Worked Animal Bone of the Neolithic North Aegean 9789042945180, 9042945184

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
PREFACE
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF GRAPHS
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 59

WORKED ANIMAL BONE OF THE NEOLITHIC NORTH AEGEAN By

Jarrad W. PAUL

PEETERS 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀂

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 59

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 59

WORKED ANIMAL BONE OF THE NEOLITHIC NORTH AEGEAN By

Jarrad W. PAUL

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT. 2022

Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson and Claudia Sagona A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-4518-0 eISBN 978-90-429-4519-7 D/2022/0602/77

Copyright by Peeters Publishers © Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM BY

Peeters N.V., Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herent

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

List of Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxiii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tool Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacturing Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contribution of Worked Animal Bone Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 5 5 5 5 6 6 6

CHAPTER 2 Defining the Neolithic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neolithic Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Journey to the Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neolithic Animal Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone and Antler Osteology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brief History of Worked Bone Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodologies for Studying Worked Bone and Antler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Raw Material to Artefact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pointed Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bevelled Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 8 11 12 16 20 23 24 27 28 30 32 33 34

vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recording Worked Bone and Antler: A Brief Guide to Data Collection . . . . . . Stage 1: Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 2: Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 3: Raw Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 4: Taxonomy and Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 5: Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 6: Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 7: Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 8: Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 9: Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stage 10: Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key and Additional Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 37 41 41 41 41 42 42 44

CHAPTER 4

Key Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Aegean Island Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: North Aegean Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: North Aegean Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limenaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cave of Cyclops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agios Petros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Aegean Coastal Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: West Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: North Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dikili Tash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Makri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Thessaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sesklo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visviki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connected Inland North Aegean Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Lake Iznik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilıpınar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barcın . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Northern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sitagroi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 47 48 48 55 55 59 63 64 64 64 71 71 74 76 76 78 80 81 81 85 90 90

CONTENTS

Nea Nikomedeia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Servia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Thessaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prodromos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achilleion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theopetra Cave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Otzaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Argissa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zarkou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii 93 96 98 98 100 102 104 106 108 110

CHAPTER 5

Additional Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sites with Limited or No Published Worked Animal Bone Information . Greece: North Aegean Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: West Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Western . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Gallipoli Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Thrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Marmara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Lake Iznik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Northern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Thessaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulgaria: Southern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sites Outside the Chronological Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: West Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Northern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sites Outside the Geographic Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey: South Western . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greece: Peloponnese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Macedonia: Southern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulgaria: Southern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 112 112 114 117 117 118 120 125 126 129 131 132 133 133 133 137 137 140 141 142 143 143 145 147

CHAPTER 6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked Animal Bone Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149 150 150

viii

CONTENTS

A Regional Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Point/Awl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rounded Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bi-point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chisel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gouge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puncher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scraper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hammer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axe/Adze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wedge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous Cutting Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smoother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burnisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plaster Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous Polishing Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatula-spoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Handle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perforated Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Body Adornment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bowl/Cup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antler Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tools found exclusively at Additional Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Tool Types in the Neolithic North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . Localised Tool Types in the Neolithic North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Animal Selection and Tool Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antler as a Raw Material Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic Versus Wild: Unworked and Worked Animal Bone Collections Manufacturing Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On-site Distribution of Worked Animal Bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographical Settings: Islands, Mainland, Caves, and Mounds . . . . . .

151 152 154 154 155 156 156 157 159 160 160 160 160 160 162 162 163 164 165 166 166 167 168 168 169 169 170 172 172 173 173 174 174 179 184 185 185 188 189 191 193 193 195

CONTENTS

The Connection between Worked Bone and Other Neolithic Material Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Similarities and Differences with Worked Bone Assemblages North, South, East, and West of the North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contribution of Worked Animal Bone from the Neolithic . . . . . . . . . . . The Influence of Worked Animal Bone in the Neolithic Transition of the North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Scientific Evidence and the Role of Worked Animal Bone from the Neolithic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

199 200 204 204 206 207 208

CHAPTER 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tool Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manufacturing Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contribution of Worked Animal Bone Studies to the Neolithic North Aegean Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209 209 209 210 210 210 211 211

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

213

PREFACE

The Neolithic way of life spread across the North Aegean bringing into the alreadyestablished region an influx of new material and subsistence strategies. The extent of this process was far reaching, as people and material made their way to the fringes of the region and beyond. It was also wide ranging, incorporating many new components of material culture necessary to sustain a predominantly sedentary lifestyle. A list of challenges faced those wishing to establish a community in this rugged landscape. As raw material was scarce, these groups had to utilise immediate resources, including clay, stone, wood, and bone, to create the tools and objects needed to build a community. Bone is an important raw material source in this regard, as its durability and manageability can be utilised to create strong and versatile items. The practice of working bones into tools was not new to those arriving. However, it did flourish during the Neolithic, with the creation of tools for specific functional, symbolic, and aesthetic purposes. This study is a comparative analysis of worked animal bone assemblages across the North Aegean, undertaken to further our understanding of regional development during the Neolithic. This book is based on my 2016 PhD dissertation on the worked animal bone assemblage of Uğurlu on the North Aegean island of Gökçeada from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. While my thesis provided an in-depth analysis of one assemblage in the North Aegean, this study presents my research in recent years which explores primary data and published reports from multiple sites in Turkey, Greece, and the Balkans from the Neolithic (in this study generously placed between 7000 and 5000 BC). This review is timely considering current genetic evidence that supports a complex model of Neolithic influence in the North Aegean. This contemporary evidence also suggests that regionally similar, yet locally distinct, artefact assemblages are found within this region. It is a goal of this book to discover whether worked animal bone, an important component of the Neolithic toolkit, conforms to this regional trend. Discussion also highlights the usefulness of typological and comparative worked animal bone analysis, leading to a more nuanced comprehension of early agricultural societies in the region. I wish to thank many individuals and organisations for their support. The committees for the following awards and scholarships need to be thanked: the Australian Postgraduate Award, the Jessie Webb Scholarship, the Lizette Bentwitch Scholarship, the Graduate Research in Arts Travel Scheme (GRATS) and the GRATS Top-Up Scholarship. Without these funds, travel overseas for fieldwork and research trips would not have been possible. This research would also not have been possible without the assistance of those in Turkey and Greece. I first wish to extend my warmest gratitude to Burçin Erdoğu, who allowed me to study the worked animal bone as part of the Uğurlu Excavation Project. I also wish to thank the rest of the excavation team for their help and interest in the project. I extend my warmest appreciation to Özlem Çevik for inviting me to study the worked animal bone at Ulucak and for igniting the impetus to conduct an extensive comparative analysis.

xii

PREFACE

During this research I was fortunate to be granted access to world-class libraries and research institutions. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the British School at Athens, the American Research Institute in Turkey, the Netherlands Institute in Turkey, the American School at Athens, and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Library for their support. Completing this book would also not have been possible without the support of staff in the Classics and Archaeology Department at the University of Melbourne. Thank you Associate Professor Andrew Jamieson for your mentorship from the beginning of my time at the university and Dr Gijs Tol and Dr Tanja van Loon for your generous accommodation during the writing phase. I would also like to thank the editors of this book, Abby Robinson and Mary Emerson, for their assistance with the publication and the Trinity College library for the space to work during the edits for this book. Beyond Melbourne, a number of individuals have generously helped with my understanding of the sites and periods covered in this book. My thanks go to: Doz. Dr. Eva Alram-Stern, Dr. Jana Anvari, Dr. Christopher Arabatzis, Hazel Azeri, Dr. Rozalia Christidou, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özodğan, and Dr. Jacob Roodenberg. I would also like to extend my thanks to those at Peeters who helped in bringing this book together. I want to thank my family for their constant support as I have pursued my passion for archaeology. We grow stronger in the face of adversity. Your love is forever cherished and reciprocated. Lastly, I wish to dedicate this book to the late Emeritus Professor Antonio (Tony), and Dr Claudia, Sagona. Tony, you created the stimulus for this research project and were extremely generous with your time and vast network of colleagues. Your supervision and guidance throughout the process, as well as the numerous opportunities presented to me, will never be forgotten. Claudia, your guidance and insight is always valued, and I wish to thank you for your continued support.

LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 Fig. 1.1. Fig. 1.2.

Map of the study area (adapted from © Google Maps) . . . . . . . Chronological timeframes for Anatolia and Greece with key sites presented in text. *Earlier dates recorded. **No absolute dates recorded .

3 4

Chapter 2 Fig. 2.1. Fig. 2.2. Fig. 2.3. Fig. 2.4. Fig. 2.5. Fig. 2.6. Fig. 2.7. Fig. 2.8. Fig. 2.9. Fig. 2.10. Fig. 2.11. Fig. 2.12. Fig. 2.13.

Possible prehistoric sea lanes for the North Aegean (adapted from Papageorgiou 2008, p. 210) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cattle (Bos taurus) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheep (Ovis aries) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 57) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goat (Capra hircus) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 75) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pig (Sus domesticus) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 113) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deer (Cervidae) anatomy: 1 Fallow deer. 2 Red deer. 3 Roe deer (after Taylor Page 1962; photo © F.A. Johnston 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . Internal structure of long bone (adapted from Reece 2009, p. 190) . Antler anatomy (adapted from Elster 2001, p. 366) . . . . . . . . . Groove-and-split technique for pointed bone tool manufacture (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct percussion technique for pointed bone tool manufacture (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatula manufacturing sequence (adapted from Mărgărit 2017) . . . Spoon manufacturing sequence (adapted from Nandris 1972, p. 82) Fish hook manufacturing sequence (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 82)

15 16 17 18 18 19 21 22 29 29 31 33 33

Chapter 3 Fig. 3.1. Fig. 3.2. Fig. 3.3.

Sections of a bone tool (courtesy B. Erdoğu; illustration J. W. Paul) Worked bone shaft cross sections (courtesy B. Erdoğu; illustration J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Striation patterns on worked bone surfaces taken at ×50 and ×75 magnification (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . .

Chapter 4 Fig. 4.1.

Map of key sites in the study area: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Limenaria. 3 Cave of Cyclops. 4 Agios Petros. 5 Ulucak. 6 Dikili Tash. 7 Makri. 8 Sesklo.

38 39 40

xiv

Fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.3.

Fig. 4.4. Fig. 4.5. Fig. 4.6. Fig. 4.7. Fig. 4.8.

Fig. 4.9. Fig. 4.10. Fig. 4.11. Fig. 4.12. Fig. 4.13.

Fig. 4.14. Fig. 4.15. Fig. 4.16.

Fig. 4.17.

Fig. 4.18.

LIST OF FIGURES

9 Visviki. 10 Ilıpınar. 11 Barcın. 12 Sitagroi. 13 Nea Nikomedeia. 14 Servia. 15 Prodromos. 16 Achilleion. 17 Theopetra Cave. 18 Otzaki. 19 Argissa. 20 Zarkou (adapted from © Google Maps) . . . . . . . Uğurlu: view from Mount Doğanlı (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu pointed tools Phases VI–IV: 1 points subtypes A–H. 2 rounded point. 3 bi-point. 4 hook. 5 needle subtypes A and B. 6 pins subtypes A and B (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu cutting tools Phases VI–IV: 1 chisel. 2 gouge (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu polishing tools Phases VI–IV: 1 smoother subtypes A and B. 2 spatula subtypes A and B (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . Uğurlu other tools Phases VI–IV: 1 handle. 2 shaft. 3 preform. 4 spoon. 5 spatula-spoon (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . Worked animal bone assemblage in a box-like pit from trench P5 (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo N. Yücel; J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . Limenaria worked animal bone. 1 awls made from deer metapodials. 2 process B worked animal bone. 3 points made from splinters. 4 needles. 5 edged tools. 6 perforated objects. 7 tubular objects/ handles (adapted from Christidou 2012, pp. 264–272) . . . . . . . Cave of Cyclops Neolithic worked animal bone: 1 hooks. 2 pointed tools. 3 bi-points (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008) . . . . . Cave of Cyclops Mesolithic fish hooks (adapted from MoundreaAgrafioti 2011, p. 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agios Petros worked animal bone: pointed tools and cutting tools (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, pp. 278–279) . . . . . . . View of Ulucak Höyük and the surrounding area (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak pointed tools Phases VI–III: 1 point subtype A–H. 2 rounded point subtype A and B. 3 needle. 4 pin subtypes A and B (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak cutting tools Phases VI–III: 1 chisels. 2 puncher (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak polishing tools Phases VI–III: 1 smoother subtypes A and B. 2 spatula subtypes A and B (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . Ulucak other tools Phases VI–III: 1 perforated objects. 2 spoons. 3 spatula-spoon. 4 handle. 5 shaft. 6 preforms (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dikili Tash worked animal bone: 1 point subtype I–VI, with VIA and VIB. 2 chisel subtypes IA, IB, and III. 3 gouge subtypes IA and IB. 4 sheath (adapted from Séfériadés 1992, pls. 186–194) . . . . . . . Sesklo worked animal bone: 1 points/awls. 2 spatulas, chisels, and burnishers (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, pl. 23). . . . .

47 48

49 51 53 53 55

57 61 62 64 65

66 69 69

70

72 77

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 4.19. Fig. 4.20. Fig. 4.21. Fig. 4.22. Fig. 4.23.

Fig. 4.24.

Fig. 4.25. Fig. 4.26. Fig. 4.27.

Fig. 4.28.

Fig. 4.29. Fig. 4.30.

Fig. 4.31.

Fig. 4.32.

Visviki worked animal bone: 1 points. 2 scrapers. 3 needle. 4 fragment. 5 preform (adapted from Galik 2015, pl. 273) . . . . . . . . Ilıpınar pointed tools: 1 point subtype A. 2 point subtype B. 3 point subtype C. 4 needle (adapted from Marinelli 1995, pp. 136–137) . Ilıpınar chisels (adapted from Marinelli 1995, p. 138) . . . . . . . . Ilıpınar spatulas subtype A and B (adapted from Marinelli 1995, pp. 139–140) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilıpınar other tools: 1 spoons. 2 bone tube. 3 perforated objects. 4 pendant. 5 figurine. 6 toy (adapted from Marinelli 1995, pp. 141– 142) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barcın Höyük worked animal bone: 1 awl type A. 2 awl type B. 3 needle. 4 pin. 5 rounded point. 6 smoother. 7 chisel. 8 spatula. 9 burnisher. 10 plaster tool. 11 hook. 12 pendant. 13. perforated tool. 14 worked teeth. 15 bead. 16 ring. 17 bowl/cup (adapted from Gerritsen et al. 2013, pp. 110–111; Dekker 2014, pp. 72, 66) . . . Barcın Höyük Neolithic spoons (adapted from Erdalkıran 2015, pp. 25–36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sitagroi worked animal bone: 1 pointed tool. 2 antler object. 3 elaborate tools (adapted from Elster and Renfrew 2003, pp. 31–79). . . Nea Nikomedeia worked animal bone: 1 artefact group 1/1. 2 artefact group 1/2. 3 artefact group 3/1. 4 artefact group 1/4. 5 artefact group 1/5. 6 artefact group 3/5. 7 artefact group 4/1 and 4/2 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, pls. 11–26). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achilleion worked animal bone: 1 points/awls. 2 unshaped bone fragment. 3 objects made from rib bones and perforated polished bones (adapted from Winn and Shimabuku 1989, pp. 261–264) . . Theopetra Cave worked animal bone: 1 pointed tools. 2 spatulas. 3 needles (adapted from Stratouli 2000, pp. 324–325) . . . . . . . Otzaki worked animal bone: 1 artefact group 1/2. 2 artefact group 1/4. 3 artefact group 1/5. 4 artefact group 3/1. 5 artefact group 3/10. 6 artefact group 14. 7 artefact group 3/1. 8 artefact group 3/9 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, pls. 4–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Argissa worked animal bone: 1 artefact group 1/0. 2 artefact group 1/1. 3 artefact group 2. 4 artefact group 1/4. 5 artefact group 3/1. 6 artefact group 3/10 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, pls. 1–3) . . . Zarkou worked animal bone: 1 chisels. 2 points. No scale included in the original illustration (adapted from Becker 1991, p. 38) . . . .

Chapter 5 Fig. 5.1.

Map of additional sites in the study area: 21 Ayio Gala. 22 Emporio. 23 Ege Gübre. 24 Yeşilova. 25 Araptepe-Bekirlertepe. 26 Coşkuntepe. 27 Alibeyli. 28 Mersinli. 29 Moralı. 30 Bergama-Paşaköy. 31 Hacı

xv

79 82 83 84

84

88 89 91

94

101 104

105

107 109

xvi

Fig. 5.2. Fig. 5.3. Fig. 5.4. Fig. 5.5. Fig. 5.6. Fig. 5.7.

Fig. 5.8.

Fig. 5.9. Fig. 5.10. Fig. 5.11. Fig. 5.12. Fig. 5.13. Fig. 5.14.

LIST OF FIGURES

hüseyin. 32 Karaağaçtepe. 33 Hamaylıtarla. 34 Kaynarca. 35 Hoca Çeşme. 36 Aşaği Pınar. 37 Maya Baba. 38 Bulgar Kaynaği. 39 Toptepe. 40 Yenikapı. 41 Fikirtepe. 42 Pendik. 43 Yarımburgaz Cave. 44 Taraçcı Höyük. 45 Tuzla. 46 Aktopralık. 47 Menteşe. 48 Mavropigi. 49 Xirolimni. 50 Pontokomi. 51 Revenia. 52 Paliambela. 53 Krovili. 54 Lafrouda. 55 Polistilo. 56 Kalambaki. 57 Kaliphitos. 58 Nea Bafra. 59 Podochori. 60 Mikro Souli. 61 Krioneri. 62 Kapoutzedes. 63 Trilophos. 64 Nigrita. 65 Soufli. 66 Koutroulou. 67 Elateia. 68 Kovačevo. 69 Gülpinar. 70 Dimitra. 71 Proskinitis. 72 Paradeisos. 73 Paradimi. 74 Makriyalos. 75 Akropotamos. 76 Stavroupoli. 77 Thermi B. 78 Vassilika. 79 Çatalhöyük. 80 Tepecik-Çiftlik. 81 Mersin-Yumuktepe. 82 Köşk Höyük. 83 Aşıklı. 84 Boncuklu. 85 Khirokitia. 86 Çukuriçi. 87 Bademağacı Höyük. 88 Kuruçay Höyük. 89 Hacılar. 90 Knossos. 91 Franchthi Cave. 92 Anza. 93 Yabalkovo. 94 Karanovo (adapted from © Google Maps) . . . . . . . . . . . . Ayio Gala worked animal bone from various phases (adapted from Hood 1981, pl. 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emporio worked animal bone: 1 type 3. 2 type 5. 3 type 17. 4 type 26. 5 type 29 (adapted from Hood 1982, pls. 140, 141) . . . . . . . . Ege Gübre worked animal bone: pointed tools (adapted from Sağlamtimur 2012, p. 223) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yeşilova worked animal bone: pointed tools and antler tools including shafts and a sickle (adapted from Derin 2012, pp. 191–193) . . Hoca Çeşme worked animal bone: 1 smoothers. 2 spoons. 3 hook (adapted from M. Özdoğan 1999, pp. 203–224) . . . . . . . . . . Aşağı Pınar worked animal bone: 1 spoons and spoon handles. 2 pins. 3 festooned objects (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, pp. 241, 259– 260) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yenikapı worked animal bone and wooden items: 1 pointed tools. 2 round-ended tools. 3 bevelled-edged tools. 4 hooks. 5 spatulas. 6 spoons. 7 wooden figurine (adapted from Kızıltan and Polat 2013, pp. 152–153) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fikirtepe worked animal bone: 1 polishers. 2 harpoon. 3 spoons (adapted from M. Özdoğan 1999, p. 184) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pendik worked animal bone: 1 spoon. 2 large hook. 3 small hook (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 218) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yarımburgaz Cave: 1 pointed tools. 2 perforated tools (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 224) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mavropigi pointed tools made from splinters (adapted from KaramitrouMentesidi et al. 2015, p. 62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soufli worked animal bone hook (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, p. 139). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elateia worked animal bone: pointed tools and cutting/smoothing tools (adapted from Weinberg 1962, pl. 69e) . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 113 114 116 116 119

120

122 123 124 124 127 130 131

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 5.15. Fig. 5.16. Fig. 5.17. Fig. 5.18.

Fig. 5.19.

Fig. 5.20.

Fig. 5.21. Fig. 5.22.

Fig. 5.23. Fig. 5.24. Fig. 5.25. Fig. 5.26. Fig. 5.27. Fig. 5.28. Fig. 5.29.

Kovačevo worked animal bone: 1 spoons. 2 hooks. 3 sickle. 4 bead. 5 cutting tool (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 83; 2013, p. 176) . . . Proskinitis worked animal bone: pointed tools (adapted from Arabatzis 2013, pp. 35, 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradeisos worked animal bone: fragments (adapted from Hellström 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradimi worked animal bone: 1 pointed tools. 2 and 4 bevelled-edged tools. 3 perforated objects (adapted from Bakalakis and Sakellariou 1981, pls. 4, 10, 14, 15, 73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Çatalhöyük worked animal bone: 1 points. 2 needles. 3 ring. 4 hook. 5 pins. 6 plaster tool. 7 ornamented boar tusk collar (adapted from Russell 2005, pp. 340, 342, 343, 357; 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . Tepecik-Çiftlik worked animal bone: 1 pointed tools. 2 needles. 3 other tools (adapted from Campana and Crabtree 2018, pp. 75–83; Bıçakçı et al. 2012, p. 131) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mersin-Yumuktepe worked animal bone decorated point (adapted from Caneva 2012, p. 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Köşk Höyük worked animal bone: 1 awls and borers. 2 cutting and smoothing tools. 3 pick and special items. 4 hook. 5 ring (adapted from Öztan 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aşıklı worked animal bone points (adapted from Özbaşaran 2012, p. 155) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Çukuriçi Höyük worked animal bone points. No scale included in the original photograph (adapted from Horejs 2012, p. 130) . . . . Bademağacı Höyük worked animal bone: 1 spoons. 2 belt hook (adapted from Duru 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Franchthi Cave worked animal bone: 1 points type 1–5. 2 hooks. 3 spatula and gouge. 4 special item (adapted from Payne et al. 1973) Anza worked animal bone spatula (adapted from Gimbutas 1974b) . Yabalkovo worked animal bone: 1 awls. 2 spatulas. 3 spoons. 4 chisels. 5 hook (adapted from Leshtakov et al. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . Karanovo worked animal bone: 1 points subtype A–F. 2 awls subtype A–D and special. 3 polishing tools. 4 other tools (adapted from Höglinger 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

132 135 136

136

138

138 138

139 140 141 142 143 144 145

146

Chapter 6 Fig. 6.1.

Fig. 6.2. Fig. 6.3. Fig. 6.4.

Point/awl type (split medium-sized animal long bone) from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Cave of Cyclops. 3 Ulucak. 4 Dikili Tash. 5 Visviki. 6 Ilıpınar. 7 Barcın. 8 Nea Nikomedeia. 9 Theopetra Cave . . . . . . . . . . . Rounded point type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın . . . . . . Bi-point type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Cave of Cyclops. 3 Prodromos . . Perforated needle type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Ilıpınar. 4 Barcın. 5 Theopetra Cave. 6 Yarımburgaz Cave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

152 154 155 155

xviii Fig. 6.5.

Fig. 6.6. Fig. 6.7. Fig. 6.8. Fig. 6.9. Fig. 6.10. Fig. 6.11. Fig. 6.12. Fig. 6.13. Fig. 6.14. Fig. 6.15. Fig. 6.16. Fig. 6.17. Fig. 6.18. Fig. 6.19. Fig. 6.20. Fig. 6.21. Fig. 6.22. Fig. 6.23. Fig. 6.24. Fig. 6.25.

Fig. 6.26. Fig. 6.27. Fig. 6.28. Fig. 6.29. Fig. 6.30.

LIST OF FIGURES

Fish hook type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Cave of Cyclops. 3 Nea Nikomedeia. 4 Barcın. 5 Pendik. Larger hook type from: 6 Uğurlu. 7 Pendik. 8 Kovačevo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pin type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Sitagroi. 4 Barcın. 5 Aşaği Pınar Chisel type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Sesklo . . . . . . . . . . . Gouges from Uğurlu (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . . Puncher type from Ulucak (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . Scraper type from Visviki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hammer type from Visviki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adze type from Sesklo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous cutting tools type examples from: 1 Otzaki. 2 Argissa Smoother type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın. 4 Hoca Çeşme Spatula type distribution and examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Ilıpınar. 4 Sesklo. 5 Achilleion. 6 Yenikapı . . . . . . . . . . . . Burnisher type from: 1 Sesklo. 2 Barcın . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plaster tools from: 1 Barcın. 2 Çatalhöyük . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous polishing tools type examples from: 1 Visviki. 2 Fikirtepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spoon type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın. 4 Theopetra Cave. 5 Hoca Çeşme. 6 Aşaği Pınar. 7 Fikirtepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatula-spoon type examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Theopetra Cave. 4 Barcın. 5 Kovačevo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Handle type examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Limenaria. 4 Sitagroi. 5 Aşağı Pınar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaft type examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Dikili Tash. 4 Yeşilova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perforated Object type from: 1 Ulucak. 2 Ilıpınar. 3 Barcın. 4. Achilleion. 5 Argissa. 6 Yarımburgaz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Body adornment type including pendants made from bone at: 1 Ilıpınar. 2 Barcın; and incisors at: 3 Ulucak. 4 Ilıpınar. 5 Otzaki . . . . . . Special Items type: 1 tubes from Ilıpınar. 2 figurine from Ilıpınar. 3 figurine from Yenikapı. 4 bead from Barcın. 5 worked unperforated teeth from Barcın. 6 spindle whorl from Emporio. 7 spindle whorl from Toptepe. 8 ornamental decorative collar from Ulucak. 9 ornamental decorative collar from Çatalhöyük. 10 toy from Ilıpınar. 11 possible musical instruments from Ulucak . . . . . . . . . . . . Bowl/cup at Barcın . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ring type examples from: 1 Barcın. 2 Çatalhöyük. 3 Köşk Höyük . Antler tool examples from: 1 Sitagroi. 2 Yeşilova. 3 Yenikapı . . . . Preforms examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın. 4 Visviki . Pointed tools (1 points/awls. 2 needles. 3 pins) from Uğurlu and Ulucak (courtesy B. Erdoğu and Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . .

157 157 158 159 161 161 161 161 162 163 164 165 165 166 167 167 168 168 169 170

171 172 172 173 174 180

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 6.31.

Fig. 6.32.

Fig. 6.33. Fig. 6.34.

Points/awls from: 1 Uğurlu: subtypes A–H (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul). 2 Ulucak Höyük: subtypes A–H (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul). 3 Ilıpınar: subtypes A–C. 4 Dikili Tash: subtypes III, IV, and VII. 5 Cave of Cyclops: subtypes B and C . . . . . . . . Bone spoons from: 1 Karanovo (adapted from Höglinger 1997, pl. 71). 2 Uğurlu (courtesy B. Erdoğu; J. W. Paul). 3 Ulucak (courtesy Ö. Çevik; J. W. Paul). 4 Barcın (adapted from Gerritsen et al. 2013, p. 110). 5 Dikili Tash (adapted from Séfériadés 1992, pl. 196). 6 Aşağı Pınar (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 259). 7 Aktopralık (adapted from Karul and Avcı 2013, p. 65). 8 Fikirtepe (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2001, p. 33). 9 Yenikapı (adapted from Kızıltan and Polat 2013, p. 153). 10 Hoca Çeşme (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 241). 11 Kovačevo (adapted from Sidéra 2013, p. 176). 12 Ilıpınar (adapted from Marinelli 1995, p. 141). 13 Pendik (adapted from Özdoğan 2013, p. 218) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zigzag motif at 1 Uğurlu and 2 Ulucak (courtesy B. Erdoğu and Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Root etching on worked bone at Uğurlu (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

180

182 184 195

LIST OF GRAPHS Chapter 6 Graph 6.1. Graph 6.2. Graph 6.3.

Graph 6.4.

Distribution of point/awl lengths at Uğurlu and Ulucak, with reference to the length of subtype G points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average length, width, and thickness of pins at Uğurlu and Ulucak . Percentage of positively identified sheep/goat or sheep-sized animal bone in the Neolithic worked animal bone collections at a selection of key and additional sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of domestic versus wild unworked animal remains found at key and additional sites in the study area . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 158

187 190

LIST OF TABLES Chapter 2 Table 2.1. Table 2.2.

Neolithic focused excavations at key sites in the present study . . . . Stratouli’s worked bone and antler artefact groups (adapted from Stratouli 1998a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 25

Descriptions for base, shaft, and tip categories at Uğurlu and Ulucak ‘Surface Feel’ and ‘Surface Look’ numbering system . . . . . . . . . Division of key sites mentioned in text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Division of additional sites mentioned in text . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 40 43 45

Uğurlu points separated by phase and subtype . . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu remaining pointed tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu cutting tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu polishing tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uğurlu other tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone tools at Limenaria (adapted from Christidou 2012, p. 233). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raw material used to create worked animal bone at Limenaria (after Christidou 2012, p. 227). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone typology at Cave of Cyclops (Neolithic levels only) (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone typology at Agios Petros during the Middle/ Late Neolithic (after Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak points separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak remaining pointed tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . Ulucak cutting tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak polishing tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulucak other tools separated by phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dikili Tash worked animal bone typology (after Séfériadés 1992) . . Makri worked animal bone typology and chronological distribution (after Stratouli 1998b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sesklo worked animal bone typology (after Wijnen 1981) . . . . . . Visviki worked animal bone typology (adapted from Galik 2015) . .

50 51 52 52 54

Chapter 3 Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Chapter 4 Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Table 4.3. Table 4.4. Table 4.5. Table 4.6. Table 4.7. Table 4.8. Table 4.9. Table 4.10. Table 4.11. Table 4.12. Table 4.13. Table 4.14. Table 4.15. Table 4.16. Table 4.17. Table 4.18.

56 59 60 63 68 68 68 68 69 72 74 77 79

xxiv Table 4.19. Table 4.20. Table 4.21. Table 4.22. Table 4.23. Table 4.24. Table 4.25. Table 4.26. Table 4.27. Table 4.28. Table 4.29. Table 4.30. Table 4.31. Table 4.32. Table 4.33.

LIST OF TABLES

Ilıpınar worked bone typology and chronological distribution (adapted from Marinelli 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone typology from VId and VIe at Barcın before 2013 (adapted from Gerritsen 2013b, p. 68) . . . . . . . . . . . . Barcın worked animal bone typology from VIa–VIe recorded during the 2010–2013 excavation seasons (adapted from Dekker 2014, p. 62) Worked animal bone typology from VId and VIe at Barcın recovered in 2015 (adapted from Erdalkıran 2017, p. 242) . . . . . . . . Sitagroi worked animal bone typology Phase I (adapted from Elster 2003, pp. 53–56). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nea Nikomedeia worked animal bone typology artefact group 1 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nea Nikomedeia worked animal bone typology artefact group 3 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, Table 31b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone typology at Servia for the Neolithic (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a and 31b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone distribution by phase at Servia (adapted from Ridley et al. 2000, p. 111) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prodromos worked animal bone typology artefact group 1 (after Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prodromos worked animal bone typology artefact group 3 (after Stratouli 1998a, Table 31b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theopetra Cave worked animal bone typology (after Stratouli 2000, pp. 321–322) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone typology of Otzaki, artefact groups 1 and 3 (after Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a and 31b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worked animal bone typology at Argissa, artefact groups 1 and 3 (after Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a and 31b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle Neolithic worked animal bone typology at Zarkou (after Becker 1991, p. 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82 86 87 90 92 95 95 97 97 99 99 103 105 107 109

Chapter 6 Table 6.1. Table 6.2. Table 6.3. Table 6.4. Table 6.5.

Number and percentage of tool groups represented at a sample of key and additional sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Groups and types of worked animal bone at key sites in the Neolithic North Aegean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presence-Absence analysis of worked animal bone groups and types at key sites investigated in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of point subtypes between Uğurlu and Ulucak . . . . . Comparison of Stratouli’s artefact type group 1 (pointed tools) and 3 (transverse working-edged tools) from Neolithic levels at Nea Nikomedeia, Servia, Prodromos, Otzaki, and Argissa . . . . . . . . . . .

150 151 175 179

197

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Worked animal bone, defined as any animal bone, antler, teeth, or ivory that has been intentionally modified, were consistently constructed by prehistoric societies. The use of transformed animal bone long predates the changes in lifestyle practices experienced during the Neolithic (here covering the span of 7000–5000 BC) across the North Aegean, with individuals employing existing knowledge to support this highly adaptable raw material. The role of worked animal bone during the Neolithic was paramount and operated in conjunction with other key material—stone, wood, and clay—in the creation and maintenance of items for everyday use.1 Clothing, bags, shoes, shelter, pottery decoration, and cooking were just some items that required the utilisation of animal bone tools. Transcending physical boundaries, worked animal bone was possibly also a vital symbolic element in the Neolithic peoples’ understanding of a numinous landscape, which was negotiated through complex and multifaceted cultural practices and rituals. It should never be forgotten that the material discovered during excavations were created and used by people who had their own goals and ambitions. Investigating each step in the creation of these objects allows archaeologists to attempt to unravel the motives and purposes involved in key decision flashpoints throughout history. Context is also important in this regard, helping us understand the larger processes involved between the object and individual or group. The raw material—animal bone—is a vital element in the study of these items. In fact, it is as valuable as the tool itself. Without an understanding of the raw material, be it domestic or wild, small- or large-sized, a key piece in the operational chain that produced the final product is lost. Recent years has seen a steady increase in attention paid not only to worked animal studies but also the Neolithic period of the North Aegean and surrounding areas. The growth in popularity of worked animal bone research has grown exponentially since the turn of the millennium, resulting in two decades worth of increased results and interest. Coupled with this are the ever-emerging avenues of investigation that allow specialists to further solidify hypotheses and revaluate existing concepts and notions. Studies regarding worked animal bone are now entering an age of unrivalled attention. The Aegean region however has never been devoid of research concerning worked animal bone, with critical work from the 1980s onward providing a rich comparative collection used in generalised research.2 In particular, investigation has focused on the comparison of sites in order to establish regional typologies and identify trends and influences. These studies 1 2

 Sagona and Zimansky 2009, p. 119.  See Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981; Christidou 1999; Stratouli 1998a.

2

JARRAD W. PAUL

though are concentrated on Greece, with limited exploration of sites to the east of the region and are written in French and German. Recent research has also taken an artefactorientated approach, with an emphasis on zooarchaeological methodology combined with experimental and ethnographic sources of information.3 Though these projects provide a fascinating insight into the region, they usually focus on later periods, especially the Early Bronze Age. A few synthesis-type approaches of worked animal bone in the Anatolian northwest and western regions have attempted to feature certain general similarities between tool types and raw material selection.4 Yet this is not an exhaustive view of the record and largely disregards material from anything west of Thrace. In parallel to the development of worked animal bone studies, studies concerning the Neolithic of the North Aegean and the surrounding regions has undergone a significant boost in publications of late. In both quality and quantity, what was once considered merely to be a regional crossing point from one primary zone of interest to another—the Levant to continental Europe—has now been recognised as a highly complex zone. For instance, investigations of genetic markers from ancient samples has produced several key suggestions.5 First, North Aegean Neolithic populations had a stronger genetic affinity with pre-Neolithic populations of the Levant than those of central Anatolia. Additionally, this interaction may have involved multiple interactions over an extended timespan. Overall, this suggests Aegean societies were culturally influenced by diverse sources, including ideas and people in central Anatolia, the Levant, and possibly from local Mesolithic groups. The evidence now supports the notion that this region was multifaceted, and does not fit within a simplistic model of human migration tracing the emergence of new lifestyle practices.6 While there is no doubt that certain practices do emerge for the first time in this period (for instance, domesticated crops, domesticated animals, ceramics, and certain stone tool types), it is by no means a uniform adoption of any set package. New scientific methodology is exciting and provides much needed rigour to previous interpretations; however, the material record is still of importance for archaeologists to assess and reconstruct the narrative from past communities. A focus on material of the North Aegean during the Neolithic has been of interest to many. For example, Communities, Landscapes and Interaction (2018) is a large collection of papers which concentrates on the Neolithic of Greece, including research on migration, architecture, chipped stone, pottery, and zooarchaeology. But this publication, along with other recent additions to the research field, has neglected a key material group for this period: worked animal bone. This book aims to present information on unpublished and published worked animal bone items from the Neolithic (7000–5000 cal BC) of the North Aegean, providing a general overview of the key assemblages of the region. The combination of published and unpublished material is presented here in a compilation-type volume. This is also the first 3  Isaakidou 2017; see also Christidou 2005; Perlès 2001, pp. 237–240. In particular Christidou (2012, p. 261) suggested in 2012 that there was an “extremely limited knowledge of the bone industries produced during the 6th millennium cal BC in these areas.” 4  See Russell 2016. 5  Kılinç et al. 2017. 6  Arbuckle et al. 2014; see also Weninger et al. 2014; Brami and Heyd 2011; Çilingiroğlu 2005.

