed in this area, which needs to be confirmed by geomorphological investigations. Survey results show that these small concentrations constitute not actual occupations but some kind of activity areas probably related to salt exploitation.
13Chipped stone implements of Karabatak constitute important groups of finds and are characteristic for dating the site. The preliminary investigations on the chipped stone industry of Karabatak have been done by Nurcan Kayacan. The raw material used in the chipped stone industry of Karabatak consists mainly of obsidian. Arrowheads or spearheads are quite numerous in the Karabatak assemblages and they can be compared with other aceramic and pottery Neolithic and the early Chalcolithic sites of Central Anatolia (e.g. Musular: Kayacan, 2003, fig. 5; Canhasan III: Ataman, 1988; Çatalhöyük: Conolly, 1999, fig. 4.1; Tepecik/Çiftlik: Biçakçi, 2001, fig. 5-6). A total of 21 arrowheads were found in seven concentrations, and they are mostly unifacially pressure retouched arrowheads (fig. 5, p. 170). Bifacially pressure retouched arrowheads with inverse retouch were also found. At least two bifacially pressure retouched arrowheads with inverse retouch limited to the proximal end of Karabatak concentration 11 show good parallels with the late Aceramic Neolithic arrowheads of Musular (Özbasaran, 2000, fig. 16: 1-2; Kayacan, 2003, fig. 5: 1-2). Similar arrowheads can also be found at the late Aceramic Neolithic sites of the Konya Plain (Baird 2002). Two broken bifacially pressure retouched arrowheads of Karabatak 11 has incised designs. Similar bifacially pressure retouched arrowhead with incised designs have been found in the late Aceramic Neolithic site of Canhasan III (Ataman, 1988), and one sample has also been found in Kaletepe workshop (personal communication by N. Balkan-Atlı, November 2006). Chipped stone implements of Karabatak suggest that salt exploitation in the region may go back to the Aceramic Neolithic period (ca. 7500 BC). However, there are as yet no excavations in Karabatak. In addition, concentrations at Karabatak yield mainly medieval and bronze age pottery. Neolithic and Chalcolithic sherds were found only in three concentrations (2, 7 and 11), and similar examples were noted at Musular, Sapmazköy and Güvercinkayasi in Central Anatolia.
14About a kilometer north of Karabatak, near the shore of the lake lies another site – Sontepe – where obsidian implements were collected from slopes of small natural hills. The majority of the obsidian artifacts are flakes and arrowheads. A shouldered broken arrowhead with a tang formed by abrupt retouch on each side shows good parallels with the Aceramic Neolithic site of Aşıklı Höyük (Balkan-Atlı et al., 2001, fig. 5: 5-8). A microlith and small round scrapers can also compared with Aceramic Neolithic sites of Central Anatolia.
Figure 5: An obsidian arrowhead from Karabatak

Source: Photo B. Erdogu, July 2005.
15Neolithic and Chalcolithic finds were also found in Yavşanlık and Has Süleyman about a few kilometers east of Karabatak. Bifacially pressure retouched arrowheads out of obsidian, pottery similar to Musular and large basalt hammerstones and pecking tools were found in a small mound of Yavşanlık (Erdogu and Fazlıoğlu, 2006).
Conclusion
16Our surface surveys around the Salt Lake and the ongoing excavations in Central Anatolia, together with the ethnographical data provide a firm ground for the investigation of salt exploitation in the region. The great number of archaeological sites in the close vicinity of the Salt Lake (the earliest dating to the Aceramic Neolithic period) and the ethnographical studies offer substantial data for the potential use of salt and its trade in prehistoric Central Anatolia. Our future aim is to start a large-scale geomorphological investigation and to excavate one of the sites potentially involved in salt production and/or trade.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Bibliography
ADSHEAD S. A. M., 1992, Salt and Civilization, New York, St. Martin’s Press.
ATALAY S. and HASTORF C. A., 2005, « Foodways at Çatalhöyük », in HODDER I. (ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 6, McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute at Ankara, Cambridge, p. 109-123.