CHAPTER 1

3

English-language publication of Neolithic worked animal bone of the region, written to compliment and build upon previous research. Discussion provided in this volume results from a synthesis of collections in the region and provides valuable insight via comparative analysis. It is hoped that this resource will be used by researchers to locate reference material quickly and efficiently from the region and provide a more in-depth understanding of the material. A further goal of this volume is to inspire future specialists to populate any blank spaces, not only by contributing new information from unpublished sites, but also in the reassessment of existing collections stored in local museums. For a study of this type, it is necessary to place boundaries on the research area, as the quest to find further sites and information will greatly exceed a single volume. Geographic boundaries have therefore been put in place to focus this investigation, and are determined by geographic landscape markers (such as lakes and mountain ranges) and modern sociopolitical borders. The key sites analysed here fall within the following parameters: the eastern boundary extends to Lake Iznik in northwest Turkey, the southern boundary to the island of Chios, the western boundary to the Thessaly region, and the northern boundary runs across the topmost border of Thrace, including some sites in Bulgaria. Figure 1.1 presents a visual representation of the area under present study. The term Neolithic is used throughout to refer to a period from 7000–5000 BC, which encompasses both chronological frameworks used in Turkey and Greece. This covers the Early to Late Neolithic periods in Turkey (6850–5500 cal BC) and Greece (6500–5000 cal BC) (Fig. 1.2). It is widely acknowledged that the Chalcolithic, with its difference in material culture and introduction of copper, began in Turkey around ca. 5500 BC, occurring as

Fig. 1.1. Map of the study area (adapted from © Google Maps).

Fig. 1.2. Chronological timeframes for Anatolia and Greece with key sites presented in text. *Earlier dates recorded. **No absolute dates recorded.

4 JARRAD W. PAUL

CHAPTER 1

5

a gradual rather than sudden change.7 For the purpose of this study, worked animal bone will be investigated in detail from periods labelled from each site as Neolithic within the 2000 year time span. Additional sites that fall outside of either the geographic or temporal guidelines will be investigated separately in this volume to provide further context to the region. This comparative analysis is framed within a number of research questions. This allows for a focused approach to the investigation. The research questions here fall under several categories. Tool Typology The first questions concern the role of tool types within the region. Typology is the first fundamental step to bring order to a collection. It is also used for comparing sites and investigating ideas of frequency and distribution. What bone tool types exist in the North Aegean during the Neolithic? Are there common tool types in the region? If so, what are they? Are there localised tool types in the region? Is there a common type frequency between sites; for instance, are pointed tools the most numerous across all sites? What role does terminology play in understanding tool types and groups? Raw Material Investigating the role raw material plays is another factor in understanding how worked animal bone was viewed and used by prehistoric inhabitants. There are important questions to understand in this regard: What role do domestic animals play in worked animal bone assemblages? Are wild species reserved for certain tool types? Additionally, a vital comparative assessment relates to the connection between raw material and tool type. This leads to questioning whether people at different sites used the same raw material for the same tools? And, if so, were they using similar production sequences? Manufacturing Techniques Manufacturing sequences provide insight into tool manufacturing practices. This has been the focus of previous investigations into this region and is addressed here by asking: What manufacturing techniques are involved in the creation of certain tool types? Is this common or localised to the region? Context The geographic setting of the site is an aspect to consider: What differences are there in artefact assemblages from island sites compared to mainland sites? What role did landscape play in tool creation, if any? 7

 Sagona and Zimansky 2009, p. 124.

6

JARRAD W. PAUL

More broadly, comparisons between site assemblages present another fascinating avenue of investigation: Do bone tool collections reflect trends with other common Neolithic material cultures (stone, ceramic, and figurines)? Moreover, what are the similarities and differences with bone tool assemblages of western and central Anatolia? What are the similarities and differences between mainland Europe and Asia? Contribution of Worked Animal Bone Studies Linking the worked animal bone material group with larger questions of migration is also essential, especially when trying to understand the impact of lifestyle practices during the Neolithic. In this sense, questions include: How does the study of worked animal bone and antler assemblages contribute to broader understandings of the Neolithic transition? Is there one or various craft traditions? Does the bone tool collection in the North Aegean reflect or differ from recent genetic evidence regarding the movement of people? Future Directions Lastly, future directions are addressed to provide clear guidelines for future specialists. How should we display the data collected in this volume so others can access, learn, and build on recent evidence? This is a significant consideration for the future of this everincreasing subdiscipline.

SUMMARY The volume layout is simple in structure, with context explained before an examination of the worked animal bone from almost 100 key and additional sites across the North Aegean. Finally, important themes and concepts are presented for specialist consideration; these elucidate and underscore the significance of worked animal bone to the Neolithic communities who 8000 years ago sourced, created, maintained, and ultimately discarded these items. Worked Animal Bone of the Neolithic North Aegean thus presents a rich material record distributed throughout a connected prehistoric land. A geographic and cultural crossroad, this region is defined by its natural boundaries, most notably for those living on the islands dotted across the sea. The period itself may also be considered a temporal boundary, marking a gradual transition of lifestyle practices which included the emergence of agriculture coupled with clear indicators of domestication, such as food, living spaces, and animals. This book draws on previous research efforts and provides a much-needed update for worked animal bone material in the region; a material that was integral to burgeoning and established communities scattered around islands and coastal areas of the North Aegean during the Neolithic.

CHAPTER 2 DEFINING THE NEOLITHIC The Neolithic is a loaded term with a long history. The label is used as a shorthand for a multitude of connected concepts, advancements, and lifestyle changes that occurred over a long process. The Neolithic of the North Aegean is no different, with its own set of key indicators which define the innovative practices of the time. The word Neolithic was first used in Sir John Lubbock’s 1865 collected essay’s Pre-historic Times.1 Here he defined it as the later Stone Age, exemplified through new stone tool types. Others in the early 20th century began to shape the term to define individual regions, but it was not until V. G. Childe’s Man Makes Himself in 1936 that a new meaning emerged.2 Childe saw the Neolithic as a revolution that encompassed socio-economic factors by combining biological and chronological characteristics of past human societies.3 The Neolithic was then characterised at sites across Europe that displayed subsistence economies based on agriculture.4 After Childe’s definition, researchers adopted and adapted the term to encompass a variety of gradual processes. Taking in both hunter-gather and sedimentary societies, these adaptive processes may have been a direct result of changes in ideology, material culture, social organisation, and climate conditions. Current terms, such as Neolithisation and the Neolithic way of life, have come to represent this period of change. But there is still difficulty in producing a definitive term that encapsulates the multiplicity of non-linear and on-going processes that are associated with this period. While never intended to be a complete entity,5 elements of the Neolithic came to be bundled together as a package that was seen to spread across the Near East into Anatolia, and eventually towards Europe.6 Key elements of this package in the North Aegean include, but are not limited to, primary domesticates (emmer, wheat, barley), domesticated animals (sheep, goat, pig, cattle), tools (stone, bone), and ceramics. According to Özdoğan, it is not possible to speak of a single Neolithic package, but rather one that originated in the east and was then adapted to meet the needs of individual societies.7 Conversely, Perlès addresses the issue of items in the Neolithic package that did not transfer between southeast Europe, Anatolia, and the Levant during the seventh millennium.8 Even so, there is enough overlapping evidence to suggest that these zones shared certain elements, indicating varying degrees of interaction.9 1

 Lubbock 1865, p. 3.  Childe 1936, pp. 74–177. 3  Kotsakis 2002, p. 68. 4  Ammerman 1984, p. 34. 5  See Childe 1936. 6  See Richter et al. 2013. 7  M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 190. 8  Perlès 2005, pp. 275–290. 9  M. Özdoğan 2010, pp. 883–893; 2014, p. 35. 2

JARRAD W. PAUL

8

The contextual chronology of the North Aegean is separated into two main research traditions. For central and western Anatolia, the Neolithic is divided into Pre-Pottery (9600– 8000/7000 BC) and Pottery (7000–6000/5500 BC).10 Both the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic are further divided into subcategories. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic is divided into Pre-Pottery A (PPNA) and Pre-Pottery B (PPNB), and the Pottery Neolithic is separated between the Early Pottery and Late Pottery.11 For Greek prehistory, the Early Neolithic corresponds to the Late Neolithic in Anatolia. The Greek Middle Neolithic thus corresponds with the beginning of the Anatolian Early Chalcolithic (6000/5500–5550/5000 BC).12 Balkan (and more specifically Bulgarian) contextual chronology should also be mentioned briefly as some sites in the current study belong to this subregion. The Early Neolithic here corresponds with the Late Neolithic in Anatolia, and the Early Chalcolithic of Anatolia synchronises with the Middle Neolithic.13 Conducted first in the mid-20th century, archaeological surveys with the Neolithic as their primary focus established a basic chronological framework which concentrated mainly on pottery sequences from sites east of the Marmara Sea.14 Prehistoric sites surrounding the North Aegean Sea, particularly on the western shores of Anatolia and northern shores of Greece, have undergone systematic investigation since then and added much needed stratigraphic and contextual information (Table 2.1).15 From this work it has become clear that many of the Neolithic populations clustered together in smaller subregions, largely confined by geographical markers in the landscape, such as rivers or mountains.16 For Anatolia, subregions include Lake Iznik (with sites such as Ilıpınar and Barcın); the Marmara Sea (Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz Cave, and Yenikapı), Gallipoli Peninsula (Kaynarca, Karaağaçtepe, Hamaylıtarla, Hacı hüseyin, and Üçdutlar), Thrace (Hoca Çeşme and Aşaği Pınar), the North Aegean Islands (Uğurlu), and the West Coast (Coşkuntepe, Ege Gübre, Ulucak, and Yeşilova).17 For Greece, subregions include northern Greece (Nea Nikomedia, Servia, Dikili Tash, and Makri), Thessaly (Sesklo, Achilleion, and Argissa) and the North Aegean islands (Limenaria, Cave of Cyclops, and Agios Petros).

ENVIRONMENT The Aegean Sea is an area of intense seismic activity when compared to the surrounding regions.18 It contains uplifted sediments with various erosional geomorphic features produced by the extended fluctuations in sea levels.19 The broad tectonic framework of the 10

 Sagona and Zimansky 2009, p. 37; see also Düring 2011, p. 128; Baird 2012, p. 433; Çilingiroğlu 2005,

p. 6. 11

 See Çilingiroğlu 2005, p. 6.  See Reingruber et al. 2017. 13  Boyadziev 1995, p. 179. 14  Mellaart 1955, pp. 55–88; see also French 1967, pp. 49–100; 1969, pp. 41–98. 15  Sagona and Zimansky 2009, p. 43. 16  Rosenstock 2014, pp. 223–263. 17  See Paul 2016, pp. 4–5. 18  Algan et al. 2011, p. 33; see also Kazancı et al. 2004, p. 281; Yılmaz et al. 2010, p. 51. 19  Kraft et al. 1980, p. 777; see also Eisma 1978, pp. 67–81. 12

CHAPTER 2

9

Site Name

Excavation Period

Country: Sub-Region

Uğurlu Limenaria Cave of Cyclops Agios Petros Ulucak Dikili Tash Makri Sesklo Visviki Ilıpınar Barcın Sitagroi Nea Nikomedeia Servia Prodromos Achilleion Theopetra Cave Otzaki Argissa Zarkou

2009– 1993–1997 1992–1996 1969–1971; 1981 1995– 1961–1975; 1986–1996; 2008 1988–1996 1901–1902; 1956–1957; 1962–1968; 1971–1977 1941 1987–2002 1986–2005 1968–1970 1961–1964 1930; 1971–1973 1970–1972 1961; 1973–1974 1987–2002; 2003–2008 1953 1955–1958; 1969 1976–1990

Turkey: North Aegean Islands Greece: North Aegean Islands Greece: North Aegean Islands Greece: North Aegean Islands Turkey: West Coast Greece: North Coast Greece: North Coast Greece: Thessaly Greece: Thessaly Turkey: Lake Iznik Turkey: Lake Iznik Greece: Northern Greece: Northern Greece: Northern Greece: Thessaly Greece: Thessaly Greece: Thessaly Greece: Thessaly Greece: Thessaly Greece: Thessaly

Table 2.1. Neolithic focused excavations at key sites in the present study.

Aegean is dominated by the rapid westward motion of the Anatolian Plate relative to the Black Sea Plate. The west-south-westward motion of the African Plate is also a major factor.20 In 1957, a total magnetic field intensity survey was conducted by the US Naval Oceanographic Office over most of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. This survey highlighted anomalies over much of the Aegean reflected in Alpine tectonic and topographic trends.21 The north Aegean Sea is flanked today by Turkey to its east and Greece to its north and west. In Turkey, the northwest corner forms a self-contained geographical area with several distinct ecological environments.22 The Aegean Sea is located to the west, the Marmara Sea to the north, and the formidable mountains to the south and east diversify this region.23 The Aegean coast of Turkey is characterised by an extremely indented coastline and numerous offshore islands. The coastal strip is rugged, with mountains almost vertical to the coast.24 The west coast is regarded as a transition zone between the Aegean and the Anatolian interior. 20

 Brückner et al. 2010, p. 161; see also Dewey and Sengör 1979, p. 84; Brinkmann 1971, p. 171.  Vogt and Higgs 1969, pp. 439–440. 22  M. Özdoğan 1999, p. 208. 23  Bayne 2000, p. 3. 24  M. Özdoğan 2011, p. 221; see also Brice 1966, p. 124. 21

JARRAD W. PAUL

10

Northern Greece includes Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus, Thessaly and the North Aegean.25 A steppe or forest-steppe environment was still present in northern Greece around 10,000– 9000 BC, but when climate conditions began to change, pine and oak forests spread. By 8000 BC, vegetation in various parts of Greece began to transform due to intense human impact on the landscape.26 Vast plains and expansive river valleys flowed into the Aegean Sea and created favourable conditions for inhabitants entering the area.27 The North Aegean islands include Greek Thassos, Samonthrace, Limnos, Agios Evstratios, Lesbos, Chios, Psara, Oinousses, and Turkish Gökçeada (Imbros) and Bozcaada (Tenedos).28 Islands close to Turkey are situated on shelves, with the most prominent submarine platform extending westward from the Biga–Gelibolu (Gallipoli) peninsula.29 The islands of Gökçeada and Limnos are situated on this platform, separated from other islands by deep submarine depressions running west to east.30 A prominent geographical feature in the region is the North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). The NAFZ is an intracontinental fault that extends from the Karlıova triple junction to the Saros Gulf in western Turkey.31 It then splits into three major strands. It is one of the most active transform faults in the world created from the northward drift of the Arabian microplate.32 The NAFZ cuts across the northwest region in an east–west direction, following the major axis of the Marmara Sea.33 Rising sea levels at the beginning of the Holocene shaped the way humans interacted with the landscape, with the introduction of warmer sea water changing the flora and fauna in the region.34 Sea levels during prehistory should be viewed as an important geographic element in this regard as it significantly changed the way people inhabited coastal areas during the Neolithic. During the seventh millennium BC levels were approximately 35 m below those of the present day, making the coastlines significantly different to today’s configuration.35 As a result, numerous North Aegean islands were connected to the mainland as part of a broad coastal plain that existed on the north side of the Aegean Sea extending westward from northern Anatolia to present Thessaly.36 This configuration lasted until approximately 5500 BC, when present conditions were established.37 Lower sea levels during the prehistoric period would have created favourable travelling conditions for early island inhabitants as they continued to move around the region.38

25

 See Andreou et al. 1996.  van Andel and Sutton 1987, p. 57. 27  E. Özdoğan 2017, p. 19. 28  Broodbank 1999, p. 17; see also Patton 1996, p. 4. 29  Kayan and Vadar 2007, p. 9; see also Bonev and Beccaletto 2007, pp. 113–142. 30  Kayan and Vadar 2007, p. 9. 31  Gürer et al. 2003, pp. 1041–1047; see also Yılmaz et al. 2010, pp. 51–70; Yaltırak et al. 2012, pp. 103–119. 32  Brückner et al. 2010, p. 162. 33  Algan et al. 2011, p. 33. 34  Özbek 2012, p. 162; see also Lambeck 1996, pp. 588–589. 35  M. Özdoğan 1999, p. 209; see also Kızıltan and Polat 2013, p. 127. 36  van Andel and Shakleton 1982, p. 450; see also Yakar 2011, p. 146. 37  Kızıltan and Polat 2013, p. 127. 38  M. Özdoğan 1999, p. 209; see also Broodbank 2006, pp. 199–230; Lichter 2005, p. 60. 26

CHAPTER 2

11

The North Aegean region during prehistory was therefore one of varied landscape and changing environments. A vital geographic element of this landscape was the role the sea played in transporting humans from the mainland to increasingly distant islands. Nonetheless, early inhabitants of the region quickly became familiar with the dramatic coastlines and challenging sea conditions to establish flourishing communities during the Neolithic.

NEOLITHIC MIGRATION Traditionally, there has been debate when attempting to interpret how the Neolithic emerged in the region and by what means it disseminated. One explanation comes from cultural diffusionist archaeological theory.39 Cultural diffusionists maintain that migratory groups from Anatolia moved into areas with already established Mesolithic communities. Material culture was then dispersed through trade networks.40 This spread was achieved through cultural contacts involving small-scale migration operating within closed and internal systems.41 Consequently, this theory maintains the adoption of cultural traits not necessarily associated with substantial travel of individuals.42 Continual habitation from the pre-Neolithic at sites in Anatolia and Greece propel the indigenist model. For example, Öküzini Cave (southwest Turkey), Cave of Cyclops (Youra), Değirmenlik Mevkii (northwest Turkey), Yarımbugaz Cave (northwest Turkey), and Theopetra Cave all have evidence of continued occupation.43 Trade networks become significant in the consideration of models of cultural diffusion.44 One piece of evidence for trade in the Aegean comes in the form of obsidian from Melos. This raw material is present in the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic levels at Franchthi Cave.45 Dating of carbonised seeds from Franchthi Cave also specifies that cereal agriculture was practiced in southern Greece during the first half of the seventh millennium BC.46 The cultural diffusionist model has been critiqued. According to Düring, only the Marmara region contains cultural continuity documented from Mesolithic horizons into the Neolithic.47 Düring concludes that a shortage of evidence reflects either a lack of research or an actual scarcity of sites in the Mesolithic. This void of Mesolithic evidence in western Anatolia presents a further problem.48 Absence of archaeological evidence weakens any migratory model linking Neolithic origins with previous communities, leading Runnels and van Andel

39

 M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 191.  Higgs and Jarman 1969, pp. 31–41. 41  Deguilloux et al. 2012, p. 24; see also Ammerman 1989, p. 165. 42  Davison et al. 2006, p. 641. 43  For Öküzini Cave see Albrecht et al. 1992. For Cave of Cyclops see Sampson 2008. For Değirmenlik Mevkii see M. Özdoğan 1986. For Yarımburgaz Cave see M. Özdoğan et al. 1991. For Theopetra Cave see Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000. 44  Milić 2014, pp. 285–296; see also Perlès 2001. 45  Perlès et al. 2011, pp. 42–49. 46  Perlès et al. 2013, p. 1010. 47  Düring 2013, p. 90. 48  M. Özdoğan 2008, p. 146. 40

JARRAD W. PAUL

12

to argue that indigenous Late Mesolithic communities only sparsely occupied the concentration of Neolithic settlements in northern Greece.49 In reaction to these concerns, a new argument was proposed that blames rising sea levels for the lack of currently visible Mesolithic sites along coastal areas.50 Demic diffusion theories offer different approaches to the appearance of Neolithic sites in the North Aegean region. According to these models, Neolithisation occurred due to colonisation by outside communities bringing in new material culture that was homogenous, external, and continuous.51 One explanatory model, the wave of advance model, positions populations as expanding outward from a Near Eastern core at a steady and radial rate as existing settlements grew.52 The hypothesis proposes that productive farming communities with reliable subsistence bases gradually multiplied as their productions increased.53 Research using genetic evidence of ancient DNA has shown to some degree a genetic origin from outside the Aegean; however, this is not always from the east.54 A reaction to the wave of advance model by Özdoğan and Gatsov sees the movement of populations as endemic from east to west not as a large movement of organised groups, but rather, as a few primary groups with enough impact to stimulate a wider chain reaction.55 More recent approaches used by modern prehistoric migration researchers have promoted complex movements of people and objects throughout the region.56 These concepts and models focus on small groups with an emphasis on exchange as identified by the material culture and genetic record.57 This shift away from definitive models gives greater focus to the reasons for movement, whether physical or not, rather than the movement itself. Advanced scientific methods are also helping underscore the intricacy of migration in the region, including computer-aided mathematical modelling, radiocarbon dating, and ancient DNA analysis.58

JOURNEY

TO THE ISLANDS

While migration on land may be considered complex, migration to an island presents further elements of difficulty. Islands are completely surrounded by water and may lie far or close to a mainland.59 They can be large or small, high or low, solitary or clustered, offshore or in the deepest ocean.60 Islands also have an explicit boundary, with an obvious demarcation between the

49

 Runnels and van Andel 1995, pp. 481–500.  Lichter 2005, p. 60; see also Vlachos 2003, p. 135. 51  Vander Linden 2011, p. 27; see also Roodenberg 2016. 52  See Ammerman and Cavallo-Sforza 1984. 53  Deguilloux et al. 2012, p. 25. 54  Kılinç et al. 2017; see also Deguilloux et al. 2012, pp. 24–37; Pinhasi 2006. 55  Özdoğan and Gatsov 1998, pp. 222–223. 56  See Zvelebil 2001; see also E. Özdoğan 2016. 57  See Pinhasi 2013; see also Düring 2011; Kozłowski 2007. 58  Hofmanová et al. 2016; see also Budja 2013; Davison et al. 2006. 59  Kopaka 2008, p. 183. 60  Broodbank 2000, p. 16; see also McKechnie 2002, p. 127. 50

CHAPTER 2

13

internal and external.61 Moreover, the unique landscape of each island produced communities that were neither entirely different nor completely similar to those on the mainland. Evidence for prehistoric seafaring is limited but constantly evolving. The sites of Ouriakos on Lemnos, Agios Eustratious on Melos, and the Franchthi Cave provide the earliest evidence of North Aegean migration with habitation and exploitation of natural island resources taking place well before the Neolithic.62 These initial settlements may have involved small scouting groups that undertook a first voyage before a second, and more fully established, migration.63 Three types of watercraft could have been used during a crossing: floats, rafts, and boats; each made with various materials including bundled wood, inflated hides, and sealed pots.64 For a population of roughly 40 individuals, a flotilla of 10–15 vessels carrying a combined weight of 15,000–18,000 kg would be required.65 A large degree of planning would therefore be needed to transport such immense amounts of cargo. What makes island settlement remarkable is that it required an extensive sea voyage, either accidental or deliberate.66 Various models have been proposed to explain the population of the Aegean islands. The visibility model focuses on discovery rather than colonisation and is based on the assumption that islands visible from the mainland would have been settled first.67 Scholars have argued that for the islands of the North Aegean true isolation was rare, as islands and the mainland are often visible to one another.68 With the proximity of the islands enabling the prehistoric seafarer to maintain a view of the mainland for safety, the visibility model is especially pertinent to the Aegean. In contrast, the biogeographic ranking model concentrates on colonisation rather than discovery, ranking islands based on their size as an indicator of their resource capacity. According to Cherry, the decision to settle on an island was made by knowledgeable agents driven by ecological requirements or newfound possibilities arising from domestication.69 Other factors are also considered within this model, such as the “commuter effect” which suggests that islands too small to support self-sustaining populations may still have been inhabited if in close proximity to another island or mainland which could provide additional resources.70 A linear relationship between biogeographic ranking and date of earliest human activity is therefore expected.71 A further mathematical model has been created to explain early island migration. The target/distance ratio model (T/DR) divides target width (in degrees) by distance from the starting point (in kilometres). The islands with the highest T/DR ranking are more likely to be settled first.72 61

 McKechnie 2002, p. 127.  Laskaris et al. 2011, pp. 2475–2479. 63  Simmons 2014, p. 15. 64  Simmons 2014, p. 77. 65  Broodbank and Strasser 1991, pp. 240–241. 66  Patton 1996, p. 35. 67  Patton 1996, p. 43. 68  See Rainbird 2007; see also Fitzpatrick 2004; Broodbank 2000; Patton 1996, p. 139; Cherry 2004, p. 238. 69  Cherry 2004, pp. 242–243. 70  Keegan and Diamond 1987, p. 59. 71  See Patton 1996; see also Dawson 2011, p. 43. 72  Patton 1996, p. 45. 62

JARRAD W. PAUL

14

In the consideration of distance in Aegean prehistoric migration, the impact of local winds and ocean currents is also relevant.73 The exploitation of sea currents was essential for vessels transporting heavy cargo such as animals.74 Harnessing these natural forces in the Neolithic would have required detailed planning and skilled navigators. As currents in the Aegean Sea are the same now as in prehistory, specialists can reconstruct possible transportation routes taken by early farming communities. Six sea lanes across the Aegean have been proposed, with sea lanes A, B, C, and E traversing the North Aegean (Fig. 2.1).75 This sea lane favoured the voyage of boats from northeast to southwest, connecting the east with the west coasts of the North Aegean. The northeast Aegean current is also reinforced by the strong and almost continuous north-northeast winds, which blow in a south-southwesterly direction. Economic factors such as exchange, fishing, and the procurement of raw materials can be seen as incentives for the development of seafaring. Natural conditions, for instance rising sea levels, may have spurred prehistoric communities of the region to develop technologies to effectively deal with changing situations.76 Further, commercial relationships between sites are evident, with island communities providing resources required elsewhere or obtaining resources not locally available.77 Innovation through the application of local knowledge and experience may have been stimulated by such exchange relationships.78 Benefits garnered from the physical environment of the Aegean islands must have outweighed the dangers of travel and offered strong motivations for migration. Metaphysical understandings of the landscape may also have provided alternative tangible incentives. People in the past may have understood landscape as a more nuanced or abstract conceptual notion rather than the purely geographic.79 Islands may have therefore represented metaphorical notions of place or value and, as such, had symbolic associations. For instance, the island of Lemnos offered many more landing places and harbours to protect seafaring vessels when compared to Gökçeada, yet the latter was settled before.80 Myths linking particular locations may have guided early farming societies on exploitation journeys;81 indeed, the symbolic reality may have been more important than the physical in some cases. In classical mythology, the Aegean islands feature prominently, for instance Poseidon stores his horses in the waters surrounding Gökçeada in Homer’s Iliad (Book 13.33–34). Prehistoric myths could have also involved the islands as backdrops to their narratives. Thus, incentive for Aegean island migration could also be explained in part by the desire to inhabit a symbolically meaningful landscape.

73

 Keegan and Diamond 1987, p. 60.  Papageorgiou 2008, p. 202. 75  Papageorgiou 2008, pp. 205–212. 76  Papageorgiou 2008, p. 200. 77  Patton 1996, p. 139. 78  Rainbird 2007, p. 173. 79  Margomenou et al. 2005, p. 2. 80  Marangou 2002, p. 8. 81  Erdoğu 2003, pp. 9–11; see also Erdoğu 2005, p. 66. 74

CHAPTER 2

15

Fig. 2.1. Possible prehistoric sea lanes for the North Aegean (adapted from Papageorgiou 2008, p. 210).

The populations who settled on islands in the Aegean faced a challenging environment. Migration to a previously uninhabited island does not guarantee population growth and presents a multitude of obstacles that must be overcome. For a community to survive, behavioural adaptations must have been made within the first few days.82 Food would have needed to be produced, supplemented by the exploitation of available coastal and marine resources.83 Because of these issues, animals were transported with agricultural products. The carriage of livestock would have required sophisticated planning with space a key consideration. Without adequate capacity, animals confined to small areas become increasingly stressed, which results in long-term side effects.84 Fully grown larger animals, such as cattle, would have caused difficulties when transported due to their size. Consequently, small-sized and younger animals were favoured for a seafaring journey. Identifying this trend in the archaeozoological material record can be an indicator of early site domestication.85 But, the movement of animals in this region was not uniform. For example, at Ulucak domestic cattle, goat, sheep, and pig are apparent by 6800 BC; but in the northwest, pigs are not seen until 6600 BC.86 Once settled, domesticated animals also need time to become 82

 Keegan and Diamond 1987, p. 77.  Leppard 2014, pp. 3–7. 84  Meurs 1996, pp. 60–64. 85  Camps 1986, p. 23. 86  Atici et al. 2017. 83

JARRAD W. PAUL

16

established herds, a factor to consider when sustaining a new community. To illustrate, it takes two and a half to three years to raise an animal to breeding stage.87 If Halstead’s calculation that a Neolithic community of between 40 and 240 people needed 1000 to 6000 sheep is accurate, the transportation of mature animals would have been essential, not only for the initial survival of the community but also to breed and grow the animal population.88

NEOLITHIC ANIMAL LANDSCAPE A feature of the Neolithic is the uptake of animal husbandry. The most common types of domesticated animals in this region during this period were cattle (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus), and pig (Sus domesticus).89 Domesticated cattle are a large ruminant artiodactyl, common throughout Eurasia in the early Holocene and rapidly incorporated into central Anatolia around 6500–6000 BC. 90 They became valued for their meat, hides, milk, and traction power (Fig. 2.2).91 At some Neolithic Anatolian sites, large numbers of cattle bones coupled with fat residue on pottery suggests a tradition of milking.92 Domestication is indicated by an overall decrease in size.93

Fig. 2.2. Cattle (Bos taurus) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 35).

87

 Case 1969, p. 177.  Halstead 1981, p. 314. 89  For a complete anatomy see McCracken et al. 1999. 90  Arbuckle and Makarewicz 2009, p. 683. 91  O’Connor 2000, p. 148. 92  Evershed et al. 2008, pp. 528–531. 93  Peters et al. 2017, p. 254. 88

CHAPTER 2

17

Domesticated sheep are a medium-sized ruminant artiodactyl (Fig. 2.3). They are valued for their meat, wool, milk, and adaptability to varied food and climate conditions.94 Sheep shed fleece naturally in spring/early summer when in the wild, but this process is accelerated by humans when domesticated.95 Domesticated goats are similar to sheep in many ways. They are also a medium-sized ruminant artiodactyl, valued for their meat and milk (Fig. 2.4). However, they are more drought-tolerant than sheep and more adaptable to food availability.96 Caprines were especially valuable for early agriculturalists as they produce dung for agricultural land and their meat provides valuable protein and fat when consumed.97 Recent research has made it possible to differentiate sheep and goat bone specimens in the archaeological record, although this can sometimes be difficult.98 Domesticated pigs are a medium-sized ungulate, developed from the wild boar, prized for their meat, skin, and ability to eat virtually anything (Fig. 2.5).99 Pig bone is weaker than cattle and deer, and was rarely utilised in tool manufacture during prehistory, even though pigs were common.100

Fig. 2.3. Sheep (Ovis aries) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 57).

94

 O’Connor 2000, p. 148.  Wild 1988, p. 17. 96  O’Connor 2000, p. 148. 97  Peters et al. 2017, p. 254. 98  Rowley-Conwy 1998, pp. 251–258; see also Le Dosseur 2010, pp. 17–30. 99  O’Connor 2000, p. 149. 100  Russell 2001b, p. 272. 95

18

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 2.4. Goat (Capra hircus) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 75).

Fig. 2.5. Pig (Sus domesticus) anatomy (adapted from McCracken et al. 1999, p. 113).

CHAPTER 2

19

Fig. 2.6. Deer (Cervidae) anatomy: 1 Fallow deer. 2 Red deer. 3 Roe deer (after Taylor Page 1962; photo © F.A. Johnston 1962).

Deer (Cervidae) may have been domesticated or kept wild (Fig. 2.6). The main species from this period include the fallow deer (Dama dama), red deer (Cervus elaphus), and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Fallow deer, which have a spotted coat, were introduced into Europe from Anatolia via the Mediterranean during the early Neolithic.101 The early inhabitants of Cyprus brought fallow deer to the island and possibly supported early herds in order to foster populations sufficiently robust to be hunted in the wild.102 This investment of resources and time into the establishment of wild deer on the islands of the Mediterranean demonstrates the importance of wild deer hunting to the people of the Neolithic.103 Red deer, found throughout Europe, North America and parts of Asia, can adapt to a wide range of environments but are ideally suited to protective forests with some open areas to graze; they can live a maximum lifespan of 20 years.104 Roe deer, also found throughout Europe, prefer woodland landscapes and are smaller in size than red deer. For red, roe, and fallow deer, only the males of these species grow antlers, with fallow deer having the largest amount of antler by weight.105 101

 Sykes 2004, p. 75.  Vigne et al. 2000, p. 89. 103  Russell 2012, p. 400. 104  Arabatzis 2019, pp. 12–20. 105  Geist 1998, p. 95. 102

JARRAD W. PAUL

20

Domesticated animals provide both primary and secondary products that were utilised by humans. Secondary products are those that are repeatedly produced by an animal during its lifespan such as milk, wool, and traction.106 Primary products can only be extracted once, and include meat, hide, and bone.107 Bone was thus a valuable resource for North Aegean communities as the slaughter of an animal was delayed until after secondary production was exhausted.

BONE

AND

ANTLER OSTEOLOGY

Bone is a compound mineral that consists of approximately 70 per cent organic and 30 per cent inorganic material (Fig. 2.7).108 The majority of inorganic material is made up of calcium and phosphorus.109 Collagen, an extremely durable fibre protein, is part of the organic matter, giving strength to the bone.110 Together, bones form a skeleton which serves as a basic supportive scaffold for the body;111 they also protect organs of the head and chest, and enclose bone marrow for red blood cell formation.112 Bones can be classified into five distinct categories: long bones, short bones, flat bones, irregular bones, and sesamoid bones.113 Long bones of an adult mammal are characterised by long compact shafts with spongy or cancellous articular ends.114 The articular ends act as support for the limbs and provide a structure on which the muscle and tendons may act.115 The upper part of a long bone, close to the skeleton, is known as the proximal joint; the lower end is the distal joint.116 Long bones include the humerus, radius, femur, tibia, metacarpal, and metatarsal.117 Due to their shape and robust nature, long bones are commonly used in bone tool production.118 Each long bone has slight distinctive characteristics which can make specific identification difficult. For example, both the metacarpal and metatarsal of the same animal have a dense outer cortex and little interior spongy bone. Metacarpals can be distinguished by their smaller size and D-shaped proximal articulation when compared to the squared proximal articulation of a metatarsal.119 Short bones are generally cube shaped and include carpal and tarsal bones.120 Flat bones consist of two compact sections that sandwich a layer of spongy bone, organised as a series 106

 See Sherratt 2006; see also Marciniak 2011.  See Greenfield 2014. 108  Reece 2009, p. 190. These percentages are based on a dry-weight adult bone. 109  Akers and Denbow 2008, p. 137. 110  MacGregor 1985, p. 23; Hakker-Orion 1999, p. 8. 111  Bahn 2004, p. 67. 112  Davis 1987, p. 47. 113  Akers and Denbow 2008, p. 133. 114  Davis 1987, p. 47; see also Akers and Denbow 2008, p. 134. 115  MacGregor 1985, p. 8. 116  Hakker-Orion 1999, p. 9. 117  Akers and Denbow 2008, p. 134. 118  Reitz and Wing 2008, p. 133. 119  Beisaw 2013, p. 98. 120  Akers and Denbow 2008, p. 134. 107

CHAPTER 2

21

Fig. 2.7. Internal structure of long bone (adapted from Reece 2009, p. 190).

of long, thin bubbles.121 Ribs are a good example of flat bones; they attach at their dorsal end to a thoracic vertebra forming a cage to enclose and protect the heart and lungs.122 Irregular bones, such as the vertebrae and some facial bones, are complex and asymmetrically shaped.123 Sesamoid bones, found in the digits, are small, rooted in a tendon, and resemble the shape of a sesame seed. The patella is also an example of a sesamoid bone. Antler shares similar features with bone. Antler tissue consists primarily of coarsely bundled woven bone.124 Deer antlers grow quickly and are shed annually (Fig. 2.8). Commonly utilised during prehistory for tool construction, they are extremely resilient and can 121

 Beisaw 2013, p. 69.  Davis 1987, p. 54. 123  Akers and Denbow 2008, p. 134. 124  MacGregor 1985, p. 12. 122

JARRAD W. PAUL

22

Fig. 2.8. Antler anatomy (adapted from Elster 2001, p. 366).

absorb shock without splitting.125 The most resistant section of the antler is the burr, the base of the antler that connects to the deer’s skull.126 Bone, as a raw material, can be modified to alter its size, structure, and texture.127 Through manufacturing processes, animal bones can be transformed into tools, ornaments or weapons.128 The use of bone in the manufacture of objects is likely to have as long a history as the use of stone tools, with the oldest worked bone tools dating back 90,000 years.129 The working of animal bone was an important technological adjunct to subsistence in prehistoric society.130 By studying worked animal bone, conclusions may be drawn about how this technology was shared and adapted among Neolithic societies in the North Aegean. Nevertheless, until recently, research on the topic was undeveloped.

125

 Davis 1987, p. 59; see also Elster 2001, p. 356.  Tóth 2012, p. 177. 127  Marshall 1989, p. 8. 128  Ayalon and Sorek 1999, p. 6; see also Rosell et al. 2011, p. 125; Pétillon et al. 2016, pp. 47–63. 129  See D’Errico et al. 2012, p. 2480. 130  Blackwell and d’Errico 2014, p. 960. 126

CHAPTER 2

BRIEF HISTORY

OF

23

WORKED BONE STUDIES

The systematic study of worked animal bone had its inception in the 1960s. Focus was placed on establishing a typological classification system in order to understand technological processes.131 Meanwhile, advances in use-wear analysis were beginning to emerge, for instance the study of micro striations to infer functional meaning.132 From the 1980s onward, purely typological studies were being incorporated into larger discussions of technological and functional uses of tools.133 An eruption of worked animal bone studies emerged at the turn of the millennium. An exponential increase in the number of publications has led to a new appreciation of worked animal bone, with a spike in published research from 2010 onwards. The establishment of the Worked Bone Research Group (WBRG), a working group of the International Council of Archaeozoology (ICAZ), in June 2000 is a clear example of this expanding interest, improving communication between those studying this aspect of the archaeological record. Studies from the last two decades have continued to emphasise the importance of typology with an increasing emphasis on technological and functional attributes through the analysis of use-wear.134 Viewing worked animal bone within a chaîne opératoire—an analysis of the social acts involved in the production, use, and disposal of an artefact—is also an effective method to understand the role of these items within the larger material assemblage.135 Many Neolithic site reports from the North Aegean mention worked animal bone and antler in their small finds section. Some even have dedicated chapters solely focused on this specialisation. Still, specialised bone tool publications on the whole are lacking.136 For Anatolia, the analysis of the Ilıpınar collection set an early standard for analysis.137 Aşağı Pınar and Barcın Höyük also have published reports from specialists.138 The sites of Yeşilova, Yenikapı, Hoca Ceşme, Fikirtepe, and Pendik contain some in-depth analysis from researchers who are not experts in worked bone.139 Sites in northern Greece have produced further published reports from worked animal bone specialists: Dikili Tash, Limenaria, and Dimitra present systematically researched worked bone reports,140 in addition to Sitagroi, Paradeisos, Dikili Tash, and Makri.141 A small-scale comparison of bone tool inventories has been proposed for the Aegean region during the Neolithic;142 however, more detailed research is seen from the Bronze Age.143 131

 See Camps-Fabrer 1966.  See Semenov 1964. 133  See Campana 1989; see also Stordeur 1982; 1988. 134  See Choyke 2007; see also Russell 2005; 2016; Legrand 2005; Sidéra 2013; Vitezović 2013. 135  See Vitezović 2011. 136  See Russell 2016. 137  See Marinelli 1995. 138  See Erdalkıran 2015; Azeri 2015. 139  For Yeşilova see Derin 2012, p. 182. For Yenikapı see Kızıltan and Polat 2013, p. 123. For Hoca Ceşme see M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 182. For Fikirtepe see M. Özdoğan 2001a, p. 33; M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 174. For Pendik see M. Özdoğan 2001c, p. 34. 140  See Christidou 1997, 2005. 141  For Sitagroi see Elster 2001. For Paradesisos see Hellström 1987, pp. 89–118. For Dikili Tash see Séfériadés 1992, pp. 99–112. For Makri see Efstratiou et al. 1998, pp. 36–40. 142  See Stratouli 1998a. 143  See Reingruber 2017; Isaakidou 2003. 132

JARRAD W. PAUL

24

METHODOLOGIES FOR STUDYING WORKED BONE

AND

ANTLER

Through the examination of animal and skeletal specimens certain research questions arise. Is there a specific animal used for certain tool types? Is there an underrepresentation of a certain animal species in both the zooarchaeological and worked bone record? Answers to these questions can only be given after an examination of both worked and unworked bone and antler. Worked bone scholars initially use typologies to understand their assemblages. An effective typology consists of a layered system that refines objects into various similar types. Initially, tools are divided into categories, followed by further subdivision into groups, types, subtypes, and variants. Separation is based on functional and morphological characteristics derived from detailed measurement data, micro-wear analysis, and element/species selection. A suitable typology will also integrate the total zooarchaeological assemblage as a reference. An aim of this book is to present an updated regional typology based on labels assigned by specialists working in the region. Stratouli’s artefact groups were originally created to address the lack of systematic classification of worked animal bone and antler in the North Aegean and to create labels that focused on certain morphological-functional criteria.144 The typology was divided into 19 groups and various types (Table 2.2). Although many of the types from the nine sites investigated (from the Greek Neolithic and Chalcolithic) were pointed tools and tools with a transverse working edge, the breadth of types and subtypes highlights that the toolkit of the region was not restricted and diverse, with local variations observed at each site. Stratouli’s artefact groups are mentioned throughout this text, among other established typologies. An analysis of worked osseous material based solely on typology is limiting. A systematic analysis of any worked animal bone collection should also include functional and technological frameworks that place the item within the larger system of objects.145 The most common scientific procedures for recording function and technology is use-wear analysis through micro- and macro-level investigations. Use-wear analysis is the microscopic examination of a tool’s working portions in order to determine its use.146 Bone and antler implements used to work on different materials develop distinctive microscopic patterns known as striations. Identifying these patterns— clear linear features left as a result of material dislocation—makes it possible to determine the tasks a tool has performed.147 Studying striations can help determine the directions and motions employed in the utilisation of a tool, while their size and appearance can provide data on material texture.148 For instance, smoothing of hide results in homogenous deep transverse striations in bone tools, whereas hafting on wood results in heterogenous deep and shallow random striations.149 For digging, striations are usually isolated to the working 144

 See Stratouli 1998a.  See Vitezović 2016. 146  LeMoine 1997, p. 4. 147  LeMoine 1997, p. 94. 148  Griffitts 2011, p. 53. 149  See Buc 2011; see also Bradfield 2015; Olsen 1984; Newcomer 1974; Griffitts 2006. 145

CHAPTER 2

Group

pointed tools

longitudinal working-edged tools

transverse working-edged tools

hook

Number Type (English)

25 Type (German)

1.0

undetermined pointed tool

1.1

large point

Massive Röhrenspitzen

1.2

fine point

Feine Röhrenspitzen

1.3

point made from an ulna

Ulna Spitzen

1.4

Spitzen aus längsgespaltenen longitudinally split long bones with Röhrenknochen mit Gelenkende a base (subtypes A–F) als Basis (A-F Subtypes)

1.5

point without a base

Spitzen ohne Gelenkende als Basis

1.6

ribs and antler point

Rippen und Geweihspitzen

1.7

double point

Doppelspitzen

1.8

point with only a proximal section Spitzen mit Öhr im Proximalabschnitt

1.9

point with only a shaft

1.10

point with a thickened and perfo- Gerilte Spitzen mit verdickter, rated base durchlochter Basis

Spitzen mit Mittelöhr

Artefakte mit längsstehender Arbeitskante

2

Aus ungespaltenen Röhrenknochen von kleinen Wiederkäuern

3.1

from bones of small animals

3.2

from unworked long bones of large Aus ungespaltenen Röhrenknochen animals von Großtieren

3.3

large size

Massivität

3.4

small size

Kleinere Maße

3.5

elongated and trapezoidal

Langgezogene und trapezoide Form

3.6

scraper

Schaber

3.7

made from antler

Aus Geweih

3.8

made from unsplit rib bones

Aus nicht gespaltenen Rippen

3.9

made from longitudinally split rib Aus längsgespaltenen Rippen bones

3.10

perforated items with a transverse Durchlochte Artefakte mit quersteworking-edge hender Arbeitskante

4.1

small hook with a short tip

Kleine Haken mit kurzer Spitze

4.2

large hook with a long tip

Große Haken mit langer Sptize Artefakte mit endständiger grosser Lochung

artefacts with a large perforation at the base

5

artefacts with multiple perforations

6

flattened artefacts

7

perforated objects without an active working-edge or surface

8

perforated hemispheres

Durchlochte Halbkugeln

9

perforated discs

Durchlochte Scheiben

10

ring

Ringe

11

multiple ribbed tubes

Mehrfach gerippte Röhrchen

Einreihig mehrfach gelochte Platen Platten mit Fortsatz

JARRAD W. PAUL

26 Group non-perforated objects without an active working-edge or surface

Number Type (English) 12

13.1 artefacts made from teeth

13.2 14 15

special objects made of antler 16 17 unknown worked artefacts

18 19

antler tools 19.1 19.2

made with multiple sections

Type (German) Ungelochte Artefakte ohne active Arbeitskante oder -fläche, Mehrfach gerippte Stäbe

made with a longitudinal working Artefakte aus Zähnen, Eberedge zahnlammellen mit längsstehender Arbeitskante simply perforated teeth Einfach durchlochte Eberzahnlammellen pendant Zahnanhänger perforated antler artefacts with a Geweihartefakte besonderer Art, working edge or work surface durchbohtre Geweihartefakte mit Arbeitskante oder Arbeitsfläche artefacts made of antler tine Artefakte aus Geweihsprossen made of bone Ungeschäftete Fassungen, aus Knochen made of antler Ungeschäftete Fassungen, aus Geweih shafts Geschäftete Geweihfassungen, Röhrenfassungen straight shafts Gerade Röhrenfassungen shafts with striations Röhrenfassungen mit Dorn

Table 2.2. Stratouli’s worked bone and antler artefact groups (adapted from Stratouli 1998a).

area, with cracking and chipping common. Studies have also shown that impact piercing on hide (the main function of points/awls) leave no striation, but if drilling (performing a twisting motion) they leave narrow and deep transverse striations.150 Striations can be longitudinal (parallel to the long axis of a tool), transverse (perpendicular to the long axis of a tool), or random.151 Striations visible to the unaided eye, or at 10× magnification, usually relate to manufacture rather than use-wear.152 When an object made of bone is produced, the tools used to construct it leave distinctive marks upon the bone’s surface; these, however, may need to be identified under a microscope.153 Magnification is thus crucial in the determination of marks left by either manufacture or use.154 Experimental replication is another effective method to understand the function of an implement. Striation patterns observed under macro- and micro-level investigation can be compared to replicated examples to determine various working techniques.155 Additional 150

 See Buc 2011.  Griffitts 2006, p. 178. 152  Griffitts 2011, p. 52. 153  Campana 1989, p. 1. 154  Legrand and Sidéra 2007, p. 69. 155  See Bemet 2010. 151

CHAPTER 2

27

scientific methods including 3D scanning,156 chemical organic material extraction,157 and ZooMS,158 highlight exciting avenues for scientific research. Theoretical frameworks have also been adopted in worked animal bone studies, largely borrowed from lithic research given the technological similarities. The chaîne opératoire (trans. operational sequence) is the most common framework used to understand worked animal bone within its original setting. The concept can be used to understand the processes which generate, modify, and destroy bone objects.159 This framework is more than technical as it also analyses the social acts involved in raw material transformation processes. The chaîne opératoire aims to reconstruct the organisation of a technological system, incorporating all the cultural transformations a specific item has undergone, from creation to disposal.160 In practice, the framework outlines raw material procurement, the identification and description of all reduction sequences, and any repair or modification after initial use. Discard and depositional factors are also considered when studying the object.

FROM RAW MATERIAL

TO

ARTEFACT

The first step in worked bone production is raw material selection. The relevant animal bones enter into the production sequence either immediately following the initial dismemberment of the carcass or are singled out during subsequent processing.161 The use of bone as a raw material is reliant on some key factors: a variety of animal species within a reasonable distance from the area of production; a relative abundance of bone compared to other materials (for example stone and wood); and a social recognition of the transformative nature of bone.162 The resulting number of tools is therefore largely dependent on the number of available animals. Some individual bone elements naturally lend themselves to certain tool types due to their inherent structure. For instance, metapodial long bones have a straight diaphysis and tend to fracture along their longitudinal axis allowing them to be easily modified into long, straight, pointed objects.163 Metapodials are also valued for bone tool manufacture due to their lack of meat, making them ideal candidates for transformation.164 Ribs and proximal diaphysis segments of ruminant long bones naturally lend themselves to manufacturing bevelled-edged tools due to their rounded ends.165 Rib bones are most commonly used in the production of spatulas and scrapers.166 156

 See Bradfield 2013.  See Spangenberg et al. 2014. 158  See van Doorn et al. 2011; see also Desmond et al. 2018. 159  O’Connor 2000, p. 19. 160  Vitezović 2013, p. 204. 161  Gravina 2012, p. 3. 162  Olsen 1984, p. 49. 163  Choyke 1997, p. 67; Reitz and Wing 2008, p. 133. 164  Russell 2001a, p. 244; see also Isaakidou 2003. 165  Choyke 1997, p. 67. 166  Fehlmann 2010, p. 34. 157

JARRAD W. PAUL

28

For meat-bearing bones, collection is best after the meat has been cooked. A simple way to clean bone is to boil it in water. This method; however, is time consuming and can impair bone strength and elasticity.167 Once the craftsperson has identified the individual bone element from the available taxon, the manufacturing process can begin. Depending on the final result desired, the various tool types involve differing levels of production. Thus, pointed, bevelled, flat, and intricate objects each have unique manufacturing procedures. Pointed Tools There are numerous ways to produce a pointed object made from a metapodial bone. To create a workable point, long bones are usually broken down their natural shaft. One method is the groove-and-split technique (Fig. 2.9). A sharp stone tool is used to mark a deep longitudinal groove down the anterior and posterior faces of the long bone, then a chisel or wedge is used to split the bone along the groove.168 Splitting long bones longitudinally is extremely efficient, as splitting can result in two or four pointed objects instead of one.169 This process can be accelerated by soaking the bone in water or by heating it by fire.170 This must be done with caution as both methods can weaken the structural integrity of the tool. The aim of this step is to produce a rough-out which will be modified during subsequent stages.171 After splitting the bone is abraded using a rough material or scraped with chipped stone to create a point.172 When grinding, it is easier to do so near running water as any debris from the tool is washed away.173 Usually the edges of the shaft are smoothed and the base is shaped to varying degrees.174 Edges smoothed by scraping with flint leave a high polish and concentrated wavy lines visible under low magnification.175 The distal epiphysis can be unworked, providing the tool with a naturally shaped handle.176 The groove-and-split technique can also be used on antler by marking two parallel longitudinal grooves through the outer tissue and fracturing the intervening portion.177 A faster technique for point manufacture is via direct percussion or knapping (Fig. 2.10). The shattering of a long bone after it has been slightly grooved creates splinters which can be sharpened into points.178 Splinted rough-outs can be produced in five minutes. The grooveand-split technique in comparison can take up to three hours.179 It is difficult to obtain a reliable object using direct percussion due to its ad hoc nature.180 In terms of producing 167

 Olson et al. 2008, p. 2815.  Russell 2005, p. 342. 169  Russell 2001b, p. 272. 170  Campana 1989, p. 25; see also Bement 2010, p. 227. 171  Tóth 2012, p. 172. 172  Fehlmann 2010, p. 34. 173  Campana 1989, p. 32. 174  Russell 2005, p. 343; see also Vitezović 2011, p. 122. 175  Choyke 1997, p. 67; see also Campana 1997, p. 181. 176  Legrand and Sidéra 2007, p. 67. 177  Pétillon and Ducasse 2012, p. 435; see also Schibler 2001, p. 52. 178  Campana 1989, p. 23. 179  Pétrequin 1993, p. 65. 180  Campana 1989, p. 25. 168

CHAPTER 2

29

Fig. 2.9. Groove-and-split technique for pointed bone tool manufacture (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 86).

Fig. 2.10. Direct percussion technique for pointed bone tool manufacture (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 86).

debris, the groove-and-split technique produces ample waste at a site (if no water source if available) whereas the fracturing method rarely produces any.181 These two techniques created a technological choice for the inhabitants at prehistoric sites. Therefore, in the technological choices evident in bone point manufacture, social agency may be recognised through the functional reality of tool production.

181

 Russell 2001a, p. 243.

JARRAD W. PAUL

30

Needles can be created if an extra step is added to the manufacturing process. A small depression is first carved on the base of the pointed object and then worked with some kind of blade.182 Flint is a suitable choice, and if worked from both sides, the perforation will be irregular in shape.183 Perforated needles can be used in the production of garments, bags, tents, and fishing nets.184 Perforated objects tend to break at their weakest point, which is usually in the middle of the shaft.185 Bevelled Tools Manufacturing bevelled-edged tools is somewhat different to that of pointed objects. For the North Aegean region, these implements—which may be labelled as smoothers, gouges, or chisels—are usually made on sheep/goat unsplit long bones, with an unworked distal end used as a handle.186 The working ends are bevelled, with varying tip lengths. Manufacturing these types of tools requires fewer steps when compared to pointed examples. The creation of a bevelled tip requires the rounding of the extremity, usually on a softer material to avoid cracking on the surface. The condition of the tip when recorded is analysed in order to identify use-wear activities. For example, when chipping is evident on the tip, woodworking actions are usually credited.187 Tools made from flat bones are often used to produce spatulas (Fig. 2.11). The most commonly used flat bones are ribs. Ribs are cut transversally and split in half to expose the inner spongy bone.188 Splitting causes the ventral and dorsal sides of the rib to fall apart.189 Experimental studies suggest a six-stage process in spatula production. This includes: cleaning the bone, removing the extremity by sawing, rib bi-partition either through direct percussion or indirect percussion, scraping or abrading, cleaning spongy tissue, and abrading the tip.190 The final tool has elongated ends and is broad, flat, and irregular.191 Spatulas are repeatedly associated with pottery production, corresponding functionally with prolonged movement on soft materials.192 They have also been associated to a lesser extent with leather working, plaster smoothing, and—when the object is indented—processing sinew or manipulating weft during weaving.193 Ribs can also be sharpened at the tip to create a flattened pointed object.194 These objects have also been found with perforated distal ends, changing the status of their use to possible adornment pieces or, based on their use-wear, for weaving activities.195 182

 Choyke 1997, p. 67.  Campana 1989, p. 35. 184  Gilligan 2010, p. 49. 185  Russell 2005, p. 366. 186  Russell 2005, p. 346. 187  Griffitts 2011, p. 61. 188  Perlès 2001, p. 238. 189  Fehlmann 2010, p. 34. 190  See Mărgărit 2017. 191  Campana 1989, p. 105. 192  Griffitts 2011, p. 62; see also Mărgărit 2017, p. 2. 193  Becker 2013, pp. 127–139. 194  Zidarov 2008, p. 61. 195  Séfériadés 1992, p. 110. 183

CHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.11. Spatula manufacturing sequence (adapted from Mărgărit 2017).

31

JARRAD W. PAUL

32 Other

Complex manufacturing sequences are also applied to numerous other tool categories. Spoons, for example, need to be finely crafted in order to transform the raw material into a final product (Fig. 2.12). After dividing a long, thick bone in two, the proximal epiphysis is removed, with the creation of the spoon bowl the last step.196 Once again, flint tools are presumably the object of choice for this step. The handle of the spoon regularly ends in the condyle of the distal epiphysis.197 The function of spoons is debated. They have been linked to decorating ceramic vessels, collecting flour, use in cultic activities, and use as cooking utensils.198 Use-wear is normally an effective indicator of function. For example, if the spoon was used to collect flour from a quern, then the bowl of the spoon would be slanted to one side due to repeated abrasion. Pendants, or perforated objects, also involve a multistep manufacturing process. Pendants are classified as having a perforation and would have been worn suspended.199 Small-sized bones and bones of smaller animals are preferred when making pendants. Larger bones can also be perforated for ornamental use. Once again, use-wear is an appropriate indicator of function in the determination of whether these objects were purely ornamental. Hooks, too, have a complex production process (Fig. 2.13). The craftsperson must invest more time in their production, especially when compared to other tool types.200 Hooks are roughed out from long blanks and worked via grooves and incisions.201 After preliminary outlines of the shank, the throat and the point are marked out with notches and incisions.202 A bend is then shaped in a regular convex form by cross-grinding, scraping, and abrading.203 The end of the shank can be perforated to create an eye, or simply flattened to secure a line.204 The latter is normally the case from prehistoric sites.205 A lengthy shaft increases penetrative ability as the point of a fish hook moves away from force exerted by the line.206 Replication studies of fish hook breakage patterns show that the bow is the most common area of fracture.207 Other studies have used a combination of methodologies to understand the function of certain fish hooks.208 Their function may have varied: hooks could be used for fishing or as belt fasteners, and some could have been worn as ornaments, a conclusion derived from levels of polish and other indicators of use-wear.209

196

 Nandris 1972, pp. 63–82.  Nandris 1972, p. 64. 198  Tóth 2012, p. 175. 199  Russell 2005, p. 350. 200  Vitezović 2011, p. 122. 201  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011, p. 21; see also Gramsch et al. 2013, pp. 2458–2463. 202  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, p. 134. 203  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011, p. 22. 204  Powell 1996, p. 126. 205  Olson et al. 2008, p. 2817; see also Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011, pp. 3–52. 206  Powell 1996, p. 126. 207  Olson et al. 2008, p. 2813. 208  See Cristiani et al. 2016, pp. 134–147. 209  Russell 2005, p. 358; see also Tóth 2012, p. 176. 197

CHAPTER 2

33

Fig. 2.12. Spoon manufacturing sequence (adapted from Nandris 1972, p. 82).

Fig. 2.13. Fish hook manufacturing sequence (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 82).

Discard After manufacture and use, items were discarded either deliberately or inadvertently. Bone, in general, is susceptible to destructive post-depositional processes.210 This may include surface erosion via chemical and mechanical elements such as weathering, root etching, external manipulation (for instance animal teeth marks), or soil staining. A way to understand this process is through examining the context in which these tools were deposited. The 210

 Bement 2010, p. 235.

JARRAD W. PAUL

34

probability of intentional deposition decreases if worked bone items are scattered across a large area in a random pattern. If large quantities of bone splinters and worked bone preforms are identified in a relatively close area, a workshop or manufacturing area may be proposed. That being said, the identification of specific worked animal bone production areas is extremely difficult due to the lack of specialised toolkits or equipment.211

SUMMARY The geography of the North Aegean underscores a physical reality and backdrop to the people living in the region. The movement of people and ideas across this landscape was a complex system, and not something that can be elucidated by a simplistic model. The animals that populated this area were also vital in the survival of early farming communities, with domestication intrinsically linked with other material cultural components. Further, methodologies for studying worked animal bone are multifaceted and continually adopting and adapting to new practices and procedures. Indeed, it has only been in recent decades that the importance of worked animal bone studies has been understood, taking in an array of geographic and historical periods. Likewise, research regarding the Neolithic in the North Aegean and adjacent regions has expanded recently. As seen above, much effort has been made to document the material of this region and period. Despite this, a systematic review of worked animal bone in the region is still lacking. One way to track the movement of people and ideas is to look at variations in the material assemblage. Tools and ornaments, especially those made from animal bone and antler, were an important feature of many Neolithic communities in the region and thus may be utilised for comparison.

211

 Vass 2010, p. 59.

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The following chapters list sites in the North Aegean with worked animal bone assemblages from the Neolithic. An aim is to present a complete picture by providing a comparative catalogue of tool types. They are presented in a format that can be used as a guide for quick access. References are also given for each entry for further study. But before this, a brief methodological guide to worked animal bone recording and data collection is presented. This outlines the steps taken to document a worked animal bone assemblage and is aimed at those unfamiliar with recording practice. Although it is not an exhaustive list, it does provide a good foundation to adapt and modify in order to accommodate variations within individual collections. This can be useful for those entering the field of study for the first time, for archaeozoologists who need to record worked animal bone, or general researchers wanting to improve their knowledge of worked animal bone tool types.

RECORDING WORKED BONE

AND

ANTLER: A BRIEF GUIDE

TO

DATA COLLECTION

It is important to record as much relevant information as possible during the data collection phase. The ten-stage procedure outlined below was designed for the recording and management of worked animal bone material from two North Aegean Neolithic sites: Uğurlu and Ulucak.1 Those wishing to record worked animal bone may find this template useful as a starting point for their own study. The following guide should be used only where suitable or adapted to accommodate specific situations as each collection has its own unique characteristics and recording units. Stage 1: Documentation In the first instance, an object is recovered from a site and cleaned, primary records are made by excavators and the object is placed in storage. Subsequently, for the documentation of worked animal bone, the object is retrieved, and all the information previously compiled at the site is collated into a database. At Uğurlu and Ulucak, a simple spreadsheet is used for initial recording.2 The main advantage of the initial spreadsheet is its flexibility; at its core are adaptable fields that simply require populating. Information recorded may 1

 This recording system was first devised by the author in 2013 during data collection at Uğurlu and Ulucak. This procedure was informed by the work of Nerissa Russell (2005), Alice Choyke (2007), and Selena Vitezović (2011, 2016). A detailed account of this recording system is presented so other specialists may use and adapt these procedures. 2  Microsoft Excel was used to create the initial databases at Uğurlu and Ulucak.

36

JARRAD W. PAUL

include excavation date, square/unit/find number, museum number (if sent for storage off-site), excavator initials, and any initial description from the excavation team. Recording this initial description is important as it informs the specialist of the level of worked animal bone knowledge at the site. For instance, in most cases at Uğurlu the label “worked bone” is included in the description of the object. When a tool is easily identifiable, for example a pointed tool or spatula, the specific type is usually noted by the team. Recording the basic contextual information is vital for future research as information can be readily accessible and easily searchable. A code is thus created for each item to identify contextual units: these include square number, unit number, and find number. Stage 2: Context The next stage of the process involves working with the stratigraphic sequence to place each object in its context. This involves four separate categories: context, period, phase, and date. Context includes the location of the discovered object: areas can be inside (for example, floor levels), outside (for instance, courtyards), or mixed, such as surface finds. Recording the period makes it easier for the researcher to compare assemblages when secure dates are not available. It also helps to distinguish tools within the assemblage. Phases are specific to a site and may change as new information is obtained. For instance, at Uğurlu there are six cultural phases. A specific date for a worked animal bone object is then derived from ceramic typologies, stratigraphic data, and radiocarbon dating evidence. Period, phase, and date may not be accessible during initial recording, but may be included later. Stage 3: Raw Material Attention next turns to the individual object. In this step, an initial assessment is made as to whether the item is made of bone, antler, or another osseous material, such as ivory or teeth. This may be a reasonably simple task if the collection is well preserved. Stage 4: Taxonomy and Element Taxonomy and element identification are the next stage of the data collection process. Some bones and animals are straightforward to identify due to their unique form, such as deer antler or cattle ribs. But specialised knowledge is needed when deciding between certain animal types and elements. For instance, the difference between sheep and goat metapodials is difficult to distinguish without specific training. In some cases, even with archaeozoological knowledge, an artefact is too fragmented to identify. Therefore, to ensure some variables are measured for inclusion in the database, both taxonomy and element identification are each divided into two categories: broad and specific. Broad categories for taxa identification include small, medium, or large-sized animals. The broad element selection includes long bone, flat bone, or irregular bone. These broad categories are an effective way of seeing wide-ranging trends in the assemblage. Specific categories involve recording animal genus or species. Specific element selection includes names for identified bones, such as a radius or metacarpal.

CHAPTER 3

37

Stage 5: Typology The fifth stage involves making an assessment concerning tool group, type, and subtype. For the analysis at Uğurlu and Ulucak, groups are firstly separated into the categories: pointed tools, cutting tools, polishing tools, and other. Objects are then typed and, if required, further subtyped. A type may be subtyped when objects within an established type exhibit some sort of differentiating quality, such as morphology, element, or species. The degree of difficulty in identifying tool typology varies. Some types are easily assigned based on an immediate visual inspection, as others are more difficult to categorise. As yet there is no standardised typology for the Neolithic of the North Aegean. It is hoped that this volume may be used as a starting point for future comparative typologies in this regard. Stage 6: Measurement The sixth stage involves measuring the object. A digital calliper is commonly used for this purpose. Maximum length, maximum width, and maximum thickness (measured at the proximal end) is documented for all objects in millimetres, given the generally smaller size of tools and objects. Accurate measurements are taken in order to provide comparative data and aid typological distinction, as equivalent types may fall within a predetermined range. For instance, a long, thin pointed tool should have distinguishable dimensions when compared with a flat bevelled tool. Object size, along with raw material evidence, may also help identify the types of animals favoured for tool construction. Stage 7: Description The next stage involves describing the object. Until now, assessment of the artefact has focused on situating it within larger structures, be they contextual or typological. In this stage, an evaluation of the individual artefact is provided, adding detail to the information already catalogued. A description starts with recording what part of the object is present. Objects are divided into a tip, shaft, and base (Fig. 3.1). For each surviving section a separate description is required. For the base section, descriptions include the degree of working and any unique features, such as notching or perforation. If the shaft is present, which is true for most items, descriptions indicate the overall form if viewed as a cross-section (Fig. 3.2) and describe the condition on two aspects: ventral and dorsal. If the tip is present, description is given regarding its quality and appearance. A list of base, shaft, and tip descriptions, as utilised at Uğurlu and Ulucak, is given in Table 3.1. It should be noted that there are subtle differences between certain terms, for instance notched and chipped. Here notched refers to intentional marking whereas chipped is unintentional. Incisions on the shaft are also considered intentional. Two optional categories which may be recorded during this descriptive stage are the feel and look of the bone’s surface. To record surface feel, researchers use their fingers to detect surface texture. To determine surface look, the object is tilted so light can catch and reflect any surface polish. Both these actions are used to measure levels of polish acquired in manufacture and use. A numbering system has been devised to make the results numerically

38

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 3.1. Sections of a bone tool (courtesy B. Erdoğu; illustration J. W. Paul).

CHAPTER 3

39

Fig. 3.2. Worked bone shaft cross sections (courtesy B. Erdoğu; illustration J. W. Paul).

Section

base

shaft

tip

Description bevelled, chipped, circular, curved, depressed, epiphysis intact, epiphysis removed, flat base, flattened, fragmented, halved, hollow, incised, notched, notched lateral, open, pierced, pierced base, quartered, rounded, rounded laterals, smoothed, somewhat worked, spongy bone evident, square, unworked, worked, worked lateral chipped, circular cross section, curved, cut marks, depressed, depression, flat, flattened, flattened lateral, fragmented, grooved, hollow, hollowed, incised, notched, notched lateral, open, oval cross section, pierced, rectangular, ridged, round, slight curve, slight open, smoothed, somewhat circular cross section, somewhat curved, somewhat flattened, somewhat hollow, somewhat open, somewhat oval cross section, somewhat ridged, somewhat square cross section, somewhat triangular cross section, spongy bone evident, square cross section, unworked, very slight curve, very slight open angled, bevelled, blunt, blunted, chipped, extreme sharp, flat, flattened, fragmented, hollowed, open, pointed, reworked, rounded, sharp, somewhat bevelled, somewhat blunt, somewhat chipped, somewhat flattened, somewhat rounded, somewhat sharp, spongy bone evident, very sharp, worn

Table 3.1. Descriptions for base, shaft, and tip categories at Uğurlu and Ulucak.

comparable, rating the feel and look on a scale. For surface feel, numbers range from one to seven and for surface look, from one to five. Descriptions for this numbering system appear in Table 3.2. This numbering system is, of course, subjective to the researcher and simply aims to measure general trends. It only provides general impressions, such as average roughness or smoothness. Distinction between consecutive numbers is difficult to compare from one assemblage to another; for example, it would be hard to identify the contrasts between moderately smooth and smooth between researchers. This, however, is not the objective of this type of numbering system. Its primary aim is to provide an overall assessment of the surface feel and look of an object in conjunction with the other description categories for intra-site analysis.

JARRAD W. PAUL

40 Surface Feel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

rough rough-smooth moderately smooth smooth very smooth very-extremely smooth extremely smooth

Surface Look 1 2 3 4 5

matte matte-glossy glossy very glossy extremely glossy

Table 3.2. ‘Surface Feel’ and ‘Surface Look’ numbering system.

The final category in the description section is the recording of striations. Initial identification of striations can be made using the naked eye and a magnifying eyepiece. In the field, a digital microscope can also be a useful device for determining striations under certain levels of magnification. Depending on the size of the assemblage, a sample of objects may be selected for detailed microscopic survey. Directional striation information is then recorded in detail. All striation data noted are based on the assumption that the object is placed vertically with the base at the bottom and the tip at the top. The directions of striations include transverse (horizontal), oblique (diagonal), longitudinal (vertical), and random (Fig. 3.3). Striation placement is also listed, for instance, transverse striations may be visible on the dorsal aspect of the shaft but not the ventral. If striations appear over the entire object, they are labelled as surface.

Fig. 3.3. Striation patterns on worked bone surfaces taken at ×50 and ×75 magnification (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul).