ATAMAN K., 1988, The Chipped stone assemblage from Can Hasan III: A study in typology, technology and function, Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London, Institute of Archaeology, London.
BAIRD D., 2002, « Early Holocene settlement in Central Anatolia: problems and prospects as seen from the Konya Plain », in GERRARD F. and THISSEN L. (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, Istanbul, Ege, p. 139-152.
BALKAN-ATLı N., KAYACAN N., ÖZBASARAN M. and YILDIRIM S., 2001, « Variability in the Neolithic Arrowheads of Central Anatolia (typological, technological and chronological aspects) », in CANEVA I., LEMORINI C., ZAMPETTI D. and BIAGI P. (eds.), Beyond Tools. Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant, Berlin, Ex Orient, p. 27-43.
BIÇAKCI E., 2001, « Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyügü (Nigde) Kazısı Isiginda Orta Anadolu Tarihöncesi Kültürleri ile Ilgili Yeni Bir Degerlendirme », TÜBA-AR 4, p. 25-41.
CONOLLY J., 1999, The Çatalhöyük flint and obsidian industry, Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 787.
DERCKSEN J. G., 1996, The Old Assyrian Copper trade in Anatolia, Leiden, Nederlands Historisch-archaeologisch in Instituut te Istanbul.
DINÇOL M. A., YAKAR J., DINÇOL B. and TAFFET A., 2000, « The borders of the Appanage Kingdom of Tarhuntassa – a geographical and archaeological assessment », Anatolica XXVI, p. 1-29.
10.3406/anata.2005.1034 :DURU G. and ÖZBAŞARAN M., 2005, « A "Non-Domestic" Site in Central Anatolia », Anatolia Antiqua XIII, p. 15-28.
10.3406/anata.2004.1027 :ERDOGU B. and KAYACAN N., 2004, « Drive into the White Lake: 2003 Field Survey in the Tuz Gölü Region of Central Anatolia », Anatolia Antiqua XII, p. 217-226.
ERDOGU B. and FAZLıOGLU I., 2006, « The Central Anatolian Salt Project: A preliminary report on the 2004 and 2005 surveys », Anatolia Antiqua XIV, p. 189-203.
10.37879/belleten.1990.1 :ERKUT S., 1990, « Hititlerde Tuz ve Kullanimi », Belleten LIV, p. 1-7.
ERTUG-YARAS F., 1997, An ethnoarchaeological study of subsistence and plant gathering in Central Anatolia, Unpublished PhD thesis, The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University.
HODDER I., 2006, Çatalhöyük: The leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey’s Ancient « Town », London, Thames and Hudson.
KANSU S. A., 1939, « Türk Tarih Kurumu Prehistorik Arastirmalari », Belleten 3/9, p. 93-97.
KASHIMA K., NARUSE T. et SUGIURA K., 1998, « Sedimentary environment changes during the last 20 000 years at Aksaray area, S-E part of Lake Tuz Gölü, Central part of Turkey », Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture in Japan 10, p. 209-238.
10.3406/anata.2003.991 :KAYACAN N., 2003, « Chipped Stone Industry of the Neolithic Site of Musular (Cappadocia): Preliminary Results », Anatolia Antiqua XI, p. 1-10.
KODAY S., 1998-99, « Tuz Gölü Tuzlalari », Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Egitim Fakültesi Marmara Cografya Dergisi 2, p. 128-149.
KURLANSKY M., 2002, Salt. A World History, London, Jonathan Cape.
MELCHERT H. C., 1993, Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, Lexica Anatolica, vol. 2, Chapel Hill, N.C., Department of Linguistics.
MELLAART J., 1958, « The Neolithic obsidian industry of Ilicapinar and its relations », Istanbuler Mitteilungen 8, p. 82-92.
MÜLLER-BECK H., 1960, Neufunde aus dem Palaolithikum Anatoliens, Prähistorische Zeitschrift XVIII, p. 111-118.
OMURA S., 1993, « 1991 Yılı Iç Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları », X. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, p. 365-386.
OMURA S., 1994, « 1992 Yılında Iç Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları », XI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, p. 311-336.