CHAPTER 3

41

Stage 8: Comments The eighth stage involves documenting any special notes or comments the researcher might find to be relevant. This section is used to record additional information that does not fit into the other stages above. Object condition, similarities with other tools, or multiple tools in a single bag, are some examples. Stage 9: Photography The penultimate stage involves photographing each object. Most worked animal bone and antler assemblages are limited in size when compared to other material categories such as stone or unworked animal bone, making it possible to photograph each object. Photos at a minimum are taken from two aspects: ventral and dorsal. If the object is rounded or hollowed, additional photos may be taken to highlight distinctive areas. A scale should always be included in object photography, with the camera positioned directly over the object, facing down. Adjustments may be made later, using software such as Adobe Photoshop or an open source alternative like Gimp, to balance colour levels and create highresolution images for publication. Stage 10: Illustration The final stage involves illustrating the object. Illustration continues to be an important aspect of object research as it gives the viewer an added perspective, sometimes lost when viewing a photograph alone. For instance, breaks on a bone’s surface are often not perceptible in a photograph, but clearly visible in an illustration. Illustration may be created by pencils and ink or appropriate computer software, such as Adobe Illustrator or an open source alternative, such as Inkscape.

TERMINOLOGY A comparative analysis hinges on the fact that terminology for similar items is consistent across the entire region. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as differing terminologies for worked animal bone types have already been established across the Aegean. For example, in Turkey a common worked animal bone type is a smoother or mablak, a long bone sourced from a medium-size animal, that has a bevelled tip and an open and curved shaft. Tools labelled chisels or gouges in Turkey and Greece have analogous morphological features but are often classified based on indicators specific to the site specialist. A problem arises as a chisel and a smoother have different functions, with the former associated with cutting actions and the latter with smoothing, such as removing fat from an animal hide during processing. In another example, in both Turkey and Greece, the term point and awl are used interchangeably between publications. The problem with this conflation is that an awl has a specific set of descriptive criteria which relate to its size, morphology, and striation patterns,

JARRAD W. PAUL

42

while a point can refer to a range of subtypes, all defined by a pointed tip.3 Inconsistent labels can therefore be problematic, causing confusion in identification, and in the long run, leading to fragmented or inaccurate research outcomes. Further complicating this issue of terminology is translation inconsistencies between local languages (Turkish and Greek) and common international publication languages (English, French, and German). For instance, the term mablak in Turkish directly translates to spatula rather than smoother. French translations of worked animal bone types tend to describe the function of a tool, such as outils tranchants (cutting tools) or outils perforants (piercing tools). Overcoming terminological problems requires a knowledge of tool types gained through experience in comparison, in association with detailed record management at each site. Through this combination, cross-cultural analysis can be achieved by situating a tool within its own typology, in its region, and across regions. Unfortunately, this level of detail is not always apparent in the following worked animal bone records, particularly those described from published records alone. In the following chapters each site will be presented utilising the original tool labels assigned by the researchers in their initial typologies. Then in Chapter 6, these types will be grouped and related to others based not only on terms, but also on common functional and morphological attributes. Comparisons will also be made using raw material, including element and taxa, and tracking any regional differences between how similar animal bones were used, or not used, among sites. KEY AND ADDITIONAL SITES For this analysis of North Aegean worked animal bone, 94 sites are divided into key sites and additional sites. Key Sites Twenty key sites are presented in Chapter 4 and are chosen for their robust worked animal bone assemblage with data either collected by the author or published in extensive detail by a specialist or site director/s. Each key site is given a unique number (site number) for quick reference to its location on a regional map. Key sites are further separated into three categories: North Aegean Island Sites (sites 1–4), North Aegean Coastal Sites (sites 5–9) and Connected Inland North Aegean Sites (sites 10–20). Each category has further corresponding subregions. For North Aegean Island Sites, there is Turkish North Aegean Islands (site 1) and Greek North Aegean Islands (sites 2–4). The North Aegean Coastal Sites contain the Turkish West Coast (site 5), Greek North Coast (sites 6 and 7), and Greek Thessaly (8 and 9). Lake Iznik (sites 10–11), Northern Greece (sites 12–14) and Greek Thessaly (sites 15–20) belong to the subregions from the Connected Inland North Aegean Sites category (Table 3.3). 3

 See Paul 2019.

CHAPTER 3

43

Uğurlu and Ulucak are exemplars throughout this volume. There are three reasons as to why these two sites are selected for detailed study. First, both have sizeable collections for the region, with a wide variety of tool types. Second, they were catalogued by the author using the methodological procedures outlined above and have had only preliminary assessment (Uğurlu)4 or unpublished data (Ulucak). Third, both sites contain characteristic Neolithic material assemblages and can be seen as representational for the period and region. They are referenced throughout as the cornerstones for this study. Each key site, separated by category and subregion, contains the following information: • site number; • a brief site overview: location, chronological phases, excavation procedure, and relevant material culture such as ceramics or architecture; • a description of the worked animal bone assemblage: the number of items recorded, typology, raw material, manufacturing techniques, and context. This information will then be used as the basis for comparative analysis, with Uğurlu and Ulucak providing foundational points of reference. To reiterate, the following chapter does not attempt to reconcile the typologies at the key sites mentioned below. Instead, the original typologies are presented, with labels assigned by their initial researchers. Category

Subregion

North Aegean Island Sites

K E Y

North Aegean Coastal Sites

S I T E S Connected Inland North Aegean Sites

Turkey: North Aegean Islands  1. Uğurlu  2. Limenaria Greece: North Aegean Islands  3. Cave of Cyclops  4. Agios Petros Turkey: West Coast  5. Ulucak  6. Dikili Tash Greece: North Coast  7. Makri  8. Sesklo Greece: Thessaly  9. Visviki 10. Ilıpınar Turkey: Lake Iznik 11. Barcın 12. Sitagroi Greece: Northern 13. Nea Nikomedia 14. Servia 15. Prodromos 16. Achilleion 17. Theopetra Cave Greece: Thessaly 18. Otzaki 19. Argissa 20. Zarkou

Table 3.3. Division of key sites mentioned in text. 4

 See Paul and Erdoğu 2017.

Site Number/Name

44

JARRAD W. PAUL

Additional Sites Seventy-three additional sites are presented in Chapter 5 and are included in this analysis to provide context to the worked animal bone assemblages at the key sites. Additional sites are separated into three categories: those that are inside the geographical and chronological framework of the present study but have limited published information regarding their worked animal bone assemblage (sites 21–69); those inside the geographic boundaries of the study but outside the chronological limits (sites 70–78); and additional sites that are inside the chronological limits and belong to adjacent regions (sites 79–94) (Table 3.4). Some additional sites have plenty of information related to their worked animal bone collection. Others have little to none. The data complied here is reliant on details published by researchers and specialists; in some cases, information regarding worked animal bone is solely dependent on photographic/illustrative evidence alone. It will be made clear at each additional site from where information was collected: publications and site reports, and/or photographs and illustrations.

CHAPTER 3

Category

Subregion Greece: North Aegean Islands

Turkey: West Coast

Turkey: Western

Turkey: Gallipoli Peninsula

A D D I T I O N A L S I T E S

Turkey: Thrace

Sites with Limited Published Worked Animal Bone Information

Turkey: Marmara

Turkey: Lake Iznik

Greece: Northern

45 Site Number/Name 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Ayio Gala Emporio Ege Gübre Yeşilova Araptepe-Bekirlertepe Coşkuntepe Alibeyli Mersinli Moralı Bergama-Paşaköy Hacı hüseyin Karaağaçtepe Hamaylıtarla Kaynarca Hoca Çeşme Aşaği Pınar Maya Baba Bulgar Kaynaği Toptepe Yenikapı Fikirtepe Pendik Yarımburgaz Cave Taraçcı Höyük Tuzla Aktopralık Menteşe Mavropigi Xirolimni Pontokomi Revenia Dimitra Paliambela Krovili Lafrouda Polistilo Kalambaki Kaliphitos Nea Bafra Podochori Mikro Souli Krioneri Kapoutzedes

JARRAD W. PAUL

46 Category

Subregion

Greece: Thessaly Greece: Central Bulgaria: Southern Turkey: West Coast A D D I T I O N A L

Sites Outside the Chronological Limits

S I T E S

Greece: Northern

Turkey: Central

Greece: Cyprus Sites Outside the Geographic Boundaries

Turkey: South Western

Greece: Crete Greece: Peloponnese Macedonia: Southern Bulgaria: Southern Bulgaria: Central

Site Number/Name 64. Trilophos 65. Nigrita 66. Soufli 67. Koutroulou 68. Elateia 69. Kovačevo 70. Gülpinar 71. Proskinitis 72. Paradeisos 73. Paradimi 74. Makriyalos 75. Akropotamos 76. Stavroupoli 77. Thermi B 78. Vassilika 79. Çatalhöyük 80. Tepecik-Çiftlik 81. Mersin-Yumuktepe 82. Köşk Höyük 83. Aşıklı 84. Boncuklu 85. Khirokitia 86. Çukuriçi 87. Bademağacı Höyük 88. Kuruçay Höyük 89. Hacılar 90. Knossos 91. Franchthi Cave 92. Anza 93. Yabalkovo 94. Karanovo

Table 3.4. Division of additional sites mentioned in text.

CHAPTER 4 KEY SITES The 20 key sites chosen for this study are separated into three categories: 1. North Aegean Island Sites, 2. North Aegean Coastal Sites, and 3. Connected Inland North Aegean Sites (Fig. 4.1). These sites are then further separated by subregion and presented under individual site subheadings. North Aegean Island Sites Four North Aegean sites with worked animal bone collections are found on the islands of Gökçeada (Uğurlu), Thasos (Limenaria), Youra (Cave of Cyclops), and Kyra Panagia (Agios Petros). While they share similar geographic settings, the first permanent North Aegean inhabitants at each site shaped their material collections to adapt to their immediate needs.

Fig. 4.1. Map of key sites in the study area: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Limenaria. 3 Cave of Cyclops. 4 Agios Petros. 5 Ulucak. 6 Dikili Tash. 7 Makri. 8 Sesklo. 9 Visviki. 10 Ilıpınar. 11 Barcın. 12 Sitagroi. 13 Nea Nikomedeia. 14 Servia. 15 Prodromos. 16 Achilleion. 17 Theopetra Cave. 18 Otzaki. 19 Argissa. 20 Zarkou (adapted from © Google Maps).

JARRAD W. PAUL

48 Turkey: North Aegean Islands Uğurlu

Uğurlu is a low mound site covering 250 × 200 m situated on the eastern foot of Mount Doğanlı (Ayistrado), on the western side of Gökçeada.1 The moderately sloping site is currently a 15-minute walk from the sea, but due to current coastal erosion would have been around an hour’s walk during the Neolithic (Fig. 4.2). The settlement contains the earliest example of Neolithic material thus far in the eastern Aegean islands and has yielded six main cultural phases. The earliest Phase VI (6800–6600 cal BC) dates to the pre-pottery Neolithic. Phase V (6600/6500–5900 cal BC) produced red-slipped, burnished, handmade, and thin-walled ceramics. Vertically placed tube-like and knob-like perforated tubular lugs are also characteristic of the pottery of this phase. Phase IV (5900–5500 cal BC) sees the emergence of handmade, thin-walled, red-slipped black ware along with some examples of impressed ware and a painted sherd. Phase III (5500–4900 cal BC), outside the chronological boundaries of this investigation, marks a gradual change in material culture with the dominance of black-greyish slip on reddish-brown surfaces with some impressions and incisions. Numerous architectural features are attested, with an increase in site size and building creation from Phase III. Phase II (4500–4300 cal BC) pottery is burnished black, grey, red, and buffed coloured ware, with other material remains contemporary with the Western Anatolia Kumtepe 1A-Beşik Sivritepe Culture. Phase I is designated to surface finds and

Fig. 4.2. Uğurlu: view from Mount Doğanlı (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul). 1

 See Atici et al. 2017; Erdoğu 2014; Erdoğu 2013; Erdoğu 2011; Guilbeau and Erdoğu 2011.

CHAPTER 4

49

Early Bronze Age pottery. Local flint makes up 99 per cent of the lithic assemblage, with obsidian from Melos, East Göllü Dağ, and Nenezi Dağ suggesting far-reaching trade routes. Domestic sheep, goat, and cattle dominate the faunal assemblage. Inhabitants also exploited a wide range of taxa, including limited wild boar, red deer, hare, and fox. Their use of pig is low when compared to the other primary domesticates, with sheep preferred to goats. Cattle numbers also decline over time. Additional material culture includes objects made of Spondylus and clay figurines. So far, 534 worked bone objects have been recorded and analysed from Phases VI to II at Uğurlu by the author.2 For the purpose of this analysis, only worked animal bone items securely labelled and belonging to Phases VI, V, and IV will be investigated; these number 219 in total. Although Phase III is within the timeframe for the present study, it contains material consistent with the Chalcolithic period. The worked animal bone assemblage is first separated into four groups: pointed tools, cutting tools, polishing tools, and other. Pointed tools are identified by a pointed tip (Fig. 4.3). Separation into types is based on morphology and associated functional attributes related to use-wear. There are 148 objects in this group, making it the largest. Within this group there are six types and 14 subtypes. The most prominent type in the pointed tools group is points, used to describe any worked object with a pointed tip, excluding needles or pins. Points were employed for a variety of tasks relating to perforation, such as stitching holes for clothes and shoes. They

Fig. 4.3. Uğurlu pointed tools Phases VI–IV: 1 points subtypes A–H. 2 rounded point. 3 bi-point. 4 hook. 5 needle subtypes A and B. 6 pins subtypes A and B (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul). 2

 For a preliminary review see Paul and Erdoğu 2017.

JARRAD W. PAUL

50

are found in a variety of contexts: inside buildings, on floor levels, in silos, outside buildings, and in courtyards. In general, they are manufactured on long bones (metapodial and tibia) of medium-sized animals (sheep/goat). Subtype points include: • subtype A – broken at the shaft with a pointed proximal and or base; • subtype B – longitudinally split bone with an intact base; • subtype C – split length wise with the base split in half; • subtype D – with a rounded or smoothed base; • subtype E – with an angled tip on one lateral; • subtype F – decorated on the shaft; • subtype G – flattened with a wide shaft narrowing to a small tip, also known as an awl; • subtype H – points made from elements that are not metapodial or tibia bones (Table 4.1).

VI

Phase V

IV

Total

A B C D E F G H

1 -

 9  2  3  4  1  1  2

42  7  5  7  5  2  3  1

52  9  8 11  5  3  4  3

Total

1

22

72

95

Subtype

Table 4.1. Uğurlu points separated by phase and subtype.

Also included in the pointed tools group are rounded points, distinguished from points by having a rounded and blunt tip. Eleven objects are separated between subtype A (any objects made of bone with a circular shaft and rounded tip) and subtype B (objects made of antler with a circular shaft and rounded tip). Bi-points are also noted; these have both their tips and bases worked into a point, usually rounded rather than sharp. Hooks are found in low numbers. One smaller hook is associated with fishing and two larger and decorated examples were most likely used to secure clothing and may be considered belt hooks. Needles are separated into subtype A, characterised by notching of the base laterals, and subtype B, including a perforated hole in the centre of the base. The second most frequent type in the pointed tools group is pins. Though difficult to define at the site as they share similar morphology to points, pins generally have a more circular and slender shaft with a pointed tip. The majority are subtype A, characterised by a slender, circular shaft, distinct degrees of base modification, and either a sharp or a rounded tip. The remainder fall outside this more common category: while still slender, subtype B possess either an extremely sharp tip or a square shaft. Pins tend to be constructed on larger animal bones (Table 4.2).

CHAPTER 4

Type rounded point

Subtype

VI

Phase V

IV

Total

A B

-

2 1 1 1 1 -

 2  6  1  2 11  1 20  4

 4  7  2  3 11  1 21  4

0

6

47

53

bi-point hook needle pin Total

51

A B A B

Table 4.2. Uğurlu remaining pointed tools separated by phase.

Cutting tools, the second group, are associated with activities that require cutting, scraping, or striking (Fig. 4.4). They are characterised by a sharp or flattened bevelled edge and a base that can be struck to exert force using another object. Two types are included in this group for Phases VI–IV (Table 4.3). Chisels are defined by a bevelled tip, a compact shaft, and no set base profile. They are made from the long bones of large animals, with their strong tips excellent for woodworking activities. Gouges have a hollowed shaft and various degrees of base modification. They are made from medium-sized animal metapodial bones. At Uğurlu, gouges are recognised by three characteristics: exposed spongy bone around

Fig. 4.4. Uğurlu cutting tools Phases VI–IV: 1 chisel. 2 gouge (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul).

JARRAD W. PAUL

52

the tip; the creation of a V-shaped indentation on the edge of the tip; and burning on the tip to strengthen the object. Also included in the cutting tool group, but not found in Phases VI–IV, are two tools made from deer antler: a puncher from an unknown context which has a straight shaft, large rounded tip, and damaged base, and a pick from Phase III, which has a circular handle that curves into a rounded tip. The third group, polishing tools, are associated with the removal of excess material during hide preparation and pottery moulding (Fig. 4.5). There are two types: smoothers and spatulas (Table 4.4). Smoothers are characterised by a long, curved shaft, a bevelled tip, and a base, worked to varying degrees. Subtype A smoothers have an open and curved shaft with two parallel flattened sides and a bevelled tip. They are made from long bones (metapodial, radius, tibia) of medium- (sheep/goat) and large- (cattle) sized animals. Removal of fat from animal hides would have been a main purpose of these tools. Subtype B smoothers differ in their morphology with a flat rather than open shaft. The second type in the polishing tool group is spatulas. A spatula has a flat, broad shaft with elongated ends. Spatulas are made exclusively on rib bones, split lengthwise, from medium- and large-sized animals. Sixteen spatulas are recorded and are associated with the shaping of ceramics. Subtype A spatulas have a rounded tip, subtype B spatulas have a pointed tip. Four spatulas have been recovered from Phase VI, the earliest cultural layer, suggesting a known manufacturing procedure. The remaining group at Uğurlu is labelled the other tool group (Fig. 4.6). Items in this group are not functionally associated with pointing, cutting, or polishing activities. Instead, they include both tools and objects of worked bone or antler that fulfil a variety of other functions. Three types are found in Phases VI–IV: component/composite elements, preforms, and utensils (Table 4.5). Component/composite elements include subtype A handles.

Type

VI

Phase V

IV

Total

chisel gouge

-

1

3 3

3 4

Total

0

1

6

7

Table 4.3. Uğurlu cutting tools separated by phase.

Type smoother spatula Total

Subtype

VI

Phase V

IV

A B A B

3 1

4 5 -

31  4  3  4

35  4 11  5

4

9

42

55

Table 4.4. Uğurlu polishing tools separated by phase.

Total

CHAPTER 4

53

Fig. 4.5. Uğurlu polishing tools Phases VI–IV: 1 smoother subtypes A and B. 2 spatula subtypes A and B (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul).

Fig. 4.6. Uğurlu other tools Phases VI–IV: 1 handle. 2 shaft. 3 preform. 4 spoon. 5 spatula-spoon (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul).

In this context, handles refer to those associated with spoons, where the bowl has been broken off. These are made on large animal bones. Subtype B consists of shafts made exclusively on deer antler, with one end hollowed out to hold a sharp stone object, most likely flint. Subtype B objects have a circular shaft and, besides the hollowing, have only been minimally worked.

JARRAD W. PAUL

54 Type component/composite element

Subtype

VI

Phase V

IV

Total

A B

-

2 1 -

1 1 1 1 2

3 1 2 1 2

0

3

6

9

preform utensil Total

A B

Table 4.5. Uğurlu other tools separated by phase.

Two preform objects show signs of working but are not complete objects and offer a unique glimpse into manufacture procedures. One, a preform pointed tool, is made from an ovicaprid metapodial bone. A cut mark runs longitudinally from the base of the object down the shaft, marking out a line for splitting, with an unmodified base. Cracking on the surface suggests the bone was brittle when worked, and this is the most likely reason for discard. The poor condition may have resulted from the bone being overheated in the initial preparation stage. The other is a preform needle. The perforation had been started on one side, with a guide mark on the other side, before discard. The three utensils, the third type of the other tool group, are labelled as spoons. Subtype A are considered traditional spoons, with a rounded and bowled-shaped end, and a long handle. Other examples contain a broken shaft where the handle would have been. These are made on a long bone of a large animal. Subtype B are spatula-spoons which, like subtype A, have a concave head but are attached to a wider handle and elongated shaft. One of these objects is made on a scapula bone of a medium-sized animal. Also included in the other tools group are two perforated objects. One from an unknown phase—tentatively labelled a hammer—is made of deer antler with a perforation in the middle of the shaft. The other, from Phase III, is rectilinear with a partially drilled hole evident on both aspects; this may be a toggle or fastener. Context plays an important part in deducing the roles of worked animal bone at Uğurlu. From the 219 objects, 127 come from a known context. Of these 127 objects, 27.6 per cent were uncovered in primary contexts and 72.4 per cent in secondary contexts. Phase IV contains the most worked animal bone material of any phase at the site. In terms of context during this phase, floor levels contain some of the few rarer items in the collection, including hooks and a subtype F (decorated) point, with a zigzag motif. Significantly, the presence of pits suggests specialised storage of worked bone. A pit discovered in trench P5 contained 15 artefacts, 14 of which were worked animal bones (Fig. 4.7). This pit was box like and enclosed with yellow-coloured plaster. Deposited for protection, objects found inside, or associated with, plaster pits are common across Anatolia during the Neolithic.3 Plaster pits seem to have served a ritual or religious function, with plaster utilised at prehistoric Anatolian sites in conjunction with ritual activity, particularly in the intentional burial of houses.4 3

 Perlès 2005, p. 275.  Balter 2001, pp. 2278–2281; see also Hodder 2005, pp. 10–11; Cessford and Near 2005, p. 179.

4

CHAPTER 4

55

Fig. 4.7. Worked animal bone assemblage in a box-like pit from trench P5 (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo N. Yücel; J. W. Paul).

At Uğurlu, medium-sized animal bones (here including sheep/goat, and deer) were favoured for construction over small- (such as pig) and large-sized (for instance cattle) animals. Antler is also found at the site although in lesser numbers than bone. In most cases, points are manufactured from the long bones of medium-sized animals, particularly metapodial bones of sheep/goats. Tibia bones of medium-sized and large-sized animals are mainly used in the production of smoothers and chisels. Rib bones are used exclusively for the creation of spatulas. Other less frequent elements include a scapula of a large-sized animal in Phase IV to create the subtype B utensil, a radius of a medium-sized animal in Phase IV to construct a subtype A smoother, and a fibula of a medium-sized animal to create a subtype A pin in Phase V. Overall, the collection contains a set of adaptable types within a consistent set of tool groups. These were utilised by a society which sourced, modified, and employed these essential items for everyday and special purpose activities. Greece: North Aegean Islands Limenaria Limenaria, the first systematically excavated Neolithic settlement on Thassos, is located on the southwest part of the island.5 A large section of the original prehistoric settlement is now covered by the modern village. It would have been 150 m from the historic coastline 5

 Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2012; Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2008, pp. 427–446.

JARRAD W. PAUL

56

and was laid out as a flat settlement rather than a tell. The Neolithic at the site is represented by cultural material dating from 5700–5200 cal BC. Floors, pits, and stone benches are associated with the earliest layers. Houses were post framed and made from clay and wood, with red and yellow clay pebbled floors. Storage pits were found inside these structures. Rubbish pits were filled with food remains, shell, and ash and were placed on the outer limits of the site. Inside one storage pit was the skeleton of a child, lying on its back with no grave goods. Pottery during the Neolithic includes pithoi, handleless biconical vessels, carinated jugs, and bowls. Incised tripods are also listed. Decorations for lesser quality vases include incisions filled with white paste, imprints, grooving, and reliefs, with rippled decoration reserved for finer examples. Blacked-topped technique is common for medium to fine vessels. A large quantity of mortars and grinders in conjunction with barley, einkorn wheat, lentils, figs, and wild nuts indicate the importance of agriculture at the site. Marine resources were also exploited and supported the diet of the inhabitants, with ample seashells and fish bones recovered. The chipped stones include small blades; polished stone hammers and axes are also present. Honey-coloured flint and quartz were a favoured raw material. Clay spindle whorls and loom weights attest to a textile manufacturing industry. Shell bracelets, stone beads, and stone pendants highlight the inclusion of ornamental objects, with the appearance of figurines in the early levels rather rare. Christidou, a worked animal bone specialist, has studied the Limenaria worked animal bone collection extensively and published two reports regarding the assemblage. The first report is placed in the 2012 excavation volume and focuses on typology, raw material selection, context, and manufacturing techniques.6 This analysis includes excavated material from 1993–1997 and includes 274 worked animal bone items that date to the Neolithic period from 5600–5200 cal BC. From the 274 items, 255 are classified as tools (Table 4.6).7 Focus for this analysis will be the 255 tools, with additional reference to the Type

Subtype

sharp point

awl needle unclassified pointed implement

Total

edged tool rounded point utilised natural surface tubular object/handle unclassified fragments of tools perforated objects

 99   5   3  92   5   6   4  39   2

Total

255

Table 4.6. Worked animal bone tools at Limenaria (adapted from Christidou 2012, p. 233). 6

 Christidou 2012, pp. 225–274.  Christidou only includes 253 tools in the original typology. I have included an additional two tools, perforated tools, into the typology. Although Christidou writes that they are too different in shape and size to constitute a type, the author includes them in the typology as they contain a comparable label and are considered completed objects. 7

CHAPTER 4

57

remaining 19 objects when analysing manufacturing techniques. Contextually, all items documented in the Limenaria worked animal bone assemblage belong to an open area on the border of the settlement where material was dumped. Of the 255 tools, only 21 are complete. For the Limenaria typological analysis seven types are identified: sharp points, edged tools, rounded points, utilised natural surfaces, tubular objects/handles, unclassified fragments of tools, and perforated objects (Fig. 4.8). Sharp points, or tools with a pointed active end, are further separated into three subtypes: awls, needles, and unclassified pointed implements. Awls are the most numerous subtype tool in the entire Neolithic assemblage and are made almost exclusively from long bones (n=96), with two rib bones and a scapula also worked. Longitudinally split-andgrooved long bones of medium-sized animals were preferred to create awls. The most frequent awl variant (constituting 19 per cent) are long, narrow, straight-sided with a split base made from the metapodials of deer (mostly fallow deer). They are on average 100 mm in length, 12–15.5 mm in width, and 8–12 mm in thickness. These awls are considered by Christidou to be unique to the North Aegean due to their size and consistency of species. Awls that are moderately straight-sided with a concave-convex central cross-section and variable base morphology are also a common variant (8 per cent of the awl collection). Long bone splinters were also used to create awls, although they tend to be smaller in length when compared to those made on split-and-grooved long bones. Needles are made from long bones (n=3) and split rib bones (n=2). Long bone needles contain a perforation, made by scraping with a rotary motion on both sides. Use-wear analysis suggests needles were used as weaving tools. The remaining unclassified fragments of pointed tools include two long bone shafts and a base of a rib bone.

Fig. 4.8. Limenaria worked animal bone. 1 awls made from deer metapodials. 2 process B worked animal bone. 3 points made from splinters. 4 needles. 5 edged tools. 6 perforated objects. 7 tubular objects/handles (adapted from Christidou 2012, pp. 264–272).

58

JARRAD W. PAUL

Christidou highlights two manufacturing processes utilised in the creation of sharp points (process A) and edged tools (process B) at Limenaria. For process A, awls made from metapodials were first divided into quarters by grooving and splitting. The split surface was ground down and flattened prior to narrowing the sides. For process B, the base of the objects were retained on the long bones of medium-sized and large-sized animals; the tips were bevelled to make a cutting edge. Edged tools are most frequently made from long bones, although rib bones, antler, mandibles, and a scapula are also used. Most of the edged tool collection have striations usually confined to the working area of these bevelled tools. Numerous variants exist within this broad type and include: edged tools with smaller working areas at the tip of the tool (2–5 mm in length) and less than 70 mm in total length, flat edged tools made from large-sized animal rib bones, edged tools with blunt and arched tips, edged tools made from long bone splinters of medium-sized animals with convex tips, and fragments. Some variants included in this type would be labelled chisels (edged tools with small working areas) and spatulas (flat edged tools made from rib bones) in the Uğurlu typological system. They are considered in the Limenaria typological system to be polishing and cutting tools The five rounded points are described by Christidou as having a blunt tip with convex or straight sides and a wide base. Two are made from large-sized animal long bones and three from deer antler tines. Of the last four types, utilised natural surfaces include six fragments of rib bones that were hastily constructed and made to rub materials such as clay and plant fibres. The four tubular tools/handles are made from the diaphysis of a long bone. Unclassified fragments of tools include shaft and tip fragments of long bones (n=26), rib bones (n=9), and scapulas (n=4). Some may have been destined to be awls, but their fragmented state makes assigning a tool type difficult. The two perforated objects are vastly dissimilar: one is a small piece of burnt antler that was perforated and most likely worn suspended as a pendant, the other is made from a vertebra with a fragmented perforation and limited surface polish. Also included in the assemblage are 19 unclassified bone artefacts and manufacture waste. Fragments and manufacture waste suggest that manufacture took place on site. An analysis of raw material from the entire collection of 274 items shows that most of the Neolithic worked bone was made from long bones of medium-sized animals (Table 4.7). Metapodials and tibias of sheep/goat and deer are most frequent, with rib bones mostly originating from the limited number of large-sized animals. Christidou identifies a specific awl, which are created from deer antler, as a local type not seen elsewhere in northern Greece. The use of antler is not common on Limenaria but is more prevalent at other sites in northern Greece. Larger and thicker tools made from large-sized animals are also more frequent at sites in northern Greece when compared to Limenaria, where medium- and small-sized animal bones were favoured for tool production. Overall, for the assemblage, Christidou suggests that quick and simple manufacturing techniques were preferred over more complex versions. This low level of technical investment may therefore be related to the availability of raw material.

CHAPTER 4

59

Horn

Antler

Jaw

Vertebra

Rib

Scapula

Long Bone

Indet. bone

Total

dog cattle sheep fallow deer roe deer hare sheep/goat deer small ruminant large mammal medium mammal medium-large  mammal

1

10 -

2 -

1 -

10  9 10

3 1 3

  1   1   2   1   6   4  14  55  29  80  28

3

  1  10  1   2   1   6   4  24  58  41  81  45

Total

1

10

2

1

29

7

221

3

274

Table 4.7. Raw material used to create worked animal bone at Limenaria (after Christidou 2012, p. 227).

The second report on the Limenaria worked animal bone collection by Christidou focuses further on the technical aspects of the awls and the antler edged tools (also known as baguettes).8 The variety in shape and size of awls suggests adaptable manufacturing processes were utilised for expedience, with each awl rapidly created for its specific purpose. Objects made from deer antler, known as baguettes due to their cylindrical shape, were extracted from the beam or large tines. Use-wear of these tipped artefacts suggests they functioned as chisel tools, used to split wood. The manufacture of items from deer antler is considered by Christidou to be a specialised activity, requiring skilled individuals and an investment of time. Cave of Cyclops Located on the island of Youra, the Cave of Cyclops is a 2.5 m high and 7 m wide cave site containing material spanning the Greek Mesolithic (beginning 8600 cal BCE) through all periods of the Neolithic.9 Six trenches (A–F) were opened during excavation between 1992 and 1996, encompassing unit levels 1–23. Evidence of food remains suggests communal activity occurred at the entrance of the cave during the Lower (8600–8350 cal BC) and Upper (8300–6420 cal BC) Mesolithic period. Soil samples reveal that animals were kept inside the cave during this period. During the Early (6460–6030 cal BC) and Middle (6070–5670 cal BC) Neolithic periods, as the population grew, inhabitants moved further 8

 Christidou 2005, pp. 91–104.  See Reingruber et al. 2017, p. 39; Sampson 2011; Sampson 2008; Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, pp. 131– 141; Sampson 1998, pp. 1–22. 9

JARRAD W. PAUL

60

into the cave, with evidence of worked floors and hearths. A subsequent Late Neolithic (5300–5000 cal BC) period of habitation also contained Neolithic material culture. No ceramics are found during the initial Mesolithic phases, but they become widespread in trenches B and C during the Neolithic. Pottery types include coarse, monochrome, and painted wares. Painted red-on-white pottery is seen during the Middle Neolithic, sharing similar stylistic features with pottery from other island sites in the area, such as Agios Petros. Other material culture includes micro lithics, obsidian from Melos, and worked animal bone. The 123 worked animal bones at the Cave of Cyclops from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods include 105 tools and 18 preforms or manufacture waste. Worked animal bone was discovered in three of the five excavated trenches, with trench C, separated into C East (n=69) and C West (n=46), yielding the greatest quantity. The Upper Mesolithic period contained the highest number of worked animal bones (n=54), followed by the Lower Mesolithic (n=25), Mesolithic/Neolithic transition (n=18), the Early/Middle Neolithic (n=12), and the Late Neolithic (n=14). Moundrea-Agrafioti, a worked animal bone specialist, published findings from the Cave of Cyclops in two reports. The first report focuses on the Mesolithic period.10 The second, published as part of the Cave of Cyclops excavation report, provides an in-depth analysis of the worked animal bone collection.11 For the analysis below, information regarding typology will be taken from the second report. Furthermore, it will focus on the 26 worked animal bone from the Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic periods (Table 4.8). Mesolithic items will be mentioned, but only in reference to manufacture, as they highlight a tradition already in place when pottery and other elements of the Neolithic were introduced to the site. The collection is divided into four groups: pointed tools, cutting-edged tools, blunted tools, and varia (Fig. 4.9). Neolithic pointed tools consist of points, bi-points, and hooks. The fourteen points are further divided into three subtypes, based on manufacturing techniques. Subtype A points are commonly made from medium-sized animal long bones, with varying degrees of tip

Group

Type

pointed cutting blunted varia

Phase Early and Middle Neolithic

point bi-point hook varia varia blanks

Total

Late Neolithic

Total

 5  2  3  1  1

 9  2  1  1  1

14  4  4  1  1  2

12

14

26

Table 4.8. Worked animal bone typology at Cave of Cyclops (Neolithic levels only) (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011).

10

 Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, pp. 131–141.  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011, pp. 3–52.

11

CHAPTER 4

61

Fig. 4.9. Cave of Cyclops Neolithic worked animal bone: 1 hooks. 2 pointed tools. 3 bi-points (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008).

and base modification. This type is the most frequently occurring point, with eight items. Subtype B points (n=4) are characterised by a longitudinally split shaft and intact base. This type is exclusively found in the Neolithic, with no examples recorded in Mesolithic periods. The subtype C point, of which there is only one example, is described as an item with an intact diaphysis, with this example made from the tibia of a sheep/goat. The remaining point does not fall into any of subtypes A–C and is classed as undetermined. For all points, breakage may occur on the shaft, but most have a high level of preservation. Bi-points are described as objects with both ends symmetrically sharpened via abrasion along the length axis. For the Neolithic period there are four bi-points, two in the Early/ Middle period and two in the Late. Three are classed as subtype A bi-points, described as spindle shaped and wholly fashioned on medium- and large-sized animal long bone splinters. These have similar dimensions: width (8 mm, 7 mm, and 7 mm) and thickness (5 mm, 5 mm, and 4 mm). The remaining item is classified as a subtype D bi-point. Items in this subtype have a unique crescent-shaped form and are made on flat bone splinters. A significant number (n=37) of bi-point subtypes (B, C, and E) are found in the Mesolithic. Subtype B bi-points, like subtype A, are spindle shaped and made from splinters, but differ in manufacturing technique, with the medullar cavity evident. Subtype C bi-points are made from bird bones and are considered by Moundrea-Agrafioti to be miniature versions of subtype B. Lastly, one subtype E is listed, a hollow bone with points at both ends. Bi-points are suggested to have been used for fishing at the site. There are large numbers in the Mesolithic. The subsequent general ceasing during the Neolithic is also repeated with the hook type.

62

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 4.10. Cave of Cyclops Mesolithic fish hooks (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2011, p. 19).

Only four hooks are found in Neolithic levels, but their frequency in the Mesolithic (n=29) makes them one of the largest and earliest collections in the wider Mediterranean region (Fig. 4.10). Their quantity during the Mesolithic suggests a specialised industry related to fishing and hunting. Three of the four Neolithic hooks share similar dimensions (length: 15 mm, 13 mm, and 18 mm; width 7 mm, 8 mm, and 8 mm; thickness: 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm) and are considered small-sized. The remaining one is much larger (length: 106 mm; width: 14 mm; thickness: 4 mm) and described as a preform. The hooks of the Mesolithic also have two further subtypes: medium-sized (18–28 mm in length) and large-sized (30–35 mm in length). Two sequences have been identified for the manufacture of hooks. The first involves the hook being roughed out from an extremity of a long bone of a sheep/goat. It is then extracted by grooving and roughed out through incision. The second technique involves roughing out by flaking on a wide matrix of thick bone; the next two steps remain the same as for the first technique. It is suggested that fishing line must have been threaded through the throat of the hook, then afterwards attached to the shank’s end. Four additional items in the Neolithic worked animal bone assemblage of the Cave of Cyclops are divided between the groups labelled cutting-edged tools, blunted tools, and varia. Cutting-edged and blunted tools include sharp and rounded tools made generally from flat bones. Limited analysis has been conducted, as the majority are made from splinters. Some are either too fragmentary or too broken to ascertain function or manufacturing procedure. No perforated or decorated items are catalogued in the collection. Long bones were favoured for tool construction, with antler also utilised. The majority of bone used for tool manufacture during the Neolithic comes from medium-sized animals such as sheep/goat (n=16).

CHAPTER 4

63

Agios Petros Agios Petros is located on the island of Kyra Panagia, situated in the north Sporades.12 The site is located on a promontory at the entrance of a natural harbour, close to fertile soil and a river delta. Items recovered from the prehistoric permanent settlement, which is now mostly covered by sea, demonstrate a consistency throughout the site’s history. The beginning and main occupation of the site took place during the Middle and Late Neolithic (ca. 5700–5500 BC), with occupation continuing until ca. 3800 BC. The pottery resembles the repertoire found on the Thessalian plain, including carinated bowls, open bowls, broad phialai, and straight-sided bowls. Local clay was used to create ceramics. Painted examples are common, with red paint applied after burnishing on white backgrounds. During the Early to Middle Neolithic, faunal remains demonstrate that domesticated sheep/goat were favoured (84 per cent), followed by pig (13 per cent) and cattle (1.8 per cent). In the established Middle Neolithic, sheep/goat and pig numbers remain of similar frequency, whereas cattle slightly increase to 4 per cent. Figurines from the site include 50 idols of various types and forms, made mostly of clay. Stone tools are made from local red volcanic stone. The material culture uncovered at the site is comparable chronologically with Limenaria, Phase IV at Uğurlu, and the Middle Neolithic at the Cave of Cyclops, also situated in the northern Sporades. There are 70 items of worked animal bone at Agios Petros, 38 belonging to the Middle/ Late Neolithic and 32 to the Final Neolithic (Table 4.9). These were recorded and published by Moundrea-Agrafioti in three publications (Fig. 4.11).13 For this analysis, only the Middle/ Late Neolithic items will be investigated from all reports as the Final Neolithic assemblage falls outside the chronological timeframe. Pointed tools made from sheep/goat metapodials represent the vast majority (n=31) of the worked animal bone collection with sheep metatarsals the most commonly used metapodial element. Moundrea-Agrafioti labels the pointed tool group as perforating tools. Pointed tools are mainly fashioned on whole metapodials, with no splitting involved. Needles are included and vary in size from 0.04 to 7.5 cm. This group also contains specific perforated worked animal bones, not considered needles, that were incised by abrasion. These may have been suspended by a string, as evidenced by distinct use-wear patterns.

Group

Type

pointed tools cutting tools fragments

point/needle chisel

Total

Total 31  1  6 38

Table 4.9. Worked animal bone typology at Agios Petros during the Middle/Late Neolithic (after Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981). 12

 See Kalogiropoulou 2017, pp. 218–233; Halstead and Isaakidou 2013; Liritzis et al. 1991.  Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981; Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, p. 133; Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008, pp. 9–13.

13

JARRAD W. PAUL

64

Fig. 4.11. Agios Petros worked animal bone: pointed tools and cutting tools (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981, pp. 278–279).

Cutting tools are rare in the assemblage and restricted to a chisel made from a whole tibia bone. Hooks, bi-points (common at the nearby Cave of Cyclops), and objects made from deer bone and antler are absent in the collection. Of the six fragments, two are ornamented. They are constructed from hollow bones and bear decorative transverse grooves that border the shaft. It has been suggested by Moundrea-Agrafioti that the types of worked animal bone recorded at the site are not common to the wider Thessaly region. North Aegean Coastal Sites The North Aegean coastal sites presented below are a selection of five sites situated on the coastal fringes of the North Aegean. For this analysis, coastal sites are those within 25 km of the Aegean Sea. For the sites listed below, one is within a short walking distance to the ocean (Makri), another may take between one and two hours (Sesklo), and the remaining sites (Dikili Tash, Visviki, and Ulucak) would be a day’s walk at an easy pace. Turkey: West Coast Ulucak This mound site is 25 km east of İzmir with excavations since 1995 uncovering copious material culture (Fig. 4.12).14 The site was continuously occupied between ca. 6850 and 14  See Çevik and Erdoğu 2020; Çevik 2012, pp. 143–158; 2019; Pilaar Birch et al. 2018; Çakırlar 2012a, pp. 1–33; 2012b, pp. 77–98; A. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004; 2012, pp. 139–175; Ç. Çilingiroğlu 2011, pp. 67–76; 2012; Abay 2005, pp. 75–84; Derin 2005, pp. 85–94.

CHAPTER 4

65

Fig. 4.12. View of Ulucak Höyük and the surrounding area (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

5670 BC and was reoccupied during the Bronze Age. During the seventh and sixth millennium BC, the community relied heavily on agriculture and animal domestication. Work on the earliest level (Phase VI: 6850/6830–6500 cal BC) has revealed buildings with red-painted lime-plastered floors and walls, and rebuilding associated with ritual activity. Phase V (6500– 6000 cal BC) buildings are characterised by one-roomed rectangular houses constructed from wattle and daub. Level IVb contains the greatest number of intact buildings, 13 in all, with two courtyard areas and two main streets. After a small gap, Phase III (5600–5460 cal BC) architectural style changes to hut-like structures. For ceramics, the earliest level contains little to no evidence. Phase V sees the emergence of brown and grey burnished ceramic wares, with an increase in, and eventual dominance of, red-slipped burnished wares into Phase IV (6000– 5700 cal BC). Phase III sees the replacement of previous ceramic surfaces by brown, grey, and greyish black wares. The lithic assemblage is dominated by blades, bladelets, scrapers, sickle blades, and boring tools. In Phases V and IV there is evidence of a notable expansion in the use of obsidian linked to Melos. Small finds such as figurines, stamp seals, spindle whorls, and loom weights also become an integral part of the assemblage in Phases Late V and IV. Faunal remains suggest herding was a significant subsistence activity, with domesticated animals making up 91 per cent of the total collection. The faunal assemblage consists mainly of sheep, goat, and relatively large numbers of cattle for the immediate area. There is a general decrease in the number of sheep/goat remains from Phases VI to IV, coupled with an increase in cattle. The worked animal bone was described in brief detail in previous excavation reports, focusing on the appearance of main types including awls, spatulas, and perforated items.15 15

 A. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, p. 50; Ç. Çilingiroğlu 2012, p. 21.

JARRAD W. PAUL

66

The collection, so far numbering 787 (from Phases VI–II), was then systematically documented, typed, and contextually placed by the author. A preliminary assessment of the entire collection will be presented in a forthcoming publication. For the present analysis only tools from Phases VI–III with a known type will be presented, which number 268. As with Uğurlu, this collection is divided first into four groups: pointed tools, cutting tools, polishing tools, and other. Pointed tools dominate the assemblage (Fig. 4.13). Four types are included in this group for Phases VI–III: points, pins, rounded points and needles, with points the most frequent. For points, eight subtypes have been identified and these follow the same definitions as the Uğurlu assemblage, with the majority (except subtype H) made from metapodial bones of medium-sized animals (Table 4.10). Subtype A points are most common, with some displaying intense burning. Subtype B are larger than their subtype A counterparts, subtype C is the second most common. Subtype D points are generally of similar form to subtype C except for their smoothed and rounded bases; their tips vary in sharpness, but in most cases are extremely sharp. Subtype E, with slanted tips, is most common in Level IV, subtype F is only recorded in previously published reports.16 Subtype G points, or awls, along with subtype H points, are made from ulnas, a fibula, incisors, and a radius. Pins are the second most frequently noted objects in the pointed tool group. Subtype A pins are slender with an elongated circular shaft. Subtype B pins are defined as pin-point objects. As with Uğurlu, these items share characteristics of both pins and points, such as a long rectangular shaft, rather than a circular shaft. Rounded points, made from bone

Fig. 4.13. Ulucak pointed tools Phases VI–III: 1 point subtype A–H. 2 rounded point subtype A and B. 3 needle. 4 pin subtypes A and B (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul). 16

 A. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004, p. 50; Ç. Çilingiroğlu 2012, p. 21.

CHAPTER 4

67

(subtype A) and antler (subtype B), occur in relatively large numbers. Also included in pointed tools are a small number of needles. Both needles have a perforation at the base (subtype B) (Table 4.11). Cutting tools are the least represented group at Ulucak, spread across two types for the phases analysed (Table 4.12) (Fig. 4.14). Chisels are made from the long bones of large animals and have a wide oval shaft and bevelled tip. Most of these objects display no cracking or pitting and they cluster in earlier levels, with five objects discovered in the earliest level, Level VIa. Punchers, made from deer antler, also belong to the cutting tools group. Three further types (gouges, picks, and scrapers) belong to this group; however, they belong to unknown phases and are therefore outside the scope of the present analysis. Polishing tools are the second largest tool group. They are divided into two types: smoothers and spatulas (Table 4.13). Smoothers are split across two subtypes (Fig. 4.15). Subtype A have a bevelled tip and open shaft, with varying degrees of base modification. They are common across all levels suggesting they were a vital component in the toolkit. Smoother tips vary in condition, with some slanting considerably as a result of use. Subtype B smoothers have a solid and flat shaft. These tools are most commonly made on sheep/ goat tibia bones, but also cattle ribs and metatarsals. Spatulas also occur in high numbers at the site. Subtype A spatulas are flat with a broad shaft and wide tip. They vary in degrees of preservation, with many highly fragmentary and displaying a range of colouration. One spatula is decorated with a zigzag pattern reminiscent of the Uğurlu decorated points. Type B spatulas differ only in tip form, being pointed and narrow rather than wide. They are made almost exclusively on cattle-sized rib bones. All remaining typed objects are grouped as other tools (Table 4.14) (Fig. 4.16). Perforated objects include any worked bone with a perforation, excluding needles; their forms and functions vary widely. It seems some of them may have been used for decorative purposes: for example, an incisor with a hole neatly drilled from both sides. A drilled deer antler may have served as a decorative collar piece, with another of similar morphology showing signs of working. A shuttle used for weaving is also found, with another worked object sharing parallels with buzz bones (perforated bones with an attached string that when pulled creates a sound) of later European history.17 Utensils include subtype A spoons and subtype B spatula-spoons. Both are commonly found in Levels V and IV. Most spoons have a flat, rather than curved, bowl and break primarily at the handle join. Subtype B spatulaspoons see the handle gradually becoming broader as it moves towards the bowl. Component/composite elements include handles once attached to spoon heads, and shafts made of deer antler. Subtype A handles are richly decorated, with a train-track pattern incised on one example. Preforms suggest on-site manufacture. A long bone from a large animal may be the beginning of a spatula or spoon. A cut mark runs vertically down the side of the first aspect, suggesting this step in the manufacturing process must have occurred before splitting. Additionally, a medium-sized animal long bone shows evidence of groove marks.

17

 Lang 2010, p. 88.

JARRAD W. PAUL

68

Phase

Subtype

VI

V

IV

III

Total

A

 9

13

34

4

 60

B

 4

 3

 2

-

  9

C

 4

 4

 7

-

 15

D

 1

-

 4

-

  5

E

 1

 2

 7

-

 10

F

-

-

-

-

  0

G

 4

 1

 5

1

 11

H

-

-

 1

-

  1

23

23

60

5

111

Total

Table 4.10. Ulucak points separated by phase.

Type rounded point needle pin

Phase

Subtype

VI

V

IV

III

Total

A

-

3

 4

-

 7

B

-

1

 7

1

 9

B

-

-

 2

-

 2

A

3

3

11

3

20

B

-

-

 2

-

 2

3

7

26

4

40

Total

Table 4.11. Ulucak remaining pointed tools separated by phase.

Phase

Type

VI

V

IV

III

Total

chisel

5

1

-

-

6

puncher

-

-

3

-

3

Total

5

1

3

0

9

Table 4.12. Ulucak cutting tools separated by phase.

Type smoother spatula Total

Phase

Subtype

VI

V

IV

III

Total

A

4

 7

10

4

25

B

2

 9

 3

-

14

A

3

11

20

-

34

B

-

 2

 2

-

 4

9

29

35

4

77

Table 4.13. Ulucak polishing tools separated by phase.

CHAPTER 4

69

Fig. 4.14. Ulucak cutting tools Phases VI–III: 1 chisels. 2 puncher (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

Fig. 4.15. Ulucak polishing tools Phases VI–III: 1 smoother subtypes A and B. 2 spatula subtypes A and B (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

Type component/composite elements

VI

V

IV

III

Total

A B

-

 1  4  3  2  3

 2  2  5  2  4  2

1

 3  2  9  5  6  6

0

13

17

1

31

perforated object preform utensil Total

Phase

Subtype

A B

Table 4.14. Ulucak other tools separated by phase.

70

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 4.16. Ulucak other tools Phases VI–III: 1 perforated objects. 2 spoons. 3 spatula-spoon. 4 handle. 5 shaft. 6 preforms (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

In general, for tool and object manufacture, metapodial bones (metatarsals and metacarpals) and tibia bones were favoured. Rib bones are also popular. Medium-sized animals seem to have been preferred with sheep, goat, and deer all well represented. Large-sized animals also occur frequently in the material record with a high proportion of cattle bones as time progresses at the site. This trend is also mirrored with the unworked animal bones. Worked animal bone belonging to contextual units in Levels VI and IV are particularly enlightening. Beginning with Level VIa, a floor in trench L13b contains a well-crafted and extensively used chisel, and a subtype C point. Within trench L13b is also an outside space that contains well-used chisels, spatulas, and points. This outside space may be considered a rubbish area, given damage on one of the chisels. Worked objects and items found in Level IV also highlight some interesting areas. A floor level in trench M13b contains nine worked bone items (an undefined object, a subtype A point, a subtype B pin, a subtype A rounded point, a subtype A smoother, a subtype B utensil spatula-spoon, a subtype A pin, a needle, and a subtype A spatula). The large variety of types on this floor, including a needle—which is rare in the assemblage—indicates a domestic setting rather than a workshop. This opinion is supported by the large numbers of other small finds associated with the unit, such as ceramics, obsidian, flint, a grinding stone, a pendant, a figurine, and polishing stones. Another floor unit in trench N11a contains 11 worked bone items, most undefined and highly fragmentary. Bone splinters found in conjunction with this space may indicate a working area.

CHAPTER 4

71

Greece: North Coast Dikili Tash Dikili Tash is in the southeastern part of the Drama plain at the foot of a low mountain range.18 The surrounding area was originally covered by forest, with the site located next to a water spring. The mound measures ca. 17 m high and, based on the abundance and variety of artefacts uncovered, would have been a significant prehistoric settlement. Chronology at the site has had numerous revisions since the beginning of excavations in 1961. Based on core samples, the first human occupation of the site began ca. 6500 BC, with continued occupation divided into Phase I (5900–5100 cal BC) and Phase II (5100–4000 cal BC). The site was then subsequently settled in the Early Bronze Age, with further Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine material culture also recorded. The earliest architectural remains come from Phase I in the form of buildings uncovered in Sector V. Each room contained an oven, a platform, and bins for storage. A collection of large ovens was also discovered on the western part of the site. The most common ceramic type during Phase I are graphitepainted pottery sherds. White-paste, patterns are also seen during this phase, with examples of ochre-red paint applied after baking. The lithic assemblage includes axes, adzes, and chisels made from chalcedony, quartz, rock crystal, jasper, obsidian, and a variety of flint, including Balkan honey flint. A large collection of small finds from the site includes sling pellets of dry clay, spindle whorls, numerous figurines, and worked shell. Two specialists, Séfériadés and Christidou, have studied the Dikili Tash worked animal bone assemblage. The first report by Séfériadés records 83 objects from the two occupational phases: Dikili Tash I (n=39) and Dikili Tash II (n=44).19 Only items from Dikili Tash I will be listed here, given that Dikili Tash II largely falls outside the temporal boundaries of this study (Table 4.15). Piercing tools (as Séfériadés labels them, rather than pointed tools) are the second largest group in the Dikili Tash I collection (Fig. 4.17). Most of these objects are made from the long bones of sheep/goats and deer. Larger objects are associated with leather production. Seven subtypes are reported, divided by size, element, and manufacturing technique: • subtype I – made from a bone splinter; • subtype II – with an intact distal of a radius or ulna; • subtype III – manufactured on the distal end of a shorter point, made from a metapodial bone; • subtype IV – made from the proximal end of a metapodial bone of a small ruminant; • subtype V – a shorter point manufactured from the distal end of a metapodial of either a sheep or goat; • subtype VI – long points that have been split longitudinally;

18

 See Lespez et al. 2013, pp. 30–45; 2017, pp. 45–53; Christidou 2005, pp. 91–104; 2011, pp. 121–135; Kourtessi-Philippakis 2009, pp. 306–307; Koukouli-Chyssanthaki et al. 2008; Darcque et al. 2007, pp. 247– 256; Rogue et al. 2002, pp. 613–633; Andreou et al. 1996, p. 588; Treuil 1992; Deshayes 1972, pp. 198– 203. 19  Séfériadés 1992, pp. 99–112.

JARRAD W. PAUL

72 Group

Type

piercing tools

point

chisel cutting tools gouge

Subtype

Total

I II III IV V VI VII IA IB II IA IB II

 1  1  2  1  1  1  6  2  3  3  6  2  2  2  1  2  2  1

wedge (mace tool)

other

sheath indeterminate

Total

I II III

39

Table 4.15. Dikili Tash worked animal bone typology (after Séfériadés 1992).

Fig. 4.17. Dikili Tash worked animal bone: 1 point subtype I–VI, with VIA and VIB. 2 chisel subtypes IA, IB, and III. 3 gouge subtypes IA and IB. 4 sheath (adapted from Séfériadés 1992, pls. 186–194).

CHAPTER 4

73

• subtype VII – described as delicate and are the most frequent subtype. They are subsequently separated by their manufacturing sequence into VIIa (points sawn and/or longitudinally fractured) and VIIB (points with an angled tip). Cutting tools are the largest group, including chisels, gouges, and wedges. Chisels are described as long bones with a bevelled tip and an almost straight or curved shaft. They are made from the long bones of cattle and deer, with a complete epiphysis in most cases. Chisels are subtyped based on their width. Subtype I chisels are wide (>1 cm) and subtype II are narrow (70 per cent), with wild fauna also noted, including red, roe, and possible fallow deer, wild boar, badger, hare, and wild cat. Cattle and pig are also found in small numbers (8 per cent). Figurines, anthropomorphic (n=7) and zoomorphic (n=1), are rare and do not conform to a set type. Shell ornaments are found only in later levels. Chipped stone is made from mostly local raw material (dark red flint or jasper mostly) and includes cores and flakes suggesting on-site working. Most pottery ware from the earlier Neolithic phases is monochrome brown/ red, with thin walls and vertical rims. Some painted examples (red on white) have geometric patterns, with pottery also incised and impressed with various other patterns. Burials with human remains are noted, alongside figurines made of clay and marble. Spondlyus bracelets, which seem to have been made on-site, were also recovered. 60

 See Kotzamani and Livarda 2018, p. 81; Reingruber et al. 2017; Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999, pp. 142– 152; 2000.

CHAPTER 4

Group

Type

Subtype

finished items

1.1 points on unsplit shaft fragments of sheep/ goat-sized long bones 1.2 points on unsplit shaft fragments of small 1. pointed implements animals 1.3 points on split sheep/goat-sized long bones 1.4 points on shaft and antler splinters 1.5 fragments of pointed implements on long bones 2.1 bevelled 2. transverse-edged 2.2 convex implements 2.3 spatula 3. needles 4. parts of composite 4.1 hafts tools 4.2 implements with shaft hole

103 Total  3  3

unfinished items

 1  5  7  2  2  2  2  3  1  2

Total

33

Table 4.30. Theopetra Cave worked animal bone typology (after Stratouli 2000, pp. 321–322).

Stratouli analysed the worked animal bone collection at Theopetra Cave.61 Thirty-three pieces were catalogued from the 1987–1997 seasons as belonging to the Neolithic period (Table 4.30). They are initially separated into finished (n=31) and unfinished (n=2) items. Most (n=23) finished objects are made from long bones, with the remainder made from antler (n=8). The two unfinished objects are antler tine by-products. Types are divided based on morpho/functional criteria, including the shape of the active end, degree of raw material modification, and presence of characteristic traits (Fig. 4.29). The largest type is pointed implements, which includes five subtypes. Three points (1.1) are made on unsplit shaft fragments of sheep/goat-sized animals, including metapodial and tibia bones. A further three points (1.2) are made from the long bones of small animals, including a hare tibia, and carnivore radius and fibula. Only one point of a split long bone of sheep/goat-sized animals (1.3) are reported. Shaft fragments of long bones and antler splinters (1.4) are more apparent. Point fragments (1.5) are the most frequent type, made from small animal bones. Transverse-edged tools are constructed mainly from large-sized animal bones, such as long bones of bovines. Spatulas are made from both bone and antler. One spatula is more akin to the spatula-spoon type recorded at Uğurlu and may even be considered a spoon. Needles are rare and are made from long bones of a small- and large-sized mammal. The smaller needle is broken at its shaft and the larger needle has a rounded tip. Both perforations seem to have been constructed with a drill from one side. Parts of composite tools are all made from antler and include hafts, used to secure a piece of stone, and implements with a shaft hole, which may be considered a preform of a haft. 61

 Stratouli 2000, pp. 321–323.

JARRAD W. PAUL

104

Fig. 4.29. Theopetra Cave worked animal bone: 1 pointed tools. 2 spatulas. 3 needles (adapted from Stratouli 2000, pp. 324–325).

Various manufacturing techniques are noted by Stratouli. The split-and-groove technique is common, with abrasion for the final stages of manufacture. Bilateral grooving for lengthwise splitting of long bones is also documented. Bone waste is rare on-site. This fact, coupled with low instances of spindle whorls, suggests worked animal bone and textile manufacture rarely occurred inside the cave during the Neolithic. There is also an absence of standardised types common in other sites in the region for this period, such as chisels/ smoothers, points of sheep/goat metapodials, or split rib spatulas. Overall, there is a restricted selection of regional types recorded at the cave, suggesting the toolkit did not serve a wide range of purposes. This limited selection might also indicate that people only inhabited the space periodically and for short amounts of time. Otzaki Seven kilometres northwest of Larissa lies Otzaki near the village of Dendra.62 The settlement was in use from the Early Neolithic (6070–5980 cal BC) to the Late Neolithic (ca. 4800–4500 BC). The architecture was slightly different to other sites in the region, as mudbrick dwellings rested on the ground with no evidence of stone foundations or wooden posts. These structures were flat roofed and built with wattle-and-daub walls. During the Middle Neolithic several of these structures were rebuilt numerous times. A 6 m deep × 4.5 m wide ditch surrounded the site. Mudbrick was used to create most likely two-storey structures, with evidence of internal buttresses. Large storage pits were also uncovered. Painted pottery includes geometric motifs painted in red/brown on a light background. 62  See Reingruber et al. 2017, p. 41; Demoule and Perlès 1993; Wijnen 1981, pp. 60–61; Leekley and Efstratiou 1980, p. 149; Milojčić-von Zumbusch and Milojčić 1971.

CHAPTER 4

105

Impressed decoration is also apparent on some vessels. Sheep/goat are the most frequent domestic fauna followed by cattle and pig. Goat is almost as common as sheep. Stratouli identifies 24 worked animal bone objects at Otzaki in the analysis of Northern Greek Neolithic assemblages.63 Twenty items are made from bone, three from teeth, and one from antler. Ten of these items belong to unstratified contexts. As the site contains Late Neolithic material, only the 15 items, contextually placed in Early Neolithic, will be analysed below (Fig. 4.30). Like other sites identified by Stratouli, most items belong to artefact group 1 and 3 (n=12) (Table 4.31). The remaining three items are pendants made from teeth.

Fig. 4.30. Otzaki worked animal bone: 1 artefact group 1/2. 2 artefact group 1/4. 3 artefact group 1/5. 4 artefact group 3/1. 5 artefact group 3/10. 6 artefact group 14. 7 artefact group 3/1. 8 artefact group 3/9 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, pls. 4–5). Group

Type

1. pointed tools

3. transverse working-edged tools

1.2 fine point 1.4 longitudinally split long bones with a base 1.5 point without a base 3.1 from bones of small animals 3.9 made from longitudinally split rib bones 3.10 perforated items with a transverse working-edge

Total

 1  3  4  2  1  1 12

Table 4.31. Worked animal bone typology of Otzaki, artefact groups 1 and 3 (after Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a and 31b). 63

Total

 See Stratouli 1998a.

106

JARRAD W. PAUL

For pointed tools (artefact group 1), points without a base are the most numerous, followed by longitudinally split bones with an intact base. Points with a base are rounded and smoothed. Some points without their bases have an extremely sharp tip. Most of the transverse-edged tools (artefact group 3) are made on unsplit long bones of small/mediumsized animals. Tibia bones were favoured. These would be considered a chisel or smoother type at Uğurlu. A single tool, made from a rib bone, with a perforation and bevelled edge is also recorded in the earliest levels of the site. The remaining three items are teeth with a single perforation; these are labelled as pendants. For one fragmented item, the perforation is drilled from both sides. As with other nearby sites, sheep/goat was favoured for tool construction (80 per cent), with cattle/deer (10 per cent), pig (5 per cent), and dog/hare/bird (5 per cent) also used in limited numbers. For small- and medium-sized animals, the tibia bone is the most frequently used, followed by the metapodial. Ribs of large-sized animals are also used in smaller numbers. Argissa Located on the eastern Thessalian plain 4.5 km west of Larissa, Argissa, also known as Gremnos or Gremura Magoula, lies on the north bank of the Peneios River.64 The Early and Middle Neolithic levels at the site spans from ca. 6500–5500 cal BC, with numerous levels associated with this period by the excavators: Level 29 to 28 ca. 6500–6200 cal BC, Levels 27 to 25 ca. 6200–6000 cal BC, and Level 24–23 ca. 6000–5500 cal BC. Occupation at the site continued into the Bronze Age, with later habitation of the site in the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods. The earliest levels show indicators of an early farming community. Domesticated cereals include einkorn and emmer wheat, lentils, and barley, supplemented by several shells of freshwater molluscs. The earliest levels also favour domesticated animals over wild, with sheep/goat most frequent (n=1820), followed by pig (n=216) and cattle (n=103). Wild animals account for just under 2 per cent of the overall faunal assemblage and include aurochs. Originally the earliest levels were considered a pre-ceramic phase; however, evidence of 120 sherds from this phase indicates it is Early Neolithic. These earliest levels also include few architectural remains, with pits—at least one used for grain storage—dug into sterile soil. As the Neolithic developed so did the structures, with the appearance of a 4 × 5 m rectangular building with wattle-and-daub walls supported by posts, and a hearth in the northwest corner. Pottery of the early levels is simple in form and restricted in shape. Convex and ring bases are evident, with pierced lugs the only decoration. Clay figurines and stone tools (blades mostly) made of flint and obsidian are also documented. The worked animal bone was investigated by site director Milojčić in the first volume of the site’s excavation report,65 where they are mentioned in relation to occupation spaces (Group B, Y and E). Included are points made of long bones, smoothers, and items labelled as burins which could be considered bevelled-edge tools most likely used as chisels. 64

 See Reingruber et al. 2017, p. 40; Halstead and Isaakidou 2013, p. 132; Reingruber 2005, pp. 155– 171; Bloedow 1992/1993; Wijnen 1981, pp. 59–60. 65  Milojčić 1962, pp. 8–18.

CHAPTER 4

107

Stratouli also investigates the assemblage as part of the regional assessment of Neolithic worked bone from northern Greece.66 The 34 pieces of worked animal bone belong to Early Neolithic levels. Thirty-three pieces are made from bone and one is made from antler (Fig. 4.31). Similar to other sites in Stratouli’s analysis, most items (n=26) belong to artefact groups 1 (pointed tools) and 3 (transverse working-edged tools) (Table 4.32). The remaining objects (n=8) belong to either artefact group 2 (longitudinal working-edged tools) or unknown types, with type frequency unpublished.67

Fig. 4.31. Argissa worked animal bone: 1 artefact group 1/0. 2 artefact group 1/1. 3 artefact group 2. 4 artefact group 1/4. 5 artefact group 3/1. 6 artefact group 3/10 (adapted from Stratouli 1998a, pls. 1–3). Group

Type

1. pointed tools

3. transverse working-edged tools

1.0 undetermined pointed tool 1.1 large point 1.4 longitudinally split long bones with a base 1.5 point without a base 3.1 from bones of small animals 3.9 made from longitudinally split rib bones 3.10 perforated items with a transverse working-edge

Total

Total  6  1  4  2 10  1  2 26

Table 4.32. Worked animal bone typology at Argissa, artefact groups 1 and 3 (after Stratouli 1998a, Table 31a and 31b). 66

 See Stratouli 1998a.  As with Nea Nikomedeia and Prodromos, items not in artefact group 1 and 3 are not given type frequencies by Stratouli. Therefore, the eight items are labelled in the present analysis with no associated frequency details. 67

JARRAD W. PAUL

108

Undetermined pointed tools are the most frequently recorded type of pointed tool. They include items with only a pointed tip, fragmented from their shaft. Some tips are rounded, while others are sharp. Pointed tools made from longitudinally split long bones with a base are also found. Some have completely unworked bases, which may aid with the tools grip. Pointed tools with their base removed and larger pointed tools are less frequent. For the transverse working-edged tools, the majority are made on unsplit long bones, particularly tibia bones, of small animals. These tools are associated with smoothing or polishing activities. The sole item made on a split rib bone would be considered a smoother type in the Uğurlu assemblage. In addition, the presence of two items with a perforation on the base is noteworthy. Their function may be related to weaving activities or they may be ornamental. They share general morphological characteristics with the item found in Otzaki. The remaining items include longitudinal working-edged tools that are broken at their shaft, and unknown types too fragmented to identify within any set type. Sheep/goat were favoured for bone tool construction (84.84 per cent), with cattle/deer also used (6.07 per cent). Of those from small/medium-sized animals, the tibia was favoured, with metapodial and radius bones also utilised in fewer cases. Ribs are taken exclusively from large-sized animals. Regarding context, 18 were found in pits, and 16 from other in-situ deposits associated with the cultural strata. Overall, Stratouli sees that the assemblage at Argissa shares similarities with types and raw material selection found at Otzaki. Zarkou Zarkou is a mound site on a floodplain which was inundated regularly, located 30 km west of Larissa.68 The site was occupied from the end of the Early Neolithic until the Middle Bronze Age, and was separated into four cultural phases: I (Early Neolithic ca. 6000 cal BC), II (Middle Neolithic), III (Late Neolithic), IV (Bronze Age). The Middle Neolithic pottery is typical of the region with red-on-white ware, grey ware, cups with broadly shaped handles, flat bowls and pottery with flame patterns evident. In later phases at the site, black polished Larissa ware was uncovered. Worked stone made from jasper, obsidian, and chert is noted, along with anthropomorphic figurines, considered to be substitutes for ritual or religious expressions. An important miniature clay house-model with anthropomorphic figures was found in later levels, perhaps part of a foundation ritual linked with the rebuilding of structures. This is a unique find and serves as insight into suggested household ritual events. Zoomorphic figurines, including frogs, snakes, and birds, were also uncovered. Domestic animals at the site includes sheep/goat, pig, and cattle. Domestic sheep/goat are dominant, with domesticated dog also found. Wild red deer, roe deer, aurochs, fox, wild cat, and hare are also listed, plus worked shell (n=31). Becker, a specialist in zooarchaeology, investigated the Zarkou assemblage in two reports from 1991 and 1999. In the first report, 121 worked animal bone items are investigated 68

 See Reingruber et al. 2017, p. 44; Halstead and Isaakidou 2013; Becker 1999; Gallis 1985.

CHAPTER 4

109

dating from the Middle Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age.69 One hundred and nine pieces are made from bone and 12 are made from antler. For this analysis only the Middle Neolithic items will be investigated, which include eight items made of bone and two made from antler (Table 4.33). It is worth noting that certain types not found during the Neolithic are found in the Bronze Age, including bone knives, hammers, spatulas, and handles. The ten items that belong to the Middle Neolithic are separated into six types: chisels, points, smoothers, needles/needle preforms, pendant, and antler implements (Fig. 4.32). Type

Total

chisel point smoother needle/needle preform pendant antler implements

 1  3  2  1  1  2

Total

10

Table 4.33. Middle Neolithic worked animal bone typology at Zarkou (after Becker 1991, p. 37).

Fig. 4.32. Zarkou worked animal bone: 1 chisels. 2 points. No scale included in the original illustration (adapted from Becker 1991, p. 38).

Chisels, characterised by a transverse working edge and natural grip, are made from the diaphyseal sections of medium-sized animal long bones. The single example found in the Middle Neolithic layer is made from a sheep/goat metapodial bone.

69

 Becker 1991, pp. 37–45.

JARRAD W. PAUL

110

Points vary in size from 4 to 10 cm in length, with most broken at the shaft. They are highly polished with varying degrees of tip sharpness. For the three in this period, all are made from sheep/goat long bones: an unidentified long bone, radius, and metapodial. Becker notes that the term awl is used interchangeably to describe these items. Two smoothers from this period are made from vastly different raw material and elements. One is made from a fragmented cattle scapula and the other from a fragmented long bone from a small-sized animal. The latter object has a random pattern of striations on its surface. The needle is made from a large-sized ruminant and has a perforation at its base. The pendant, made from a cattle incisor, was probably worn on a chain or attached to clothing, perhaps alongside some perforated shells found in similar contexts. The two antler implements are described as axes that have been perforated. The second report by Becker, as part of the general Middle Neolithic faunal assemblage, mentions some additional worked animal bone items for this period.70 Thirty-one objects are included in this description, inclusive of the objects reported in the first report. The additional 21 items include 16 worked animal bone fragments and five needles. Included in the worked animal bone fragments are highly polished sheep tibia and radius bones and three worked cattle scapulas. One of the cattle scapulas was shaped similarly to a chisel; the other two are highly polished with smoothed ridges.

SUMMARY An overview of the North Aegean worked animal bone from 20 island, coastal, and connected inland sites underscores a plethora of types, manufacturing techniques, species, elements, and contextual locations. It is important now to turn to an investigation of additional sites in this region, and from sites that fall within the chronological time period from adjacent regions, in order to supplement our knowledge of worked animal bone and the important role it played within Neolithic society.

70

 Becker 1999, pp. 13–14.

CHAPTER 5 ADDITIONAL SITES There are many Neolithic sites in the North Aegean region—in modern Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, and Bulgaria—that provide comparative worked animal bone information (Fig. 5.1). They are first divided in this analysis into three categories: 1. Neolithic sites in the North Aegean with limited or no worked animal bone information; 2. Neolithic sites outside the geographic boundary but which contain worked animal bone information; and 3. sites outside the chronological boundary but which contain worked animal bone information.