OMURA S., 1998, « 1996 Yılında Iç Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları », XV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II, p. 41-50.
OMURA S., 2000, « 1998 Yılı Iç Anadolu Yüzey Araştırmaları », 17. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantisi II, p. 25-29.
OMURA S., 2001, « 1999 Yılı Iç Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları », 18. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantsı II, p. 83-88.
OTTEN H., 1988, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy. Ein Staatsvertrag Tuthalijas IV, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten, Beiheft 1, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
10.2143/ANA.26.0.2015496 :ÖZBASARAN M., 2000, « The Neolithic Site of Musular, Central Anatolia », Anatolica 26, p. 129-151.
ÖZTAN A., 1997, « Acemhöyük », Eczacıbaşı Art Dictionary, vol. 1, Istanbul, Yapi endüstri Merkezi, p. 14-15.
PFANNENSTIEL M., 1941, Die altsteinzeitlichen Kulturen Anatoliens, Berlin, Deutsche Archäologische Institute.
10.1163/156852084X00128 :POTTS D., 1984, « On Salt and Salt Gathering in Ancient Mesopotamia », Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient XXVII/III, p. 225- 271.
SUMMERS G., 1991, « Chalcolithic pottery from Kabakulak (Niğde) », Collected by I. Todd, Anatolian Studies 41, p. 125-131.
TODD I., 1966, « Surface finds from various sites: Central Anatolia », Anatolian Studies 16, p. 43-48.
TODD I., 1980, Prehistory of Central Anatolia I: Neolithic Period, Göteborg, P. Aströms.
WATKINS C., 1997, « Luvo-Hittite lapan (a)- », in DISTERHEFT D., HULD M. and GREPPION J. (eds.), Ancient Languages and Philology. Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel, Part 1, Washington, Institute for the Study of Man, p. 29-35.
Auteurs
Associated Professor of Archaeology at the University of Thrace, Turkey. His research interests include Balkan and Anatolian prehistory, landscape archaeology and settlement archaeology. He is currently involved in the Çatalhöyük Excavation Project, directed by Ian Hodder. His recent book is Prehistoric Settlements of Eastern Thrace : A Reconsideration.
Associated Professor of Archaeology at the Istanbul University, Turkey. Her research interests include early farming communities in Anatolia. She is currently the director of the Asikli Höyük Excavation Project in Central Anatolia and the Akarçay Tepe Excavation Project in Southeastern Turkey. She is also involved in the Çatalhöyük Excavation Project.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
La formation d’une opinion démocratique
Le cas du Jura, de la révolution de 1848 à la « république triomphante » (vers 1895)
Pierre Merlin
2017
Les mutations récentes du foncier et des agricultures en Europe
Gérard Chouquer et Marie-Claude Maurel (dir.)
2018
Deux frontières aux destins croisés ?
Étude interdisciplinaire et comparative des délimitations territoriales entre la France et la Suisse, entre la Bourgogne et la Franche-Comté (xive-xxie siècle)
Benjamin Castets Fontaine, Maxime Kaci, Jérôme Loiseau et al. (dir.)
2019
Un mousquetaire du journalisme : Alexandre Dumas
Sarah Mombert et Corinne Saminadayar-Perrin (dir.)
2019
Libertaire ! Essais sur l’écriture, la pensée et la vie de Joseph Déjacque (1821-1865)
Thomas Bouchet et Patrick Samzun (dir.)
2019
Les encyclopédismes en France à l'ère des révolutions (1789-1850)
Vincent Bourdeau, Jean-Luc Chappey et Julien Vincent (dir.)
2020
La petite entreprise au péril de la famille ?
L’exemple de l’Arc jurassien franco-suisse
Laurent Amiotte-Suchet, Yvan Droz et Fenneke Reysoo
2017
Une imagination républicaine, François-Vincent Raspail (1794-1878)
Jonathan Barbier et Ludovic Frobert (dir.)
2017
La désindustrialisation : une fatalité ?
Jean-Claude Daumas, Ivan Kharaba et Philippe Mioche (dir.)
2017