Fig. 5.1. Map of additional sites in the study area: 21 Ayio Gala. 22 Emporio. 23 Ege Gübre. 24 Yeşilova. 25 Araptepe-Bekirlertepe. 26 Coşkuntepe. 27 Alibeyli. 28 Mersinli. 29 Moralı. 30 BergamaPaşaköy. 31 Hacı hüseyin. 32 Karaağaçtepe. 33 Hamaylıtarla. 34 Kaynarca. 35 Hoca Çeşme. 36 Aşaği Pınar. 37 Maya Baba. 38 Bulgar Kaynaği. 39 Toptepe. 40 Yenikapı. 41 Fikirtepe. 42 Pendik. 43 Yarımburgaz Cave. 44 Taraçcı Höyük. 45 Tuzla. 46 Aktopralık. 47 Menteşe. 48 Mavropigi. 49 Xirolimni. 50 Pontokomi. 51 Revenia. 52 Paliambela. 53 Krovili. 54 Lafrouda. 55 Polistilo. 56 Kalambaki. 57 Kaliphitos. 58 Nea Bafra. 59 Podochori. 60 Mikro Souli. 61 Krioneri. 62 Kapoutzedes. 63 Trilophos. 64 Nigrita. 65 Soufli. 66 Koutroulou. 67 Elateia. 68 Kovačevo. 69 Gülpinar. 70 Dimitra. 71 Proskinitis. 72 Paradeisos. 73 Paradimi. 74 Makriyalos. 75 Akropotamos. 76 Stavroupoli. 77 Thermi B. 78 Vassilika. 79 Çatalhöyük. 80 Tepecik-Çiftlik. 81 Mersin-Yumuktepe. 82 Köşk Höyük. 83 Aşıklı. 84 Boncuklu. 85 Khirokitia. 86 Çukuriçi. 87 Bademağacı Höyük. 88 Kuruçay Höyük. 89 Hacılar. 90 Knossos. 91 Franchthi Cave. 92 Anza. 93 Yabalkovo. 94 Karanovo (adapted from © Google Maps).

112

JARRAD W. PAUL

The format of this chapter differs from the previous chapter due to the lack, and sometimes complete absence, of worked animal bone information at some sites. Instead, additional sites are integrated into subregional paragraphs, rather than given specific site subheadings. The additional sites chosen for this analysis are highlighted in bold to facilitate their location throughout the text. Sites with Limited or No Published Worked Animal Bone Information A total of 51 additional sites are included in this category and are placed within ten distinct subregions. Each site belongs to the North Aegean, either located on a North Aegean island, coastal area, or connected inland area, but contain little to no information regarding their worked animal bone. The absence of evidence is due to numerous factors. In some cases, a systematic study is yet to be complete, in other cases information is yet to be published or is only published as illustrations or photographs. For instance, information regarding raw material selection is made in some instances based solely on photographic evidence. The lack of information may also be due to the nature of the excavation, with material recovered only through survey or during a limited excavation opportunity. As a result, the source of information will be made clear in the analysis below. Greece: North Aegean Islands Two Neolithic sites on the island of Chios, Ayio Gala and Emporio, were excavated in the early 20th century. The site of Ayio Gala is situated in the northwest of Chios, an island at the southern limit of the North Aegean Sea.1 No absolute dates were recorded at the site, but ceramic analysis suggests the earliest phases at the site (IX and VIII) belong to the Middle Neolithic. Two caves were explored in 1938, an upper and lower cave, in the cliff above the nearby village. No traces of hearths and no obvious floor levels were detected during excavation; however, the nature of the pottery in conjunction with the stone and bone tools suggests habitation during the prehistoric period. The earliest pottery at Ayio Gala is red surfaced and related to types in southwest Turkey. Other items discovered include shell pendants, and a clay head, which may have served as a vertically perforated lug on the rim of a vase. Stone vases, flaked stone implements including a pounder, and chipped stone are noted. In the lower section of the cave, worked animal bone was abundant, but when the principle excavator, Hood, went to investigate objects in the museum after the field season, they were missing.2 Transportation and storage during World War II were blamed for their absence. From photographic records taken before the war, numerous types can be identified, including a variety of points made on long bones (metapodial, tibia, rib) and bevelled-edged tools (made on tibia bones) (Fig. 5.2).

1

 See Hood 1981; 1982.  Hood 1981, pp. 65–72, pl. 12.

2

CHAPTER 5

113

Fig. 5.2. Ayio Gala worked animal bone from various phases (adapted from Hood 1981, pl. 12).

In the southeast of Chios lies Emporio, approximately an hour’s walk from the village of Piryi.3 Located near a harbour, inhabitants had been using the site from the Neolithic until the Bronze Age and later, with early settlers most likely arriving from the Anatolian mainland. Based on ceramic evidence, the earliest phases at the site (Phase X, IX, and VIII) are placed during the Neolithic. As with Ayio Gala, no absolute dates were taken. Natural springs close to the site during prehistory would have made the location favourable for habitation. The earliest levels of the site are now submerged underwater, but evidence of wall foundations is visible on the shoreline. These structures are dated to the earliest phases at the site, with a D-shaped room uncovered in Phase VIII. All pottery at the site during the Neolithic is handmade, with a predominance of dark-surface wares during Period X–VIII. Decoration includes paint, pattern burnish, incision, and relief. Other items recovered include clay objects (spoons, figurines, and knobs), stone objects (querns, celts, bracelets, pendants, idols, and vases), and shell beads. Domestic goat remains are most frequent, followed by domestic cattle and pig. Fallow deer is also documented and presumed to be wild. A total of 77 worked animal bone items were catalogued by site director Hood and divided into Group A (end tools: types 1–11) and Group B (awls, pins, needles, and idols: types 12–31).4 Many of these items belong to later periods, and therefore are outside the scope of this study. Five items are placed during Phases X–VIII (Fig. 5.3): • A hollow leg bone of a small animal with a rounded gouge-like tip (type 3). The tip of this bone has been worked intensively, with evidence of a V-shape. It has parallels with the gouge type at Uğurlu and Ulucak. 3 4

 See Hood 1981; 1982.  Hood 1982, pp. 665–675.

114

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 5.3. Emporio worked animal bone: 1 type 3. 2 type 5. 3 type 17. 4 type 26. 5 type 29 (adapted from Hood 1982, pls. 140, 141).

• A hollow leg, or other, bone split to leave a U-shaped section and a rounded tip (type 5). This tool has a bevelled edged tip and a relatively flat shaft. • A leg bone of small animal with a perforated base (type 17). It has been broken at the shaft and discoloured. Based on regional examples, especially items discovered at Ulucak, this object may have been an ornament rather than a tool. • A tube (type 26). This item has a bevelled tip with a rounded, hollowed shaft that has been fragmented. Suggested use is as a handle. • A spindle whorl made from the distal end of a femur (type 29). A perforation is positioned in the centre of the object. Turkey: West Coast Four additional coastal sites are located along Turkey’s west coast. Three sites are located in the Izmir Province: Ege Gübre, Araptepe-Bekirlertepe, and Yeşilova. A further site, Coşkuntepe, is located on the Biga Peninsula, as part of the Çanakkale Province. There is no doubt that there are more Neolithic sites in this subregion to be uncovered. Ege Gübre is located in the Kendirci District, near Aliağa.5 Two levels belong to the Neolithic: Level IV (6200–6000 BC) and Level III (6000–5700 BC). A further two phases are dated to the later Chalcolithic and Hellenistic periods. A surrounding wall of stone was constructed around the site, which was originally situated near a stream. Both round (n=8) and rectangular (n=12) structures were uncovered, with floors plastered in mud. The entrances to both opened onto a 900 m2 central courtyard. Wattle-and-daub was used in the construction of walls. Hearths were only found in rectangular rooms. Cooking and tool production seem to have taken place on opposite sides of the central courtyard. The majority of Layer III and IV pottery is homogenous: red slipped with ‘S’ or straight profile 5

 See Sağlamtimur 2007, pp. 373–376; 2012, pp. 197–225.

CHAPTER 5

115

bowls. Decoration is rare with a few painted (red-on-cream and cream-on-red) and incised (impressed-style) sherds. Chipped stone consists of blades, mostly made of flint. Mortars, pestles, and grinding stones are also numerous. Sheep, goat, and cattle remains are approximately equal in number, with few pig bones recorded. Bones of wild species (deer, boar, and wild cattle) were found only in the central courtyard. Marine resources, including molluscs, were collected from nearby shores and consumed on site. Clay figurines and seals were found along with a shell pendant. Ceramic and stone spindle whorls are also noted. Worked animal bone is briefly mentioned by site director Sağlamtimur in a preliminary site report, with no frequency reported.6 Worked animal bone is rare with almost all examples typed as awls made from long bones (Fig. 5.4). Due to the soil condition, tools have a dark-brown and blackened appearance. From photographic evidence, the distal epiphyses of some awls have been smoothed and rounded. Tips also appear in some instances to be blunted. Located between the Mandra and Gökdere River in the centre of the Botnova Plain and 4 km from the present-day coastline, Yeşilova is a mound site that consists of three cultural levels.7 Level III is dated to the Neolithic, Phase II is dated to the Chalcolithic and Phase I the Early Bronze Age and Roman Periods. Eight sublevels are associated with Level III: III.8–6 (ca. 6500 BC), III.5–3 (ca. 6250 BC), and III.2–1 (ca. 6000–5700 BC). Evidence of mud-clay deposits suggests regular flooding at the site during Level III. The pottery of the earliest layers of Level III is handmade and monochrome with basic forms consisting of neckless pots and bowls. ‘S’ profile bowls are also found. Stone vessels, including stone bowls with simple rim profiles of yellow-white marble, are also found in the earliest layers. Both domestic and wild faunal remains are reported, including cattle, pig, and deer. Cattle is most frequent during Levels III.4–3, with a shift to smaller sheep/goat in III.2–1. The inhabitants also supplemented their food supply by exploiting near-by marine resources, such as mussels and snails, in the shallow bays. The consumption of seafood increased towards the end of the Neolithic. Site director Derin provides a limited description of the worked animal bone, with no indication of type frequencies.8 Pointed tools are common in this assemblage, with split and unsplit long bones displaying little base modification (Fig. 5.5). Other items noted by the excavation team include a sickle with one side split along the shaft to hold blades for cutting. Deer antler was also recovered and generally used for shafts. Figurines are created from animal bone with one example, a bull-shaped head, found in Level III.6–8. General similarity has also been noted by Derin between the Yeşilova and Ulucak Level IV worked animal bone assemblages. The remaining site close to Izmir is Araptepe-Bekirlertepe which was surveyed in 2001 by Lichter and his team and dated to the second half of the seventh millennium BC, based on recovered ceramics and stone artefacts.9 No worked animal bone artefacts were found. 6

 Sağlamtimur 2012, p. 200.  See Ekdal et al. 2012; Derin 2007, pp. 45–57; 2010, pp. 475–491; 2011, pp. 95–106; 2012; Derin et al. 2010, pp. 7–58. 8  Derin 2012, pp. 180–182. 9  See Lichter 2002; 2005, pp. 61, 66. 7

116

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 5.4. Ege Gübre worked animal bone: pointed tools (adapted from Sağlamtimur 2012, p. 223).

Fig. 5.5. Yeşilova worked animal bone: pointed tools and antler tools including shafts and a sickle (adapted from Derin 2012, pp. 191–193).

CHAPTER 5

117

Likewise, the site of Coşkuntepe, located on the Biga Peninsula, was surveyed in 2004 by Takaoğlu and his team with no worked animal bone reported.10 The site is approximately 1 km from the shoreline and dates to ca. 6000 BC. Both sites show evidence of trade connections with the wider Aegean, seen in the presence of obsidian from Melos. Turkey: Western A further four sites are located inland in Turkey’s west. They are connected to the Aegean Sea through river systems, notably the Gediz River (Alibeyli) and the Bakırçay River (Bergama-Paşaköy). Other inland sites (Mersinli and Moralı) are connected through a series of other waterways, such as creeks and lakes.11 Material remains from all four sites were collected from surveys. Alibeyli was surveyed in the 1960s by French, Mersinli in 1993 by Meriç, Moralı in 2004 by Takaoğlu, and Bergama-Paşaköy in 2000 by Erdoğu.12 Ceramics at all sites were either plain burnished or red slipped.13 No worked animal bone has been published in relation to these sites, but their wider material collections place them in the Neolithic period. The soil from Moralı was removed for the construction of an airport, while the mound at Alibeyli has been heavily disturbed by agricultural activity. Further excavations at the other two sites may reveal worked animal bone collections. Turkey: Gallipoli Peninsula Four sites cover the Gallipoli Peninsula. Hacı Hüsrev, surveyed in 2007, provides evidence of mostly red-slipped and burnished pottery.14 The Karaağaçtepe mound would have been a coastal settlement when initially settled with material culture indicating a rough date between the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic for the earliest stratigraphic phases.15 Hamaylıtarla measures 120 × 120 m and is identified as a Class One Cultural Heritage Archaeological Site.16 Pottery is characteristically hand-made, thin-walled, red-slipped burnished ware. Stone axes, flakes, and hammers were also discovered. Surveys conducted in 1982 and 2006 at Kaynarca also revealed Neolithic material consisting of red-slipped burnished pottery and stone tools.17 No worked animal bone has been published for these sites but these surveys do underscore a plethora of Neolithic material culture on the peninsula. With the site of Uğurlu nearby, it is conceivable that interaction would have occurred between the community on the island and those on the mainland. Thus, investigation in the form of systematic excavations would greatly enhance our understanding and perhaps reveal contemporary worked animal bone assemblages along the peninsula. 10

 See Takaoğlu 2005, pp. 419–433; 2013, pp. 35–43.  See Lichter 2005, p. 62. 12  See Ç. Çilingiroğlu 2009, p. 22. 13  See TAY Project database for site specific information: http://www.tayproject.org. 14  Özbek 2010, pp. 9–10; 2012, p. 167. 15  See Schliemann 1884; Demangel 1926; Özdoğan 1986, pp. 51–66; Özbek 2008a, pp. 1–14; 2008b, pp. 1–12; 2012, pp. 162–175. 16  Erdoğu 2000, pp. 155–166; Özbek 2010, pp. 1–21; 2012, pp. 162–175; 2000, pp. 167–171. 17  M. Özdoğan 1986, pp. 51–66; Özbek 2008b, pp. 1–12; 2012, pp. 162–175. 11

118

JARRAD W. PAUL

Turkey: Thrace Four sites in the Thrace region on Turkey’s north western fringes are connected to the North Aegean in various ways. The coastal site of Hoca Çeşme overlooks the Aegean Sea and the connected inland site of Maya Baba has access to the Aegean Sea via the Meriç (Evros, Maritsa) River. A further two connected inland sites (Aşaği Pınar and Bulgar Kaynaği) are on the edge of the study area but are linked to the Aegean Sea through tributaries of the Meriç River and have material connections with sites in the Marmara region and southern Balkans. Hoca Çeşme is a small mound site located in southwest Thrace, 5 km inland from the Aegean Sea.18 There are seven settlement layers, with four cultural phases: Phase IV (6400– 6100 cal BC), Phase III (6000–5900 cal BC), Phase II (5700–5400 cal BC), and Phase I which has no well-preserved architectural remains and is only recognised by pits cut into lower layers. Rising sea levels as part of a climate event, ca. 6250 cal BC, would have influenced its inhabitants due to the site’s proximity to the coast. Pottery is thin walled, red slipped, and burnished, consistent with western Anatolian styles. Decoration is rare but, when it does occur, includes curved and vertical bands. The lithic assemblage of the Neolithic period differs from that of the Epi-Palaeolithic industries of the region, suggesting an integration of new technology. Buildings were oval and constructed using the wattleand-daub technique, particularly well represented in Phase III. The entire settlement was surrounded by a massive stone fortification wall ca. 1 m thick. Grinding stones, axes, stone bowls, and figurines are also recorded. Information regarding the worked animal bone is so far limited to preliminary assessment by the site’s director, with no record of tool frequency.19 A further detailed assessment of the assemblage is forthcoming.20 In general, the worked animal bone industries of Phases IV and III have excellent workmanship and are typologically diverse (Fig. 5.6). The most numerous items are smoothers, with various types of awls, spatulas, spoons, and needles also noted. Awls are made from the long bones of medium-sized animals such as sheep/goat. Spoons are made from large animal long bones and spatula/spoons (known as subtype B spatulas in the Uğurlu collection) with a tapering bowl are also present. Located south of Kırklareli, Aşaği Pınar was occupied from the end of the seventh and into the sixth millennium BC.21 Occupational layers VIII to VI belong to the Neolithic: Layer VIII (6200 cal BC), Layer VII (5900/5800 cal BC), Layer VI (5700–5600 cal BC). Layers V–II fall between ca. 5500 and 5000 BC. Most of the architectural remains belonged to Layer 6 at the northern end of the mound. These remains consisted of rectangular rooms adjacent to one another, constructed using the wattle-and-daub technique. Pottery vessels, 18

 M. Özdoğan 1993, p. 191; 1997, pp. 1–33; 1998, pp. 435–452; 2013, pp. 179–183; Ammerman et al. 2008, pp. 139–150; Weninger et al. 2006, pp. 411–418; Karul and Bertram 2005, pp. 117–118; Erdoğu 2001, pp. 185–187; Stefanova 1998, pp. 91–97. 19  M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 182. 20  The forthcoming information is to be published by Hazal Azeri, the worked bone specialist investigating the site. 21  See M. Özdoğan 2001b, pp. 56–58; 2013, pp. 183–190; E. Özdoğan 2011, pp. 213–223; Parzinger and Schwarzberg 2005; Karul et al. 2003.

CHAPTER 5

119

Fig. 5.6. Hoca Çeşme worked animal bone: 1 smoothers. 2 spoons. 3 hook (adapted from M. Özdoğan 1999, pp. 203–224).

clay bracelets, sling missiles, loom weights, stone celts (similar to an adze), grinding stones, bone tools, and some beads were uncovered inside these buildings. Domestic sheep, goat, and cattle remains are frequent, with wild deer also in the record. The worked animal bone assemblage has been investigated and published in preliminary reports by Azeri, a worked bone specialist, with a focus on items that belong to Layers V through II.22 A comprehensive assessment of the entire collection, as well as comparisons with other worked animal bone collections in this subregion, is forthcoming.23 Tools from Layers V through II are categorised as either bevelled-edged or pointed tools, and then further divided into types, including awls, pins, smoothers, scrapers, spatulas, spoons, and chisels (Fig. 5.7). Awls are commonly made on long bones and are the most frequent type. The next most common are scrapers, measuring 11–17 mm in width and 5–11 mm in thickness, and are made on small ruminant bones with a variety of active ends. Smoothers are mostly made from tibia bones. Rings were also discovered and are made from the long bones of large ruminants. Pins and spoons exhibit exquisite carved incisions onto their shaft and base, such as spirals running the length of their handles. In general, sheep/goat, domestic cattle, and fallow deer were the preferred raw material choices for tools uncovered in Layer V. As a whole, the assemblage is considered by Azeri to be typologically restricted while still exhibiting a high level of manufacturing skill.

22

 See Azeri 2014; 2015; M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 187.  Pers. comm. Azeri. I wish to also thank Hazel Azeri for her insights and assistance, particularly regarding typology. 23

JARRAD W. PAUL

120

Fig. 5.7. Aşağı Pınar worked animal bone: 1 spoons and spoon handles. 2 pins. 3 festooned objects (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, pp. 241, 259–260).

A further two sites in this subregion provide evidence of Neolithic occupation. A small surface survey was conducted at Maya Baba in 1997 by Erdoğu, with ceramic evidence dated to the Middle Neolithic.24 At Bulgar Kaynaği, a site close to Aşaği Pınar, Early Neolithic pottery was found during survey by M. Özdoğan.25 Whereas the site of Maya Baba is currently under cultivation, Bulgar Kaynaği was destroyed by the construction of a sand mine. No worked animal bone items have been published for either site. The ceramic material from these surveys show that sites with Neolithic material culture occur all the way through the Meriç/Evros River. Further investigation of sites in this region may therefore uncover more settlements with associated Neolithic material assemblages. Turkey: Marmara Additional sites are also found around the Sea of Marmara. One (Toptepe) is located on the coastline, and the others (Yenikapı, Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz Cave, and Tuzla) are concentrated in modern-day Istanbul Province. The Gönen River also connects a site (Taraçcı Höyük) with the Sea of Marmara. Toptepe, a mound near Marmara Ereğlisi, 60 km west of Istanbul, was almost destroyed in 1989 due to the construction of a summer resort.26 As a result, a salvage excavation was undertaken. Peak occupation at the site was from ca. 5200–4900 cal BC, with the earliest 24

 Erdoğu 1999, p. 346; 2001, p. 78.  Erdoğu 2001, p. 184. 26  See M. Özdoğan 1990, pp. 2–23; 2001d, pp. 64–66; 2013, pp. 178–179; Erdoğu 2001; M. Özdoğan et al. 1991, pp. 59–121. 25

CHAPTER 5

121

date around ca. 5500 cal BC. Four phases were identified, from the surface downward, with numerous layers associated with each: Phase I (surface and pits), Phase II (layers 1–4), Phase III (layers 5–7), and Phase IV (layer 8). It is difficult to assign chronological ages to each phase as the site was heavily distributed with multiple merging layers. The prehistoric mound covered at least 7000 sq. m and stood at a height of 10–12 m. It is suggested by M. Özdoğan that the material from the site does not reflect the style of others in the region. For instance, the pottery is characterised by a highly micaceous paste, greyish surface colours, tall necks, vertical handles, and lightly incised decorations. Only one well-preserved building, a rectangular wattle-and-daub structure, was found in Phase III. Inside this building a large anthropomorphic vessel was found (35 × 35 × 85 cm). This vessel has a rectangular body with a head shaped on top with eyes and a nose. Breasts and arms are shown in relief and the entire vessel is decorated with red paint. According to site director M. Özdoğan, the worked animal bone, which is so far unpublished, shares similar features with Aşaği Pınar.27 Distinct to the site are festooned-bone objects: a flattened bone with multiple notches on the base. Tibia bones made into points, flat bones with perforations, and spindle whorls are also noted in photographic records. Excavations at Yenikapı were initiated due to the construction of a new rail station.28 Dating of the site is placed between ca. 6000–5900 cal BC. The total area of the site is 58,000 m2, with architecture consisting of rectangular and rounded huts used for housing and storage. Due to the climatic conditions, extremely rare wooden artefacts have been preserved along with 2080 footprints. Pottery is reminiscent of Fikirtepe types, with a few fragments of the impressed type. Animal husbandry in this region appears distinct in character with introduced sheep and goat quickly adapting to the low plains and valleys. Complete fish remains, including dolphin and swordfish, were also discovered on-site in later phases. A total of 130 worked animal bones have been catalogued, with only a general assessment of the assemblage made by the site directors.29 Worked animal bone is well represented in the material record of the Neolithic period (Fig. 5.8). Types in the collection include handles, awls, spatulas, smoothers, figurines, spoons, and tools made from antler. Most of these objects are shaped from long bones of large mammals and leg bones of sheep and goat. The handles are decorated with elaborate patterns. From the published illustrations, objects seem to be in a general state of fragmentation. The site of Fikirtepe was located on the Asian side of Istanbul, approximately 800 m south of the Haydarpaşa railway station.30 Chronology from ceramic analysis indicates the site was occupied ca. 6000 BC. The site was excavated between 1952 and 1954 and is now lost under the modern city. Distinctive handmade Neolithic pottery discovered at the site lead to the creation of a cultural horizon by Bittel and his team which was chronologically 27

 M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 179.  See Mazlum and Serdar 2017; Kızıltan and Polat 2013, pp. 113–165; Onar et al. 2012; Algan et al. 2011, pp. 30–45. 29  Kızıltan and Polat 2013, pp. 122–123. 30  M. Özdoğan 1989, pp. 201–215; 2001a, pp. 32–33; 2013, pp. 173–174; Çilingiroğlu 2005, pp. 1–13; Erdoğu 2000, p. 159; Bittel 1970, pp. 1–19. 28

122

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 5.8. Yenikapı worked animal bone and wooden items: 1 pointed tools. 2 round-ended tools. 3 bevelled-edged tools. 4 hooks. 5 spatulas. 6 spoons. 7 wooden figurine (adapted from Kızıltan and Polat 2013, pp. 152–153).

divided into the following phases: Archaic Fikirtepe, Classical Fikirtepe, and Developed Fikirtepe. The ceramics have a fabric of small stones and sand, burnished surfaces, and are distinguished by large handles with incised decoration. Architecture at the site was defined by round wattle-and-daub structures. Some of the structures had an area to make fire, and most contained burials under their floors where bodies were placed in a crouched position. Domestic animal remains include cattle, sheep/goat, and pig, with cattle the most frequent. Wild deer (fallow, red, and roe) are also present. Stone tools are mostly blades, with some scrapers. The collection of worked animal bone totals 147 and has been published with a general typology and manufacturing technique analysis by M. Özdoğan, who studied the overall collection as part of a doctoral thesis. No further typology has been published. Types at the site include polishers, awls, spatulas, spoons, harpoons, and antler hammers (Fig. 5.9).31 Almost all are of high quality, with decorative spoons particularly well crafted. Spoons are small, with one example—interpreted as a grave good—located in a burial. The harpoon was used for fishing and the construction methods and types of the rest of the assemblage is considered a continuation from the previous period’s focus on hunting and fishing. Located on the east coast of the Sea of Marmara, 1.5 km east of the district centre, is Pendik, a mound site 280 × 170 m.32 Like Fikirtepe, no absolute dates are reported, but occupation is also placed ca. 6000 BC from comparative ceramic analysis. Architecture 31

 M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 174.  M. Özdoğan 1983, pp. 401–411; 2001c, pp. 34–35; 2013, p. 175; Gatsov 2003a, pp. 283–292; 2003b, pp. 153–158; Pasinli et al. 1994, pp. 147–163. 32

CHAPTER 5

123

Fig. 5.9. Fikirtepe worked animal bone: 1 polishers. 2 harpoon. 3 spoons (adapted from M. Özdoğan 1999, p. 184).

consisted of round wattle-and-daub style buildings, similar to Fikirtepe. Likewise, human remains were discovered the under floors of these structures. Pottery is also reminiscent of Fikirtepe types, handmade with an even burnish of tones, mostly grey or dark grey. Decorations include crosshatched, triangular and rectangular motifs. The chipped stone industry is typologically monotonous, with flake end scrapers, perforators, and retouched blades. A large clay figurine was also recovered. Domestic cattle, sheep, and pig are noted, along with wild deer species. Marine molluscs, which were intensively consumed, and a large number of fish bones, suggest hunting and marine exploitation occurred alongside the rearing of domestic animals. The total amount of worked animal bone in the assemblage consists of 36 pieces.33 M. Özdoğan gives brief mention of the assemblage as part of the salvage excavations that took place in 1981, with no indication of further type frequencies. Many worked animal bone items were typed as spoons (Fig. 5.10). They were meticulously shaped, with shallow bowls and long handles, made from wild cattle bones. Photographic evidence suggests at least one spoon handle was reworked, with the base turned into a pointed tip. Large hooks, possibly used as fasteners, were also found, with a large perforation located at their bases. Additionally, hooks used for fishing are listed, alongside awls and polishers. Situated 30 km west of Istanbul, Yarımburgaz Cave has an extensive history, with human occupation extending back to the Palaeolithic.34 Levels VI to IV at the site relate to the Neolithic: Level VI/V (7460–6690 cal BC) and Level IV (6200–5300 cal BC). Level VII (8550–6400 cal BC) also stretches over a lengthy period which coincides with this analysis. Initially hominids and cave bears inhabited the space seasonally, with habitation gradually increasing over time. The cave has two entrances giving access to two distinct units on different levels. The lower level of the cave is currently 14 m above sea level; the upper level is 21 m. Pottery discovered is commonly handmade and well fired. Few sherds are found in 33

 M. Özdoğan 1983, p. 409; 2001c, p. 34.  See M. Özdoğan 2001e, pp. 8–11; 2013, pp. 176–178; Arsebük et al. 2010, pp. 1–27; Erdoğu 2001; Özdoğan et al. 1991, pp. 61–69. 34

JARRAD W. PAUL

124

Fig. 5.10. Pendik worked animal bone: 1 spoon. 2 large hook. 3 small hook (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 218).

Level V. Level IV includes dark burnished pottery characterised by elaborate decoration and wedge-like excisions, often set in a zigzag pattern. These designs are reminiscent of textiles, leading excavators to speculate about possible inspiration for ornamentation. It is unclear as to whether the cave was continually occupied during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, but the lack of items for daily use when compared to the ample items of status suggest its use for special purposes. The frequency of worked animal bone has not been published, with only general types mentioned by site director, M. Özdoğan.35 Perforated tools made from flat and long bones have either one or multiple drilled holes (Fig. 5.11). Some may be considered traditional

Fig. 5.11. Yarımburgaz Cave: 1 pointed tools. 2 perforated tools (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 224). 35

 M. Özdoğan 2013, pp. 176–178.

CHAPTER 5

125

needle types with a wider perforated base tapering into a slender shaft. Others are made from flat bones and likely served a different functional role, such as use in basket weaving. The remainder of collection include finely worked bone tools, including pointed tools. Two further sites connected to the Sea of Marmara are now destroyed. Taraçcı Höyük a mound which was surveyed and reported in 2014, has been disturbed by agricultural activity.36 The site contained red-slipped pottery and obsidian from Melos. Likewise, Tuzla was destroyed by modern a development. Finds from a small sounding trench in the mid20th century date the ceramics (burnished and red slipped), chipped stones, and sheep/goat bones to the Late Neolithic.37 Both sites yielded no worked animal bone items, but the presence of animal bones could indicate the working of bone may also have been practiced at these sites. Turkey: Lake Iznik Lake Iznik is located just to the east of the Sea of Marmara, on the Bursa and Yenişehir Plains. Two additional sites are located to the south of Iznik, Menteşe in close vicinity, and Aktopralık, southwest of Iznik and closer to Lake Ulubat. Aktopralık is a flat settlement situated 25 km west of Bursa and divided into three distinct areas: Aktopralık C (6380–6250 cal BC), Aktopralık B (5730–5600 cal BC), and Aktopralık A (ca. 5500 BC).38 Area C is designated as the Neolithic settlement site. At the onset of the Chalcolithic (ca. 5500 BC) a cemetery was established in Area A, and the settlement was relocated to Area B. The settlement is located near a now-extinct river course and spring. Architecture consisted of round wattle-and-daub huts constructed together or close together. The main residential area covered an area approximately 30 × 40 m in size. Sixty burials have been recovered from areas B and C. In Area B the dead were placed in a contracted position within pits. They were usually accompanied by monochrome vessels placed at their head and feet, alongside worked bone items. Some individuals were buried face down with discernible grave goods. Domestic sheep, goat, and cattle dominate the faunal remains, with domestic pig more sporadic. Owing to the site’s importance, an extensive archaeo-park has been constructed which includes reconstructions of the architecture and the display of excavated artefacts. Although there is an abundance of worked animal bone, documented in multiple publications, the collection is yet to have a systematic study.39 Frequently occurring types include polishers, spatulas, and spoons. High-quality spoons have extensive carvings on their handles with some decorated handles found in burial contexts in Area C, usually placed at the feet of the individuals. Bone beads are also noted, along with perforated items with single and multiple perforations made on flat bones of medium-sized animals. 36

 Yalçikli 2014, pp. 245–255.  Fıratlı 1958, pp. 74–75; Dönmez 2006, p. 241; TAY Project: http://www.tayproject.org/TAYmaster. fm$Retrieve?YerlesmeNo=2706&html=masterengdetail.html&layout=web. 38  Budd et al. 2013, pp. 860–867; 2018; Karul 2007a, pp. 65–78; 2007b, pp. 387–392; 2017; Karul and Avcı 2011, pp. 1–15; 2013, pp. 45–68; Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2011, pp. 60–61. 39  See Budd et al. 2017; Karul 2017; Vasiliki 2017, p. 38. 37

126

JARRAD W. PAUL

Menteşe is situated on the Yenişehir Plain. Menteşe (6400–5500 cal BC) is close to Ilıpınar and has a parallel material culture, particularly in the layout of the architecture and the use of handmade and burnished pottery.40 Cattle at the site is well represented in the early levels and there is an underrepresentation of pig. Although the site has been well studied, the worked animal bone material is yet to be systematically analysed. According to the site director, like the larger material assemblage, the worked animal bone types are generally similar to those found at Ilıpinar, Barcın, and other sites positioned around the Marmara Sea.41 Greece: Northern Previous research has made great efforts to highlight the vast number of sites in northern Greece that belong to the Neolithic period, spanning the Early, Middle, Late, and Final subphases.42 Two sites (Mavropigi and Xirolimni) have limited information regarding their worked animal bone assemblages. Additional coastal sites (Revenia, Paliambela, Krovili, Lafrouda, Polistio, Podochori, Mikro Souli, Krioneri, and Kapoutzedes) and connected inland sites (Pontokomi, Kalambaki, Kaliphitos, Nea Bafra, Trilophos, and Nigrita) have yet to receive systematic analysis of their worked animal bone collections, as they have been identified only through surveys or small-scale excavations. The inclusion of these sites here is to highlight the extensive Neolithic material culture in northern Greece and to provide avenues of investigation for other worked animal bone specialists. Further investigation regarding worked animal bone into the sites mentioned below would also aid the elucidation of larger established regional trends. The site of Mavropigi is located in the Ptolemaida basin, a former marshy plain between the Vermion and Askiou mountains.43 The site rose to prominence in recent years due to it being one of the few fully exposed and systematically excavated Early Neolithic sites in the region. Three phases have been identified at the site belonging to the Neolithic: Phase I (6600–6500 cal BC), Phase II (6350–6200 cal BC), and Phase III (6200–5900 cal BC). The settlement is defined by a large oval pit (Pit House) which dominates the central section of site. The Pit House was constructed during the earliest phase of the site and continued to be in use until habitation ceased, with continual adaptions and changes to the structure over time. Numerous rectangular buildings were also found, with evidence suggesting wattleand-daub construction, along with ditches around the outside of these buildings. Rubbish pits were located adjacent to these structures, always outside. Burials of 18 individuals (adults and children) were found throughout the site, both inside buildings and outside, in a flexed position. There is a noticeable decline in pottery technology as time progresses. Monochrome styles begin in Phase I, then decoration turns to red-on-white and polychrome patterns in Phases II and III. Impressed pottery is also found, highlighting affinities with 40  Roodenberg and Alpaslan Roodenberg 2013, pp. 69–91; Roodenberg et al. 2003, pp. 18–59; AlpaslanRoodenberg 2001, pp. 1–14; Alpaslan-Roodenberg and Maat 1999, pp. 37–51; Roodenberg 1999, pp. 21–36. 41  Roodenberg pers. comm. I wish to thank Dr. Roodenberg for his comments regarding the worked animal bone at Menteşe. 42  See Papthanassopoulos 1996, pp. 200–208. 43  See Karamitrou-Mentesidi et al. 2013; 2015, pp. 47–116; Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2007, pp. 511–539.

CHAPTER 5

127

the Anatolian west coast. Domesticated grains (emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, barley, and lentils) and a large percentage of domestic animal remains (88 per cent of the total faunal assemblage) suggest early farming practices were adopted on-site. Sheep outnumber goats 2:1, followed by pigs and dogs. Wild species are also found, including cervids (roe and red) aurochs, boars, foxes, hares, and birds. Three thousand chipped stone artefacts made from local (quartz) and foreign (Melian obsidian) are noted, alongside polished stone tools (axes, chisels), mortars, and pestles. Clay spindle whorls, loom weights, scrapers, polishers, burnishers, stamp seals, and 130 figurines were also uncovered. Figurines are both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. There has been no systematic investigation of the worked animal bone assemblage, but according to the site director, over 200 items were found, covering a variety of types including awls, needles, burnishers, and beads.44 Some worked animal bone items accompanied burials and are considered grave goods. Photographic evidence also shows a range of pointed tools made from long bone splinters of medium-sized animals (Fig. 5.12). Indeed, pointed tools seem to be constructed mainly from splinters of long bones. The main occupation phase at Xirolimni dates to the Early and Middle Neolithic (ca. 6000 BC) making it one of the earliest agricultural communities in the area.45 A destruction layer was detected across a large section of the site, leading excavators to suggest this

Fig. 5.12. Mavropigi pointed tools made from splinters (adapted from Karamitrou-Mentesidi et al. 2015, p. 62). 44

 Karamitrou-Mentesidi et al. 2015, p. 62; Karamitrou-Mentesidi 2007, p. 536.  Papathanasiou 2011, pp. 92–93; Karamitrou-Mendesidi 1998, pp. 476–477.

45

128

JARRAD W. PAUL

as the main reason for site abandonment. Clay-built structures were identified with post holes, with and without stone foundations. The community consumed domesticated wheat, barley, legumes, and fruit. A high concentration of ceramics include plain, coarse, and unique wares which are distinctly local, for instance, a knob used as a base for pots. Additionally, some large open vessels have pierced or pointed knobs which served as handles. Fourteen pit burials were uncovered, with later bone scatters indicating that this area was used as a burial ground later in history. Stone tools are abundant (chipped tools, flake tools, and other stone tools such as millstones, pestles, and mortars). Items made of clay spread across the site include bobbins, spindle whorls, and loom weights. Objects classified as jewellery are recorded, alongside figurines, which include standing and sitting humans and animals. The site director, Karamitrou-Mendesidi, mentions that 498 worked animal bone pieces were catalogued, with types including awls, needles, chisels, and spatulas.46 No further information regarding the assemblage is given. The following sites lack any published information regarding worked animal bone data. A small rescue excavation at Pontokomi (ca. 6200 BC) revealed a habitation area with three burials, flint stone tools, plain and coarse pottery, and 120 fine-clay figurines.47 At Revenia, a flat settlement situated in northern Pieria in a small valley close to both the sea and the Pieria mountains, habitation of the site occurred during the Early and Middle Neolithic.48 Architectural features included numerous pits, associated with post holes and rubbish, with specific rubbish pits determined by raw material. Numerous human remains are seen, with 11 burials. The chipped stone is made from chocolate and honey flint, and obsidian, and contains numerous tool types (burins, scrapers, blades, flakes). Paliambela is located in the northeast section of the Pieria prefecture, and started out as a flat settlement in the Early Neolithic, later becoming a tell in the Middle and Late Neolithic.49 Architectural features of the earliest phases included small shallow pits, dug into the bedrock which was used as a base for shelter construction. The pottery from the pits comprises mainly open medium-sized vessels. Decorations include the impressed style and some painted wares. In terms of domestic animal remains, for the Early Neolithic sheep/goat are most frequent (n=216), followed by pig (n=89) and cattle (n=49). This ratio continues into the Middle Neolithic though more sheep are accounted for than goat. Krovili is a mound site located 12 km from the North Aegean coast.50 Core samples were taken from the base of the mound to determine age (5900–5300 cal BC). Material on the surface included Middle Neolithic pottery. Coring also uncovered further pottery fragments, animal bones, and charcoal. The pottery is burnished and dark brown or black, similar to types at Marki I.

46

 Karamitrou-Mendesidi 1998, p. 477.  See Papathanasiou 2011. 48  See Dogiama 2017. 49  Kotzamani and Livarda 2018, p. 81; Papadakou et al. 2015, pp. 157–162; Halstead and Isaakidou 2013, p. 132. 50  Ammerman et al. 2008, pp. 143–145. 47

CHAPTER 5

129

A small test excavation was also conducted at the site of Lafrouda, a mound situated on the edge of a small lagoon.51 The earliest dates, derived from core sampling, go back to 5500 cal BC. Even earlier levels are suggested to have been lost due to the rising sea levels. Pottery found is reminiscent to that uncovered at Marki and Krovili. The remaining sites (Polistilo, Kalambaki, Kaliphitos, Nea Bafra, Podochori, Mikro Souli, Krioneri, Kapoutzedes, Trilophos, and Nigrita) have been detected either through surveys or small-scale excavations. Most contain ceramic evidence and belong to Late Neolithic, the end of the chronology phases investigated in this study, but no published worked animal bone information so far. Greece: Thessaly Two additional sites, Soufli and Koutroulou in Thessaly contain further evidence for the widespread use of worked animal bone. Evidence from these additional sites helps paint a larger picture of the toolkit employed on the Thessalian Plain. Soufli is a low artificial mound on the bank of the Pinios River.52 Two small trial trenches were dug in 1958 with material remains dated to the Early Neolithic, although no absolute dates have been taken. A deep V-shaped ditch was found at the site, running the entire length of the of the perimeter. No clear architectural features were discovered, except for clay floors which were beaten and separated the different building phases. Emmer, lentil, and wild olive were identified as markers of onsite agricultural practice. A number of small pottery fragments were also found. Vessels have a smoothed surface and are simple and restricted in shape with convex or ring bases. On one rim-sherd an imprint of a flat-woven mat can be seen, highlighting some direct evidence for basketry and cloth making. Local chert is used for stone tools, along with obsidian from Melos. A piece of worked shell with a polished lip may be interpreted as a vessel. Clay objects include figurines, ‘earplugs’, beads, and ‘sling-bullets’. Similar clay earplugs or studs were recovered at Sesklo, Achilleion, and Nea Nikomedeia. A small cremation burial ground contained 14 burials. Some of the cremation pits included charred remains along with grave goods, including ceramics and stones. Other cremation pits only included burnt human remains. This was located on the periphery of the tell. The worked animal bone assemblage at the site has not yet been evaluated systematically; but, items from the collection have been published.53 Perforated objects, including a belt buckle and fish hooks, are common in this assemblage. From photographic evidence it can be seen that the belt buckle has two perforations and the fish hook has been worked to create a head for securing (Fig. 5.13). According to Moundrea-Agrafioti these hooks remain unique for Neolithic Greece, with only one possible comparable example at Sesklo associated with an aceramic level. Both hooks also show similarities with those found at Çatalhöyük. All hooks are made from the bones of large-sized animals. Additional items in the collection include smoother- and chisel-like items, but with damaged tips. Again, from photographic

51

 Ammerman et al. 2008, pp. 145–147.  See Alušík 2017, pp. 187–198; Perlès 2001; Wijnen 1981, pp. 61–62. 53  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, p. 136; Bökönyi 1973, p. 169; Theocharis 1958, pp. 78–86. 52

JARRAD W. PAUL

130

Fig. 5.13. Soufli worked animal bone hook (adapted from Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, p. 139).

evidence these seem to be constructed on tibia bones of medium- and large-sized animals. Most of the items are fragmented. Points, a subtype B of the Uğurlu typology, are also included in the assemblage, along with points made from long bone splinters of mediumand small-sized animals. An object with a rounded tip made from a split rib bone, similar to the spatula type at Uğurlu, is also documented. The main occupational phase at Koutroulou is dated to the beginning of the sixth millennium BC, during the Middle Neolithic (ca. 5900–5400 BC), with later material at the site from the Late Bronze Age.54 This tell mound contains evidence of buildings, ditches, and terracing. Paved courtyards are found between buildings. Red-on-white painted pottery is common, with flat-bottomed flared convex cups and bowls frequent. Agriculture was practiced at the site with einkorn and emmer most widely harvested, alongside barley, oats, lentils, peas, and bitter vetch. More than half of the chipped stone assemblage is made up of obsidian tools sourced from Melos, with product manufacture seeming to occur off-site. A large and diverse collection of figurines is also noted, numbering 400, making it the largest in Greece for the period. Seventy per cent of the animal remains are from sheep/goat, with cattle, pig, and dog also reported. Wild species, including red and roe deer, are also found amongst the unmodified animal bones. Worked animal bone has not yet been systematically published and are mentioned as being located inside and outside buildings.55 54

 See Papadopoulos et al. 2015; 2019; Hamilakis et al. 2017; Reingruber et al. 2017, p. 50.  Papadopoulos et al. 2015, p. 1040.

55

CHAPTER 5

131

Greece: Central Elateia is located in central Greece, at the fringes of the current study area. Elateia is a mound site roughly 200 m in diameter and 4 m high, located roughly 1.5 km northeast of the modern village with the same name.56 Occupation at the site is placed between 5500 and 5100 cal BC. Architectural remains were few but included stone foundations, evidence of mudbrick and wattle-and-daub, post holes, numerous floors, hearths, and pits. The earliest phase contained monochrome pottery with spongy fabric. Shapes include mostly hemispherical bowls and globular jars with no handles and the occasional pierced lug. Objects made of clay include figurines, sling bullets, spools, and discs. Large numbers of worked stone include obsidian blades and flint tools. The presence of sickle blades, querns, and pounding stones suggests those inhabiting the site were an agricultural society. In general, worked animal bone is relatively rare in the material assemblage, with only nine items documented.57 These include several pieces of worked antler, a worked boar’s tusk, and nine bone implements. Types of bone tools include awls or pins, and a handle. From photographic evidence, the bases of at least two pointed tools have been cut and smoothed, with three others made from long bone splinters (Fig. 5.14). Two objects seem to be made from flat bones. The largest worked bone example may be considered a smoother type, from the Uğurlu typological system, made from a tibia bone.

Fig. 5.14. Elateia worked animal bone: pointed tools and cutting/smoothing tools (adapted from Weinberg 1962, pl. 69e). 56

 Wijnen 1981, pp. 75–76; Weinberg 1962, pp. 158–209.  Weinberg 1962, p. 204.

57

132

JARRAD W. PAUL

Bulgaria: Southern The site of Kovačevo is at the northern edge of the current study area.58 It is some distance to the Aegean Sea, around 80 km as the crow flies. The site is connected to the sea by the Pirinska Bistrista River, a tributary of the Struma River. Kovačevo is dated from 6200 to 5500 cal BC, making it one of the earliest settlements in the area. Structures were built with wooden frames plastered using the wattle-and-daub technique and were quadrangular or square in plan. Dwellings were orientated northwest/southeast with the entrance on the southeast side. Fireplaces, fire pits, and large storage containers were found inside structures. Some of the containers were painted before firing, with white-on-red decorations on a polished surface. They have S-like body profiles, with grey and grey-black smoothed and burnished surfaces prevailing. Sheep/goat account for 65 per cent of the faunal remains, followed by pigs (21 per cent) and cattle (14 per cent). Burials of five children date to the earliest phase. A dog skeleton located inside a wall with an accompanying marble figurine seems to have been deliberately placed. Three hundred fragments of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines were also found, in addition to items of adornment made from stone, clay, and marble. The worked animal bone collection at Kovačevo has been mentioned in a number of reports.59 According to the site directors, types at the site include spoons, beads, adzes, cutting tools, sickle hafts, chisels, hooks, pendants, bracelets, rings, and piercing tools (Fig. 5.15).

Fig. 5.15. Kovačevo worked animal bone: 1 spoons. 2 hooks. 3 sickle. 4 bead. 5 cutting tool (adapted from Sidéra 2005, p. 83; 2013, p. 176). 58  See Stamboliyska and Uzunov 2009, p. 71; Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006; Demoule and Lichardus-Itten 1994; 2001, pp. 85–102; Pernicheva 1995, pp. 100–102. 59  Sidéra 2013, pp. 173–178; Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006, pp. 88–89; Demoule and Lichardus-Itten 2001, p. 94.

CHAPTER 5

133

Many (65 per cent) are made from sheep and goat remains. Some items show degrees of burning with shiny brown, black, and grey surfaces. Hooks, used either for fishing or as fasteners, exhibit mastery of manufacturing techniques with numerous incisions at the head of the tool. From Sidéra’s examination of the spoons at the site, there is an abundance of expertly manufactured examples which support the claim for the presence of highly adept craftspeople. Production of spatula-spoons seems to be favoured over the production of spoons. There is also a variety of handle decoration, with some examples reminiscent of those discovered in Thrace. Overall, there is a similarity in form and morphology with tools at this site and those in northwest Anatolia. Sites Outside the Chronological Limits Sites in this category are located in western Turkey and northern Greece and belong to the Late or Final Neolithic onwards. Their worked animal bone assemblages are briefly included here to underscore the continuation of manufacturing traditions in the region. Turkey: West Coast At Gülpinar, associated with the Greco-Roman site of Chrysa, excavations in 2004 and 2005 focused on the earliest levels which date to the first half of the fifth millennium BC.60 Material recovered from these excavations include fragmentary and complete pottery, chipped stone tools, saddle querns, and plant remains. Textile impressions are found on the bases of some pottery. With the recovery of spindle whorls, the site director suggests that weaving was practiced on site. The modest faunal assemblage indicates that sheep and goat were raised locally, with cattle and deer remains also present. Oyster and molluscs were also collected as part of the inhabitants’ subsistence strategy. Two worked animal bone implements are catalogued.61 They are made from fallow deer antler and are considered a drill and a hammer. The drill has striations located around its tip. Takaoğlu suggests antler was procured from nearby wooded areas. Greece: Northern Dimitra is located close to the Angitis River.62 Four phases are determined (Dimitra I–IV) with Phases I–III corresponding to the Neolithic and having general overlap with Sitagroi Phases I–III. Phase I at Dimitra therefore corresponds to ca. 5500–5200 BC, although two radiocarbon dates from Phase I indicate a possible earlier start date ca. 6100 cal BC. Typical Neolithic finds from the site include pottery, domesticated grains, and domesticated animals. Also noted from the Neolithic phases are rings and beads made of Spondlyus.

60

 See Takaoğlu 2006.  Takaoğlu 2006, p. 311. 62  Andreou et al. 1996, p. 590. 61

134

JARRAD W. PAUL

Three hundred and thirty-one worked animal bones have been noted at the site by Christidou.63 The assemblage is divided into tools, non-functional items, cores/preforms, and manufacturing debris. Tools are further separated into types based on the morphology of the active end. These include tools with a cutting-edged active portion; tools with a pointed active portion; tools with a rounded active portion; and tools with diffuse active areas. Cutting-edge active portion tools are most frequent and are identified by a working edge that is convex or straight-lined. The transverse edges are shaped distally into double or simple bevels. Tools with a pointed active portion are the next most frequent item and are made mostly using the metapodial bones of medium-sized animals. Tools with a diffuse active area and tools with a rounded active portion are less frequent. One of the largest settlements on the southern Rhodope Plain, Proskinites, lies near the village of the same name.64 It has been dated, by ceramic typology, between the Middle and Late Neolithic though no absolute dates have been taken. While it may contain items from the Middle Neolithic, ceramics similar to Paradimi I and II suggest that items in this assemblage may belong to a later period that is outside the chronological boundaries of this analysis. Thus, although it has been extensively studied, it is placed in this section. The Neolithic deposit is ca. 3.5 m deep covering ca. 8 ha. Architectural remains at the site included hearths, pits, and post holes. Ceramics include monochrome and channelled decorative wares, which resemble repertoires from Paradimi I and II. The site features an extensive chipped stone industry, made mainly from local chert and flint. Numerous clay figurines have been uncovered. The excavation at the site was brief owing to the small sample of material. One hundred and one worked animal bone objects were initially divided into three groups by worked animal bone specialist Arabatzis: finished tools, unfinished tools/preforms, and manufacturing debris.65 Most worked bone objects (n=94) are placed in the finished tools group (Fig. 5.16). This group is further separated into tools with pointed ends (n=82) and tools with bevelled ends (n=12). Pointed tools are more frequent than bevelled tools, suggesting a clear preference for the former. Raw material for the pointed tools are made from sheep, goat, pig, and fallow deer, with long bones used almost exclusively, apart from one rib bone. Long bones include metapodials, fibulas, ulnas, and tibias. Metapodials are most frequently split lengthwise and in ten cases, the distal epiphysis is smoothed. Long bone splinters are also used for tool construction. Use-wear on these objects suggest they were hide-working tools. Bevelled tools are constructed mainly from tibia bones, but also a tooth, antler, a scapula, and bone splinters. Use-wear markers on the bevelled tools suggest wood and hide-working activities. Unfinished tools/preforms are few (n=2) but their presence does suggest on-site manufacture. The preform of a long bone highlights the manufacturing sequence for pointed tools: one epiphysis and part of the diaphysis is removed carefully and with great precision, a groove is then incised from the remaining epiphysis down the length of the bone on one 63

 Christidou 1997, pp. 128–199.  Andreou et al. 1996, p. 592. 65  Arabatzis 2013, pp. 33–39. I want to extend my special thanks to Dr. C. Arabatzis for his assistance in locating material used throughout this publication. 64

CHAPTER 5

135

Fig. 5.16. Proskinitis worked animal bone: pointed tools (adapted from Arabatzis 2013, pp. 35, 37).

face to divide it into two. The remaining items (n=5) are considered manufacturing debris. Their relative low number suggests the site was either cleaned or tool manufacture occurred in other areas, perhaps outside the settlement. The use of antler is rare in the assemblage. There is also a clear preference for pointed tools. In terms of manufacturing techniques, both time-consuming and simple reduction procedures are seen. The worked animal bone could not be placed in chronological context by Arabatzis. The Paradeisos (4000–3000 BC) worked animal bone assemblage contains 20 objects, including 11 awls, five scrapers, two spatulas, and two miscellaneous objects (Fig. 5.17).66 Most of the tools are thought to have been associated with hide preparation and textile manufacture. Paradimi (5100 cal BC onwards) produced a variety of points, both split and scraped, flat needles with perforations, chisel/gouges, antler objects, and shuttles (Fig. 5.18).67 Makriyalos (5400–4500 cal BC) is a flat settlement with occupation occurring in two phases (Phase I early Late Neolithic and Phase II late Late Neolithic). Approximately 900 objects are worked from bone and 200 from antler, with roughly 300 from Phase I, 600 from Phase II, and 200 from an unknown context.68 There is a preference for sheep/goat bones, followed by cattle-sized and pig-sized bones. The metatarsals of sheep/goat were favoured for tool production, with tibias also commonly used. At Akropotamos pins, needles, borers, polishers, and perforated wild boar teeth were uncovered;69 Stavroupoli70 produced sleeves and bevelled-edged tools made of antler; and at both Thermi B and Vassilika (dating to the Late Neolithic) the creation of points occurs on fragments of long bones.71 66

 Hellström 1987, p. 83.  See Bakalakis and Sakellariou 1981. 68  Isaakidou 2003, pp. 233–238. 69  Mylonas 1941, p. 565. 70  Chatzoudis 2002, pp. 609–626. 71  Christidou 2011, pp. 121–133. 67

136

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 5.17. Paradeisos worked animal bone: fragments (adapted from Hellström 1987).

Fig. 5.18. Paradimi worked animal bone: 1 pointed tools. 2 and 4 bevelled-edged tools. 3 perforated objects (adapted from Bakalakis and Sakellariou 1981, pls. 4, 10, 14, 15, 73).

CHAPTER 5

137

Sites Outside the Geographic Boundaries More significant are sites with vast and unique worked animal bone collections, studied extensively by specialists, but outside the geographic scope of this book. This category contains seven subregions, representative of the numerous adjacent regions to the North Aegean. It is important to mention them here to highlight wider trends and connections with the North Aegean. Turkey: Central One of the most noteworthy Neolithic sites in Turkey is Çatalhöyük, located in the Konya Plain. Due to extensive and systematic research over the past decades it has become an icon of prehistoric studies in the wider region.72 This extends to the vast worked animal bone collection, which has been comprehensively studied (Fig. 5.19),73 with 565 excavated worked animal bone objects systematically documented from the 1995–1999 seasons.74 Tools and objects are divided into types based on form, with function derived from microwear analysis. Results from this in-depth analysis show that while procedures were followed in the manufacture of worked bone tools, some stylistic interpretations and additions are also evident. Of the items from Çatalhöyük, pointed tools made from sheep/goat long bones are the most frequent, along with numerous ornamental pieces including beads and rings. Spoons show little use-wear, suggesting that these were only used for special purposes or occasions. Other contemporary sites are also located on the Central Anatolian Plateau. TepecikÇiftlik (7500–5800 BC) includes Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels, with levels nine to three belonging to the Pottery Neolithic.75 The Neolithic settlement contained multi-roomed rectangular buildings, pottery—most commonly hole-mouth and open bowls—stone tools made of obsidian, and worked animal bones. The extensive worked bone collection includes awls, needles, combs, punchers, spoons, and scrapers (Fig. 5.20).76 Pointed tools are most common, with elaborately decorated items such as hooks, figurines, beads, and pendants also recorded. A high number of worked animal bone was made on wild animal bones. Mersin-Yumuktepe is another Neolithic site separated into four phases: I (7000–6200 BC), II (6100 BC), III (6000–5800 BC), and IV (5800 BC).77 In the earliest phase, evidence of wattle-and-daub structures was evident, with terraced houses in later phases. Pottery includes burnished wares of global jars, with later introductions of impressed and painted ware. Obsidian tools are also found, with flint used to create stone tools from around 6000 BC. The worked animal bone collection from around 6000 BC comprises pointed tools and spatulas, both rounded and pointed. Pins are also found during later phases at the site (5800 BC). 72

 See Hodder 2005; 2013.  See Russell 2005; 2016; Russell and Griffitts 2013, pp. 277–306; Orton and Piliougine 2013, pp. 150–

73

157. 74

 Russell 2005, pp. 339–369.  Bıçakçı et al. 2012, pp. 89–134. 76  Campana and Crabtree 2018, pp. 75–83. 77  Caneva 2012, pp. 1–29. 75

138

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 5.19. Çatalhöyük worked animal bone: 1 points. 2 needles. 3 ring. 4 hook. 5 pins. 6 plaster tool. 7 ornamented boar tusk collar (adapted from Russell 2005, pp. 340, 342, 343, 357; 2016).

Fig. 5.20. Tepecik-Çiftlik worked animal bone: 1 pointed tools. 2 needles. 3 other tools (adapted from Campana and Crabtree 2018, pp. 75–83; Bıçakçı et al. 2012, p. 131).

Fig. 5.21. Mersin-Yumuktepe worked animal bone decorated point (adapted from Caneva 2012, p. 26).

CHAPTER 5

139

A further decorated worked bone point is notched to manipulate the form of the object (Fig. 5.21) and may have acted as a type of arrowhead.78 Köşk Höyük is a mound site located northeast of Niğde.79 Occupation at the site lasted from ca. 6300–5000 BC, with the settlement abandoned due to fire. Architecture at the site consisted of rectangular or square terraced houses with two to four rooms and benches along one wall. A wall painting is also displayed in one building. Burials are documented, with plastering of skulls practiced, similar to Çatalhöyük. Pottery includes jars, vases, bowls, and plates, mostly monochrome with some featuring decoration. Chipped stone tools are reported along with figurines, seals, and ornaments of shell, clay, and bone. Worked animal bone is common in every phase at the site and consists of piercing, scraping, digging, and hammering tools.80 Types include awls, borers, picks, blades, razors, spatulas, and spoons (Fig. 5.22), with antler used to create shafts and hammers. Some stamp seals are also made of bone. Worked animal bone was also found inside burials. It is also worth briefly mentioning two sites, Aşıklı and Boncuklu, that date to the eighth millennium BC, just before the chronological beginnings of this study, to highlight previous worked animal bone manufacturing traditions. The settlement of Aşıklı, located in west Cappadocia, contained free-standing single- or double-roomed buildings with evidence of cultivated agricultural activity (einkorn, emmer, wheat, and barley).81 Tools found at the site are made from obsidian, antler, and bone. Awls are the most common worked animal

Fig. 5.22. Köşk Höyük worked animal bone: 1 awls and borers. 2 cutting and smoothing tools. 3 pick and special items. 4 hook. 5 ring (adapted from Öztan 2012).

78

 Caneva 2012, p. 7.  Öztan 2012, pp. 31–70. 80  Öztan 2012, p. 41. 81  Özbaşaran 2012, pp. 155–156. 79

JARRAD W. PAUL

140

bone objects, shaped from metapodials and tibias of sheep/goat.82 Tips of some of the pointed objects were also intentionally burnt, with belt hooks and beads also recorded in the assemblage (Fig. 5.23). At Boncuklu the faunal remains show large amounts of bird, fish, and tortoise, with cattle and pig/boar more frequent than sheep/goat.83 For worked animal bone at the site there is still a preference for pointed tools made from sheep/goat long bones, rather than bones of cattle or pig/boar. A toggle is also documented in the assemblage.84 Greece: Cyprus On Cyprus, the site of Khirokitia presents a unique picture of worked animal bone tool manufacture.85 Points and needles are the most noticeable type in the assemblage, which is not uncommon; however, they are mostly made from the metapodial bones of fallow deer.86 Given the robust nature of deer metapodial bones, this has been interpreted by LegrandPineau as a specific choice, either technical or symbolic.

Fig. 5.23. Aşıklı worked animal bone points (adapted from Özbaşaran 2012, p. 155).

82

 Özbaşaran 2012, p. 142.  Baird et al. 2012, pp. 219–244. 84  Baird et al. 2012, p. 231. 85  See Legrand-Pineau 2009. 86  Legrand-Pineau 2009, p. 117. 83

CHAPTER 5

141

Turkey: South Western Along the western coast of Turkey, south of this study area, is the site of Çukuriçi Höyük, which has also produced a large collection of worked animal bone material. The site is located on a broad alluvial plain, 1 km southeast of Ephesus, with the beginning of settlement dated to ca. 6680 cal BC, making it one of the earliest sites in the region.87 The earliest layers at the site (Phase XIII, XII, and XI) included domestic architectural features, such as plastered floors and post holes, and a variety of material culture such as pottery, stone tools, and worked shell. Bone tools from Phase XIII include pins, awls, points, spatulas and smoothers, with spoons common after 6500 BC (Fig. 5.24).88 In the Lakes Region, southwest of Turkey, lie another three sites. Bademağacı Höyük is an oval shaped mound located about 2.5 km north of the village of the same name.89 The Early Neolithic settlement (7100–6200 BC) had rectangular buildings with compressed clay floors. Medium-sized bowls and jars of a greyish brown temper are the most common pottery types. Clay seals, figurines, stone and bone tools are also recorded at the settlement. The worked animal bone collection consists of almost 100 spoons and spatulas of various morphological dimensions, alongside hooks, both belt and fish hooks (Fig. 5.25).90 Also in the Lakes Region of south-central Turkey is Kuruçay Höyük and Hacılar. Kuruçay Höyük is located south of Lake Burdur, with Levels XIII–XI belonging to the Neolithic.91 A large building with stone foundations was placed in Level XII. A free-standing defensive wall that surrounded the settlement has been dated to Level XI. Spoons and pins are noted as part of the worked animal bone of the Neolithic levels.92 The worked animal bone assemblage

Fig. 5.24. Çukuriçi Höyük worked animal bone points. No scale included in the original photograph (adapted from Horejs 2012, p. 130).

87

 Horejs 2012, pp. 117–131; Horejs et al. 2015, pp. 289–330.  Horejs et al. 2015, p. 304. 89  Duru 2012, pp. 13–21. 90  Duru 2012, p. 20. 91  Duru 2012, pp. 5–7. 92  Duru 2012, p. 7. 88

JARRAD W. PAUL

142

Fig. 5.25. Bademağacı Höyük worked animal bone: 1 spoons. 2 belt hook (adapted from Duru 2012).

at Hacılar, a mound 150 m in diameter located about 25 km west of Burdur, is copious.93 Worked animal bone are found in all levels, with Levels I–VII belonging to the Early Neolithic (ca. 6400–5700 cal BC).94 Antler (mainly from red deer) were used to make shafts, picks, and sickles. Spatulas are ample, and mostly made from cattle ribs. Some are comparable to the spatula-spoon type at Uğurlu and Ulucak. Awls, bi-points, belt hooks, pins, needles, bodkin, tubes, a plaque, and rings are also listed in the assemblage. Some of the spatulas and pins are elaborately decorated with representations of animals. A carved pin was also found inside a burial. Greece: Crete The island of Crete, more known for its Bronze Age material culture, offers a comparable range of material from the Neolithic. The Neolithic worked animal bone assemblage at Knossos is estimated at around 2000 items, one of the largest collections in Greece.95 A sample (n=250) shows that sheep/goat bones are predominately used (80 per cent), with cattle (14 per cent) and pig (6 per cent) used in smaller frequencies. Two worked ulnas from dogs were also identified in Early Neolithic contexts. Ulnas, tibias, and metapodials were preferred with radius bone rarely used for working. Ribs are used only to create spatulatype tools.

93

 Duru 2012, pp. 1–4; Umurtak and Duru 2013, pp. 19–20; Mellaart 1970, pp. 161–163.  Thissen 2010, p. 273. 95  Isaakidou 2005, pp. 211–212. 94

CHAPTER 5

143

Greece: Peloponnese Franchthi Cave, opposite the village of Koilada, was excavated between 1967 and 1974.96 The site has a lengthy history, with material dated from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. The appearance of the Neolithic is obvious at the site with the inclusion of domestic animal remains and medium-walled handmade pottery; other material includes worked stone, figurines, and worked shell. Three hundred and twenty-nine bone tools from the Neolithic are catalogued (Fig. 5.26), with 239 labelled as points.97 Five point subtypes were subsequently created that show a range of manufacturing techniques, including splitting sheep/ goat metapodials, scraping whole bones, and working on small hare-sized bones. Other types include spatulas/gouges, fish hooks, and pendants. Macedonia: Southern Positioned 1.5 km south of the village sharing its name, Anzabegovo (or Anza) was excavated by a joint US and local team, with Phase I dated to 6500–6000 cal BC, and II and III to 6000–5450 cal BC.98 The following analysis comes from the American-led section of the excavation. Square V of the excavated area uncovered the best examples of Neolithic material with the earliest ceramic styles. Architecture of Anza I consisted of mudbrick dwellings. During Anza II and III houses were built of tightly clustered timber posts with daub cladding.

Fig. 5.26. Franchthi Cave worked animal bone: 1 points type 1–5. 2 hooks. 3 spatula and gouge. 4 special item (adapted from Payne et al. 1973).

96

 Wijnen 1981, pp. 78–81.  Payne et al. 1973, pp. 253–254. 98  Gimbutas 1974b, pp. 27–66. 97

JARRAD W. PAUL

144

Crops were domesticated and included emmer wheat supported by einkorn and barley, with wild fruits also gathered. Domestic animals were also kept, including cattle, sheep, goat, and pig. Some wild species, including deer, were found in the faunal assemblage, but were under 6 per cent of the entire collection. Domestic sheep/goat were favoured over cattle and pig. As time progressed sheep/goat numbers decreased as cattle and pig increased. Ceramics of Anza I include very fine, medium, and coarse wares, with high-quality coloured vases suggesting an existing manufacturing tradition. Globular jars and open bowls were favoured, with painted examples including red-on-cream and cream-on-red examples. The patterns used seem to be highly localised. For chipped stones, quartz was favoured, with polished stones made of greenstone uncovered that included axes, adzes, picks, and hammerheads. Pendants, beads, discs, and bracelets made from shell, clay, and stone were also uncovered. Spondylus shell is used to make ornaments, with its use increasing as time progressed, much like Uğurlu. Clay figurines include anthropomorphic and zoomorphic features. Worked animal bone (n=60) at the site is divided into four types: awls, needles, spatulas, and other.99 Spatulas are limited in Anza I to one example; its suggested functions include use as a pigment mixer or spoon (Fig. 5.27). It is expertly crafted from a long bone rather than a rib bone (which may alter its function to possibly that of a polisher) and has a thin blade-like tip. A violin-shaped object with a small perforation is also documented along with a perforated object made from a cattle bone. Function is unclear for both items. Ornaments made from bone are also found in Anza I, with two labelled musical instruments. They are considered by Gimbutas to be pipes with a flattened base and wind holes. Both are made from long bones and are well polished. A groove on one indicates extended use, with the entire instrument measuring 4.6 cm in length and 1.63 cm in diameter, and the holes 0.06 cm wide. Two bone rings/pendants from Anza I exhibit a high level of bone-carving skill and are highly polished from both manufacture and use. Lastly, a bone figurine from Anza II is considered to be a snake goddess; it has a long cylindrical neck, chest perforations, and a snake head.

Fig. 5.27. Anza worked animal bone spatula (adapted from Gimbutas 1974b).

99

 Gimbutas 1974b, pp. 52–53.

CHAPTER 5

145

Bulgaria: Southern The Balkans covers vast territory and is made up of numerous modern countries. For the Neolithic, or the Early Farmers period (6300–5000 cal BC), cultures associated with type sites are common, including Starčevo, Körös, and Criş.100 Two sites are included here, each with a substantial and well-documented worked animal bone collection. Yabalkovo is situated in the Maritsa River valley in the central part of Upper Thrace.101 The site is dated to the Early Neolithic (ca. 6000–5500 BC) and included architectural remains (rectangular stone structures and wall plaster), pottery (painted and impressed bowls, pots, cups, and tulip-shaped vessels), stone tools, clay figurines, and loom weights. The inhabitants kept domesticated animals (pig, sheep, goat, and cattle) and grew domesticated grains (einkorn, emmer, millet and lentils). The site directors go into some detail regarding the types of worked animal bone uncovered at Yabalkovo. The exact frequency of types is absent. Overall, the worked animal bone collection’s most numerous types are awls and various sized needles, with some perforated examples (Fig. 5.28).102 Chisels made from hollow bones exhibit standardised forms and dimensions. Smoothing tools/spatulas made from rib bones are also present. Spoons, which are typical for the region, are listed with some well-preserved examples present. In one case a spoon was found together with a small pot. Hooks, borers, and tools of unknown use

Fig. 5.28. Yabalkovo worked animal bone: 1 awls. 2 spatulas. 3 spoons. 4 chisels. 5 hook (adapted from Leshtakov et al. 2007).

100

 See Chapman 2015.  See Leshtakov et al. 2007. 102  Leshtakov et al. 2007, p. 197. 101

146

JARRAD W. PAUL

are also noted. There is an almost complete absence of objects made from antler, which coincides with the lack of deer and antler remains in the unworked faunal assemblage. One of the largest and most well-documented sites in southern Bulgaria is Karanovo.103 Karanovo is a significant Neolithic site, located 1.3 km from the modern village of the same name. Phase I is dated to 6000–5750 BC, Phase II to 5750–5500 BC, Phase III to 5500–5280 BC, and Phase IV to 5280–5000 BC. Although the dwellings changed throughout habitation, building materials and architectural features (such as ovens) were consistent. Twenty-five buildings were reported as being square or rectangular and made from mud or daub. Phase I ceramics are characterised by white-painted pottery, a style indigenous to the region and thus considered as part of a cultural horizon. Changes during Phase II see the inclusion of dark-painted vessels among white-painted examples. Twenty-eight graves were uncovered, making it the largest burial discovery of any site in Bulgaria for this period. Most of the graves belonged to children or young adults. Finds associated with the burials included snail shell beads and bone needles. Evidence from 2709 bone remains show cattle comprise a large proportion of the material (n=1086), increasing in frequency during occupation. There is also a sizeable collection of medium-sized animal bones, including sheep and goat (n=851). Most specimens are from domesticated animals.

Fig. 5.29. Karanovo worked animal bone: 1 points subtype A–F. 2 awls subtype A–D and special. 3 polishing tools. 4 other tools (adapted from Höglinger 1997).

103

 See Hiller and Nikolov 1997; 2000; 2002.

CHAPTER 5

147

Worked animal bone is the most abundant small find items on site, with 272 stratified and 46 unstratified objects recorded (Fig. 5.29).104 There are 75 points in total (24.2 per cent of the overall assemblage); they are the most frequently documented item and are separated into six subtypes. Awls are treated separately from points in the analysis by Höglinger. The 30 awls are separated into five subtypes, generally smaller in size than points. Antler points or antler tips, made from red deer antler, are also listed. Fifty-three chisels are catalogued, although according to the Uğurlu typological classification they should be referred to as smoothers, while the smoother category is most like the spatula category. Terminology in this case will be elaborated in the subsequent chapter. The chisels are made from the tibia bones of sheep/goat, with other animals such as dog and domestic pig used as well. The bases of these objects are commonly rounded or smoothed; some are intact. Laterals are worked and the shaft is open and flattened. There are 76 smoothers, separated into four subtypes, made mostly from the rib bones of cattle-sized animals. These tools are described as flat trowels and are associated with leather, textile, or pottery production. Spoons have a long oval handle that broaden into a wider bowl which is concave and 0.3 cm thick. Some have square or curved bowls and others have bowls shaped into a triangle through repeated use. Some were broken and re-shaped into other items. All items were made on metatarsal bones, wild cattle being most frequently used. Antler sickles (from red deer antler), perforated shuttles, jewellery, and gaming pieces are also found in the assemblage.

SUMMARY The 66 additional sites investigated in this chapter underscore the breadth of Neolithic material culture in the North Aegean and its adjacent regions. Showcasing sites with limited or no current published worked animal bone information has highlighted future avenues of research in the region. Furthermore, sites outside the chronological and geographic boundaries of this study exemplify the widespread use of worked animal bone. This review of 94 key and additional North Aegean sites and their worked animal bone assemblages during the Neolithic from the current and previous chapter is the first of its kind for this period on such a large scale. With the systematic evaluation of these assemblages, it is now possible to conduct an extensive comparative analysis that investigates the broad similarities and nuances apparent in North Aegean worked animal bone assemblages.

104

 Höglinger 1997, pp. 157–196.

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION A discussion of worked animal bone from the North Aegean is imperative to recognise, understand, and decipher the significance of the enormous amount of information provided at each site. By comparing and contrasting the sites in the region, a clearer picture emerges of the worked animal bone trends across the Neolithic North Aegean, highlighting localised traditions associated with their manufacture and use. The following discussion focuses on research questions organised into six specific themes: 1) Typology, 2) Raw Material, 3) Manufacturing Techniques, 4) Context, 5) The Contribution of Worked Animal Bone during the Neolithic and, 6) Future Directions. Typology, the first theme, is the relationship between groups, types, and subtypes of worked animal bone at sites in the region. Presented here will be a regional overview of bone tool groups followed by a detailed regional typology based on key and additional sites. Common types and those that are localised to individual sites will also be explored. The second theme centres around raw material, tackling the question of whether there is a consistency between communities in sourcing raw material and constructing worked animal bone items. This involves the relationship between domestic and wild animal species, investigating both bone and antler. Manufacturing techniques, the third theme, explores the detailed steps undertaken to produce worked animal bone from the region. Elaborating further, the fourth theme investigates the contextual relationship of worked animal bone objects, including an inquiry into the influence of the physical landscape in the shaping of individual toolkits. This leads to an analysis of the physical or ideological boundaries of localised traditions, whether differences might follow current national boundaries, and, indeed, whether we can speak of a single tradition. The connection between worked animal bone and other Neolithic material culture is vital in this regard, with a further analysis of how the material in the North Aegean compares and differs with those in neighbouring regions. For the fifth theme, the contribution of worked animal bone research is situated and explored within current academic research influenced by genetic studies. This promotes the complexity of worked animal bone assemblages within larger regional trends involving the above three themes of typology, raw material, and production techniques. Summing up, future directions for the subdiscipline are discussed, in particular the access to information for current and future researchers. Information regarding sites other than Uğurlu and Ulucak is taken from published reports; references to these sites can be found in the previous chapter when not dealing with a specific detail.

JARRAD W. PAUL

150 TYPOLOGY Worked Animal Bone Groups

Analysis begins with the broadest category for investigation into worked animal bone. Throughout, it has been argued that the first step in sorting worked bone is to categorise them into groups. For the following analysis, tools and objects from each site are placed by the author into one of four groups: pointed tools, cutting tools, polishing tools, and other. In the archaeological documentation for the sites of Uğurlu and Ulucak, for example, tool types are placed within these groups in order to bring an initial order to the wide range of types and subtypes produced in the region. Groups are determined here by their primary form (pointed and other) or function (cutting and polishing). Pointed tools are the most commonly occurring tool at almost all comparative sites investigated in the last two chapters, despite differences in geographic location, time span, and material culture. A selection of twelve key and additional sites is typical of this regional trend (Table 6.1). Pointed tools, incorporating points, bi-points, fish hooks, rounded points, needles, and pins, were frequently manufactured and used during the Neolithic. The creation and continual use of these tools reflects a societal need for such an instrument. Additionally, these implements can be simple to manufacture and source, making their disposal less consequential. Polishing tools are consistently the second largest tool group at sites in the region, with spatulas and smoothers common. In some cases, this group is the most dominant, for example at Sesklo.

Groups Key Sites

Pointed number %

Uğurlu Ulucak Ilıpınar Barcın Dikili Tash Makri Cave of Cyclops Sesklo Zarkou Agios Petros Visviki Sitagroi

148 151 451 472  13  53  22   6   4  31  13  11

Total

1375

67.6 56.3 43.1 50.8 33.3 46.5 84.6 25 40 81.6 28.3 18.3

Cutting number %   7   9 108  19  20  48   1   6   3   1   9   5 236

3.2 3.4 10.3 2.1 51.3 42.1 3.8 25 30 2.6 19.6 8.3

Polishing number %  55  77 335 246   1  12   2  10 738

25.1 28.7 32 26.5 0 0 3.8 50 20 0 0 16.7

Other number %   9  31 153 191   6  13   2   1   6  24  34 470

4.1 11.6 14.6 20.6 15.4 11.4 7.8 0 10 15.8 52.2 56.7

Total  219  268 1047  928   39  114   26   24   10   38   46   60 2819

Table 6.1. Number and percentage of tool groups represented at a sample of key and additional sites.

CHAPTER 6

151

The other group is also popular in the region but tends to play a lesser role in the overall assemblage. There is a diverse set of types in this group, and they are more likely to be considered objects rather than tools. Spoons play an important role in maintaining the position of this group. Cutting tools are seen in many cases to be the lowest recorded tool group. For instance, cutting tools are underrepresented in the assemblages of Uğurlu, Ulucak, Ilıpınar, and Barcın. However, this is not consistent. At Dikili Tash and Makri cutting tools almost rival pointed tools in terms of frequency. The low frequency of cutting tools at some sites may be the result of a few factors. First, terminology is an important consideration. Labels are inconsistent across the region making it difficult to firmly ally some tools to their specific groups when no other data is available for the identification of function, such as use-wear indicators. This will be further addressed in the following discussion. Additionally, other raw material, such as stone or wood, may be a viable alternative to bone for the manufacture of some tools. It is possible that these alternatives may have been favoured at sites with lower cutting tool frequencies. In summary, pointed tools dominate most worked bone assemblages in the region, with preferences for cutting tools, polishing tools, and other tools and objects more fluid. A Regional Typology Thirty worked animal bone types have been identified for the North Aegean by specialists, researchers, and by the author from the assessment of key sites in Chapter 4, with added information taken from the additional sites in Chapter 5 (Table 6.2). Some types are more frequently occurring than others, and some feature a multitude of subtypes. Terminology plays a large role in the classification of these tool types, which is largely determined by individual researchers. The goal here is to present all types labelled by specialists and researchers with a full description to aid comparison and help identify diversely named items.

Group

Pointed Tools

Cutting Tools

Polishing Tools

Other

chisel gouge puncher scraper hammer axe/adze wedge misc. cutting tool

smoother spatula burnisher plaster tool misc. polishing tool

Type

point/awl rounded point bi-point needle hook pin

spoon spatula-spoon handle shaft perforated object body adornment special item bowl/cup ring antler tool preform

Table 6.2. Groups and types of worked animal bone at key sites in the Neolithic North Aegean.

152

JARRAD W. PAUL

Point/Awl Points and awls make up a broad category that defines tools with a pointed tip, excluding needles and pins (Fig. 6.1). They were employed for a variety of tasks relating to perforation. The creation of everyday items such as clothes and shoes would have required the use of points to create stitching holes. Points were also required in ceramic decoration and textile manufacture to manipulate the visual form of an item. Some typologies have 10 or 11 different subtypes within this type, having been divided into concise units based on raw material, morphology, and micro-wear indicators. For instance, at Uğurlu there are eight subtypes that are separated largely on morphological characteristics. The term point is used in this study as it largely avoids any functional implications with the implement itself. In many cases though (such as at Ege Gübre, Yeşilova, Yenikapı, Hoca Ceşme, Aşağı Pınar, Ilıpınar, Pendik, Barcın, and Fikirtepe) the term awl is used interchangeably with point.1 At Ilıpınar for instance, an awl is defined as a “singlefunction tool with a pointed end”.2 An awl should ideally be used to described a single object, or a subtype point, for the region, as the term awl implies a certain set of morphological features. In terms of morphology, awls are usually smaller in size with a unique morphology which consists of a flattened and wide shaft narrowing into a small tip. For Uğurlu, awls (point subtype G) are on average (mean) 35 mm in length (SD 10.0), 8.9 mm in width (SD 2.0) and 2 mm in thickness (SD 0.9), making them one of the smallest subtyped points in the collection. At Ulucak, they average (mean) 48.6 mm in length (SD 12.1), 10.7 mm in width (SD 2.3), and 2.3 mm in thickness (SD 0.6). Again, they are one of the smallest subtype points in the collection (Graph 6.1).

Fig. 6.1. Point/awl type (split medium-sized animal long bone) from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Cave of Cyclops. 3 Ulucak. 4 Dikili Tash. 5 Visviki. 6 Ilıpınar. 7 Barcın. 8 Nea Nikomedeia. 9 Theopetra Cave. 1

 See Paul 2019 for more information.  Marinelli 1995, p. 124.

2

CHAPTER 6

153

Graph 6.1. Distribution of point/awl lengths at Uğurlu and Ulucak, with reference to the length of subtype G points.

Points should be divided into subtypes based on the assemblage at each site. For a large assemblage, more subtypes are needed in order to compare differences in toolkits. For smaller assemblages it may not be necessary. Dividing subtypes by their raw material is a popular option to sort this often-large category. For instance, at Ilıpınar the subtypes are divided between points made from a distal condyle of a metapodial or tibia bone (subtype A); those made solely from the shaft of a long bone (subtype B); and those made from the proximal condyle and shaft of metapodial, tibia, or ulna bone (subtype C). Barcın also separates by raw material (subtype A made from metapodial bones and subtype B tibia and ulna bones). Points can also be divided by the section of the element used, be it the distal or proximal part of the bone, which is the case at Dikili Tash and the Cave of Cyclops. Items may also be classified by quite different factors. For instance, at Sesklo, points are separated purely on the length of the item. The most import aspect of establishing a typology is to have a clear definition, and preferably photographic evidence, to highlight the differences between points. While it is largely up to individual researchers to create their own subtypes within this large category, it is strongly urged that they do so in relation to other established typologies. In this way, assemblages may be situated within a wider regional network.

JARRAD W. PAUL

154 Rounded Point

These points can be made from any raw material and any element, but their defining feature is a rounded or blunt tip (Fig. 6.2). It is often difficult to distinguish between rounded points and pins as both have cylindrical shafts, but rounded points commonly have a wider shaft when compared to pins. Owing to the morphological characteristics of the tip, perforation tasks are not attributed. Suggested uses include the expansion of existing perforations, or basket weaving and textile production. At Uğurlu and Ulucak types are separated based on raw material, with bone (subtype A) and antler (subtype B) used. Rounded points are also recorded as such at two other sites in the region, Barcın and Sitagroi, although many more examples exist and are instead incorporated into the general points type. They can be larger than regular points/awls, especially if using antler, with examples from Uğurlu measuring on average (mean) 45.9 mm in length (SD 14.8), 8 mm wide (SD 1.5), and 4.6 mm thick (SD 1.2).

Fig. 6.2. Rounded point type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın.

Bi-point Bi-points are any object worked into a point at both tip and base, with the tips usually rounded rather than sharp (Fig. 6.3). Use of this type of tool varies, but it is mostly associated with the weaving process during textile manufacture. When used in this way, it is often labelled a pin-beater, used to release knots and tangles when weaving.3 Another function of bi-points is for fishing. At Uğurlu they have a mean length of 55.4 mm (SD 0.6), mean width of 8.3 mm (SD 2.5), and mean thickness of 3.8 mm (SD 0.1). At Prodromos, bi-points are incorporated in Stratouli’s artefact group type 1.7; however, they are infrequent. They are also found at the Cave of Cyclops, Nea Nikomedeia, Sitagroi, Prodromos, Servia, and Agios Petros, in low numbers.

3

 Wild 1988, p. 35.

CHAPTER 6

155

Fig. 6.3. Bi-point type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Cave of Cyclops. 3 Prodromos.

Needle Objects classified as needles have pointed tips and are usually perforated at their base, although they can also be unperforated and instead incised on the sides of the base (Fig. 6.4). Modifications on the base allow for the securing of material, such as string. Suggested functions associate them with weaving activities during basket and textile production. They tend to be constructed on long bones of medium-sized animals, although they are also made from rib bones, such as the examples at Servia. The distribution of unperforated and

Fig. 6.4. Perforated needle type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Ilıpınar. 4 Barcın. 5 Theopetra Cave. 6 Yarımburgaz Cave.

156

JARRAD W. PAUL

perforated needles is not consistent within or between sites; for instance, only one perforated example is found at Uğurlu compared to 11 unperforated examples. Likewise, for the 60 examples found at Ilıpınar only four are perforated, and at Barcın, there are more unperforated than perforated needles. Other sites in the region have a complete dominance of one subtype over the other. At Prodromos, only unperforated examples are found. In contrast, only perforated needles are found at Makri, Nea Nikomedeia, Achilleion, and Visviki. It should also be mentioned that some perforated objects may have acted as needles. For example, at Yarımburgaz Cave there is a clear set of unperforated needles, alongside many perforated tools, some of which may have been large needles. Hook Hooks are here separated between fish hooks and larger hooks which may have functioned as belt buckles or clasps. For fish hooks, there is great variation in form and morphology between types. When breakage occurs it is usually at the bend, where the greatest amount of force is exerted. The Cave of Cyclops has one of the most impressive collections of fish hooks in the region; this relates directly to the community exploitation of available marine resources before and after animal domestication on the island. At Uğurlu one object is considered a fish hook and is small and fragile with a traditional fish hook frame. The other two hooks reported at Uğurlu are larger and more robust, and are considered to be belt hooks. Fish hooks are also identified by specialists and researchers at Ilıpınar, Nea Nikomedeia, Soufli, and Barcın, though they have no set morphological structure. Larger belt hooks are also found at Barcın, Nea Nikomedeia, and Servia. Examples from Kovačevo may have been related to fishing or fastening. This highlights the difficulty in distinguishing subtypes. As a general rule, fish hooks tend to be small and delicate compared to their sturdier belt hook counterparts. Perforations cannot be a distinguishing factor as both may have them (Fig. 6.5). Pin The pin type is difficult to define. Generally, objects in this category have a circular, slender shaft and pointed tip, which can be moderately rounded or sharp (Fig. 6.6). But there are exceptions. Some pins have a non-circular shaft but are slender and thin. At Uğurlu these subtypes are called pin-points. Pins are often extremely smooth with a glossy finish due to manufacture and use-wear factors. Pins at Uğurlu have a mean length of 46.6 mm (SD 16.9), mean width of 4.9 mm (SD 1.3), and mean thickness of 2.7 mm (SD 1.0), highlighting the variability of form, particularly in length. At Ulucak pins have a mean length of 46 mm (SD 23.3), width of 5.6 mm (SD 1.6), and thickness of 3.4 mm (SD 1.1) mirroring the range at Uğurlu, particularly in length (Graph 6.2). The suggested functions associated with these objects vary, but their form and overall condition suggests use on soft material. A defining characteristic of a pin is that it does not have any perforation on its base. This is not to say, however, that the base cannot be worked in some other way. Examples at Ulucak have a splayed base and were possibly used either as hair pins or with thicker thread. Other pins have been noted at Barcın and Sitagroi. Outstanding examples of carved decorated bases with various patterns and motifs occur at Aşaği Pınar.

CHAPTER 6

157

Fig. 6.5. Fish hook type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Cave of Cyclops. 3 Nea Nikomedeia. 4 Barcın. 5 Pendik. Larger hook type from: 6 Uğurlu. 7 Pendik. 8 Kovačevo.

Fig. 6.6. Pin type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Sitagroi. 4 Barcın. 5 Aşaği Pınar.

Chisel The chisel is the most commonly occurring cutting tool type in the region. A chisel is defined by a bevelled tip and compact shaft, with no set base profile (Fig. 6.7). These tools are usually made on the long bones of large-sized animals. Those at Uğurlu have clear striations running horizontally across the surface for all examples. Chipping on the tip and a break on the base of one of these chisels at Uğurlu suggests it was actively utilised, most likely as a woodworking tool. At Ulucak, chisels have a mean length of 79.4 mm (SD 26.7), width of 28.7 mm (SD 5.8), and thickness of 6.3 mm (SD 2.0), making them one of the largest tool types in the assemblage. Their dimensions may not be uniform, but their morphology is. They have wide oval shafts with bevelled tips and display no cracking or

158

JARRAD W. PAUL

Graph 6.2. Average length, width, and thickness of pins at Uğurlu and Ulucak.

Fig. 6.7. Chisel type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Sesklo.

pitting. The chisels cluster in earlier levels. Their robust size makes them perfect for highimpact force, with exertion spread over a wide area. At Ilıpınar, while they are labelled chisels, they resemble more the regional smoother type. For instance, there are similarities between the subtypes of “chisel made from long bone” and “hollow chisel” at Ilıpınar and the type A smoothers at Uğurlu and Ulucak. Likewise, at Dikili Tash, there is no smoother category but there are objects with a similar morphology that are labelled chisels or gouges. Raw material for chisels varies little, but there are some exceptions. For example, antler is used at Limenaria and Prodromos, ribs of sheep/goats are used at Sesklo, and scapulas are used to manufacture chisels at Zarkou. At Limenaria, use-wear analysis associates this tool with woodworking.

CHAPTER 6

159

Gouge A gouge has a similar shape and design to a smoother (see below), with a hollowed shaft and degrees of base modification. They are made from medium-sized animal long bones, particularly metapodial bones, and are associated with working on hard materials, an activity that leaves unique use-wear traces. At Uğurlu, these marks take numerous forms, including the appearance of exposed spongy bone around the tip, the creation of V-shaped indentation on the edge of the bevelled tip, and the most common, intentional burning of the tip (Fig. 6.8). Burning a tip creates a stronger, and therefore more useful, tool for working on harder material. Great skill is required to burn only the tip of the implement, as overheating will cause it to become brittle and ineffective. The dimensions of gouges at Uğurlu vary (average mean length 78.4 mm long (SD 25.0), width 17.1 mm (SD 4.5), and thickness 2.2 mm (SD 0.9)). Intentionally burnt and V-shaped tipped gouges are also seen in the Ulucak assemblage, belonging to unstratified phases. At Barcın, gouges are separated from chisels by their tip surfaces, with gouges described as ‘shallow’. Gouges are also catalogued at Dikili Tash, Servia, and Prodromos. A V-shaped tipped gouge (type 3) is also apparent in the Emporio assemblage.

Fig. 6.8. Gouges from Uğurlu (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul).

160

JARRAD W. PAUL

Puncher A puncher is made from deer antler, with a solid cortex, rounded tip, and flattened base (Fig. 6.9). To use a puncher, a person must strike the base with another tool (most commonly made of stone) which transfers energy to the tip. After continual use, the base and tip are left damaged, exposing the spongy bone. Three punchers at Ulucak have a mean average length of 73.8 mm (SD 22.4), width of 19.4 mm (SD 2.6), and thickness of 11.7 mm (SD 4.4). The examples at Ulucak have exposed spongy bone at the bases, with chips and notches on their rounded tips as a result of repeated use. Three flat-ended tools recorded at Sitagroi are also likely to have been used as punchers. Scraper Scrapers are few in the region, with their label defining their main active function. Scrapers at Visviki are made from tibia and radius bones and are 7 to 9 cm in length (Fig. 6.10). Examples found at Aşaği Pınar are made from small-sized animal bones. The lack of items in this type again may suggest a better raw material alternative, in this case most likely stone. Hammer Made from deer antler, hammers are large objects with minimal working, that are related to striking activities (Fig. 6.11). The example at Visviki comes from the base of the antler; it has localised impact depressions on the centre of the clubface as a result from repeated striking. This item was found broken in an area associated with rubbish. Hammers are also found at Fikirtepe, and a possible example at Uğurlu which is typed as a perforated object. Axe/Adze This type is difficult to define as it shares many similarities with the bevelled-edged chisel type. Terminology seems to be borrowed largely from stone tool types. It might be more appropriate to consider these as various subtypes of chisels, based on similar tip morphology but different raw material. For instance, at Sesklo, adzes/chisels are made from sheep/goat rib bones with a wedged-shaped tip, and at Zarkou, axes are made from bevelled-edged deer antler (Fig. 6.12). This type is another example of how terminology can have an impact on consistent comparison between tool assemblages across the region. Wedge Only one item labelled a wedge is noted in this analysis, located at Dikili Tash. Also known as a mace tool, this item has a blunted bevelled tip, rounded base, and oval shaft. It is significant to note that the term wedge is utilised in the description of other types. For instance, at Sesklo, chisels are described as having a wedged-shaped tip. As with the axe/adze type above, it may be more appropriate to consider wedges a subtype chisel, or even a subtype miscellaneous cutting tool.

CHAPTER 6

Fig. 6.9. Puncher type from Ulucak (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

Fig. 6.11. Hammer type from Visviki.

161

Fig. 6.10. Scraper type from Visviki.

Fig. 6.12. Adze type from Sesklo.

JARRAD W. PAUL

162 Miscellaneous Cutting Tools

This type is purposefully broad in its label and has been used by researchers to avoid misleading terms. It is only used for sites in Greece and the Balkans, perhaps due to a less restricted terminological traditional in the creation of on-site typologies. Miscellaneous cutting tools—as a type—has been utilised in this analysis in order to reduce confusion with the group label cutting tools. Miscellaneous cutting tools can include several tools which may not fit securely into the above categories but still exhibit signs of use in cutting or striking activities, most evidently a bevelled tip. Items are placed in this type as their raw material does not conform to that of typical cutting tools (that is, made from long bones of large-sized animals). For instance, items typed as cutting tools at the Cave of Cyclops are made generally from flat bones, while those at Sitagroi, chisel-ended tools, resemble a chisel but are not always bevelled and are made from bone and antler. Likewise, bevelled-ended tools from Proskinitis are made from tooth, scapula, and antler. Other tools may be fragmented but are associated with cutting activities, like those at Achilleion. Some tools labelled generally as transverse-edged tools, such as those at Theopetra Cave, Otzaki, and Argissa, can also be considered to be associated with cutting activities (Fig. 6.13). The type, miscellaneous cutting tools, may be used by researchers wanting to create highly individualised collections at a subtype level rather than a type level.

Fig. 6.13. Miscellaneous cutting tools type examples from: 1 Otzaki. 2 Argissa.

Smoother Smoothers have a long and curved shaft with either an open or flat bevelled tip. The base can be worked to various degrees (Fig. 6.14). They have been traditionally labelled in Turkish as mablak based on ethnographic records of their use during hide preparation, although this term has also been interpreted as scraper.4 They are consistently made on long 4

 I wish to thank Hazel Azeri for this insight and her help throughout in regard to the worked bone industries of Turkish Thrace and the Marmara region.

CHAPTER 6

163

Fig. 6.14. Smoother type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın. 4 Hoca Çeşme.

bones (metapodial, tibia, radius) of medium- and large-sized animals. For example at Uğurlu, base modification ranges from completely unworked to worked. In some cases, the base has been removed completely leaving it hollowed and rounded. Open-shafted smoothers average (mean) 72.7 mm in length (SD 29.4), 17.5 mm in width (SD 4.8), and 4.3 mm in thickness (SD 3.2). This is generally consistent with similar examples found at Ulucak, with a mean length of 69.5 mm (SD 27.2), width of 16.1 mm (SD 5.3), and thickness of 2.9 mm (SD 1.4). Tibia bones of medium-sized animals were favoured at Ulucak for smoother construction. Smoothers at Barcın range from 76 to 183 mm in length with both open and closed shafted subtypes. At Sesklo, closed-shafted smoothers exist and share parallels with Uğurlu type B; however, they are labelled burnishers. Unsplit long bones of small- and medium-sized animals with a bevelled edge found at Nea Nikomedeia, Prodromos, Otzaki, Argissa also resemble the smoother subtype A at Uğurlu. Tibia bones are used to make smoothers in Aşaği Pınar and Elateia. Open-shafted smoothers are also found at Yenikapı and Hoca Çeşme. Smoothers might be more numerous if labelling was consistent in the region, as they are often included in other types, most notably chisels. Spatula Spatulas are usually made on the split rib bones of medium- and large-sized animals (Fig. 6.15). Their function is suggested to be closely linked to pottery production, particularly in the shaping of ceramics and the removal of excess material. They usually have a smooth and glossy appearance due to manufacture and use-wear. At Uğurlu, spatulas are divided between those with rounded and those with pointed tips. Use-wear markers in the form of striation patterns are also consistent throughout. For those with a rounded tip, they average (mean) 77 mm in length (SD 44.5), 22.4 mm in width (SD 6.9), and 3.9 mm in thickness (SD 1.7). At Ulucak, spatulas with a rounded tip are on average (mean) 58.1 mm long (SD 29.1), 18.8 mm wide (SD 6.3), and 2.6 mm thick (SD 1.0). One item in the Ulucak assemblage shows signs of reuse after initial breakage at the shaft; its continued use is demonstrated by smoothed bevelling on the broken segment. This item belongs to the earliest level and its reuse may indicate a willingness to recycle a broken item rather than

JARRAD W. PAUL

164

Fig. 6.15. Spatula type distribution and examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Ilıpınar. 4 Sesklo. 5 Achilleion. 6 Yenikapı.

discard it entirely during occupation on-site. Spatulas at Ilıpınar are also separated by tip morphology, likewise at Barcın. Spatulas made from cattle and pig ribs are found at Sesklo, with the only complete version 200 mm in length. Similarly typed items made from longitudinally split ribs are found at Nea Nicomedia, Servia, Prodromos, Otzaki, and Argissa. Fragmented spatula-like tools are also reported from Sitagroi. Tools typed as spatulas at Theopetra Cave are important to note; as mentioned previously, one is more akin to a spatula-spoon, while the second could even be considered a spoon due to its morphology. This provides evidence for bone spoons in this subregion, which in the past has been described as devoid of this type.5 Perforated examples also exist. In some cases, these are labelled perforated objects, but are more often designated perforated spatulas if manufactured on rib bones. Examples of perforated spatulas can be found at Sesklo. Burnisher As with scrapers above, burnishers reflect their main function in their appellation (Fig. 6.16). At Sesklo they are made from the radius or tibia of a sheep/goat or pig and share similar morphology with the closed-shafted (subtype B) smoothers seen at Uğurlu and Ulucak. At Barcın the average (mean) length of burnishers are 47.8 mm (SD 12.3), although they are not frequent (n=4). A perforated example also exists at Barcın, which could be interpreted as an adornment rather than a burnisher. The use of burnishers is also listed at Prodromos, Achilleion, and Mavropigi. Burnishers at Çatalhöyük were used as polishing items and were often small in size.6 5

 Sidéra 2013, pp. 173–178.  See Russell 2005.

6

CHAPTER 6

165

Fig. 6.16. Burnisher type from: 1 Sesklo. 2 Barcın.

Plaster Tool This tool type is only found at Barcın, sharing similar morphological parallels with a type of the same name at Çatalhöyük.7 Unlike Çatalhöyük where this type is exclusively made of cattle scapula, at Barcın they are made from a variety of large-sized animal long bones. They are long, with a flattened tip. The function of this tool was to plaster either mudbrick or other plastered areas, like the pits uncovered at Uğurlu. The two complete versions at Barcın measure 210 mm and 165 mm in length (Fig. 6.17).

Fig. 6.17. Plaster tools from: 1 Barcın. 2 Çatalhöyük.

7

 See Russell 2005.

JARRAD W. PAUL

166 Miscellaneous Polishing Tools

Like the miscellaneous cutting tools above, this type may be used by researchers to include any object that does not fit into a traditional tool type category (Fig. 6.18). Alternatively, it may be used by those who desire a less descriptive name for a type, preferring to leave such labels for subtype description. A variety of labels has been utilised by researchers for tools that, in this study, are positioned as miscellaneous polishing tools. Tools used for polishing at the Cave of Cyclops are labelled blunted tools. Some chisel-ended tools at Sitagroi may have also been used for polishing. At Visviki polishing tools are labelled as tools with flattened tips. For Aktopralık, Pendik, and Fikirtepe polishers are documented, but they could equally be labelled as smoothers given the similar morphology and raw material. At Dimitra polishing tools are typed as those with a rounded active portion. In summary, despite terminologies differing widely between sites, all these tools seem to function in polishing roles, rather than cutting or striking.

Fig. 6.18. Miscellaneous polishing tools type examples from: 1 Visviki. 2 Fikirtepe.

Spoon Spoons come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but in general, share similar morphological characteristics to the ones used today (Fig. 6.19). A handle is attached to a small round or oval-shaped bowl that can be curved or flat. At Uğurlu, there is one Neolithic example. It measures 46.4 mm in length, 28.9 mm in width, and 2.85 mm in thickness, with a slanted tip and base fragmentation where the handle would have attached. The object has a slightly concave profile. The slant at the tip may be indicative of use, with the likelihood that it was scraped repeatedly. At Ulucak, spoons measure on average (mean) 54.6 mm long (SD 19.2), 20.3 mm wide (SD 7.5), and 3.2 mm thick (SD 1.0), and are commonly found in Levels IV and V. Uniform morphology is seen in the Ulucak spoon collection with their wide bowls tapering into a thinner handle. Most have a flat rather than curved bowl. Spoons are also well attested at Ilıpınar and Barcın with large collections of this type. In almost all cases, spoons are made of the long bones of large-sized animals, as a larger surface area is needed for the intricate manufacturing procedure. Richly decorated and intricately carved spoons are also seen at Aktopralık, Pendik, Aşaği Pınar, and Kovačevo. At Fikirtepe, a spoon was found associated with a burial, linking this multi-use item perhaps to symbolic and ritual use.

CHAPTER 6

167

Fig. 6.19. Spoon type from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın. 4 Theopetra Cave. 5 Hoca Çeşme. 6 Aşaği Pınar. 7 Fikirtepe.

Spatula-spoon Spatula-spoons as the label suggests, are an amalgamation of the morphology and the functional characteristics of the two types. They usually have a wider, flattened shaft, with no set raw material requirement (Fig. 6.20). Instead of a clear separation between the handle and bowl like traditional spoons, spatula-spoons see the handle gradually becoming broader as it moves towards the bowl. The functionality of these items is debated, although it seems unlikely it would overlap with spoons. The example at Uğurlu is made from the scapula of a large-sized animal and measures 93.2 mm in length, 26.5 mm in width, and 4.54 mm in thickness. At Ulucak spatula-spoons are longer (mean 65.8 mm, SD 20.5), wider (mean 21.7 mm, SD 7.2), and thicker (mean 3.4 mm, SD 0.8) than regular spoons. At Theopetra Cave, an example labelled as a spatula may also be considered a spatula-spoon type as it is similar in morphology to the items listed above. The spatula-spoon type identified at Uğurlu and Ulucak is also seen at Barcın and Kovačevo, although they are simply labelled spoons.

Fig. 6.20. Spatula-spoon type examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Theopetra Cave. 4 Barcın. 5 Kovačevo.

JARRAD W. PAUL

168 Handle

Handles in this study refer to long, rectangular, or oval items that were once attached to spoon heads (Fig. 6.21). At Uğurlu they range in size, being on average (mean) 47.8 mm in length (SD 25.2), 12.8 mm in width (SD 5.2), and 5.2 mm in thickness (SD 1.2). In most cases they are smooth and glossy and found only in Neolithic contexts and not later. At Ulucak, where they also cluster in Neolithic levels, some are highly decorated. Handles at Sitagroi are extensively carved, underscoring an increased level of bone working skill for those who crafted the object. Reworking of handles into other tools is also evident, seen at Pendik and Barcın, suggesting continued use after their original intended purpose. Their new role once broken from the spoon head is less understood, but it does demonstrate that at some sites these items were reworked and used after breakage.

Fig. 6.21. Handle type examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Limenaria. 4 Sitagroi. 5 Aşağı Pınar.

Shaft Shafts are also referred to as sheaths or hafts. They are exclusively made from deer antler and hollowed at one end to act as a type of holder, most usually for stone (Fig. 6.22). For Uğurlu, the one shaft recorded for the Neolithic, with more found in the Chalcolithic, is 102.1 mm in length, 35.8 mm in width, and 26 mm in thickness. At Ulucak, two of the three catalogued items come from Level IV (6000–5700 cal BC), and measure on average

Fig. 6.22. Shaft type examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Dikili Tash. 4 Yeşilova.

CHAPTER 6

169

(mean) 51.6 mm in length (SD 10.5), 24 mm in width (SD 3.5), and 13.5 mm in thickness (SD 7.2). These items are also found in Neolithic levels at Dikili Tash, Servia, Theopetra Cave, Prodromos, and Yeşilova. Perforated Object This type contains any piece of worked bone or antler that has a single perforation or multiple perforations located anywhere on the object and not considered a needle. Objects in this type lack solid functional attributes thus they comprise a broad category of items across a multitude of raw material and element types (Fig. 6.23). At Ulucak, there is a range of possible functions for the perforated objects, including fasteners and shuttles. Highlighting the breadth of raw material, perforations are found on teeth (Ilıpınar), long bones (Yarımburgaz Cave), and flat bones (Aktopralık and Toptepe). Drilling can occur either from one side, or both sides meeting in the middle. Striation patterns, and the shape of the final perforations are indicators for manufacture, with perforation usually occurring late in the manufacturing chain. Body Adornment Body adornment refers to items that can be worn or suspended. This type includes objects labelled as pendants but may also refer to other items worn on the body. They may be perforated but, unlike the type above, they are clearly identified as body adornments based on use-wear, morphology, and condition. Pendants are most easily identified as body

Fig. 6.23. Perforated Object type from: 1 Ulucak. 2 Ilıpınar. 3 Barcın. 4. Achilleion. 5 Argissa. 6 Yarımburgaz.

JARRAD W. PAUL

170

adornments, with an extensive typology from Çatalhöyük used as a guiding example. Triangular-shaped perforated pendants are seen at Ilıpınar and at Barcın, both made of small-sized animal bones. Pendants made of bone are recorded at Achilleion and Kovačevo. Perforated incisors have also been listed at Ilıpınar, Ulucak, Otzaki, Zarkou, and Dikili Tash. When investigating the overall Neolithic material assemblage many more stone pendants are found throughout the region (Fig. 6.24).

Fig. 6.24. Body adornment type including pendants made from bone at: 1 Ilıpınar. 2 Barcın; and incisors at: 3 Ulucak. 4 Ilıpınar. 5 Otzaki.

Special Item Like the miscellaneous types above, this type has been created for this analysis to encompass a wide variety of subtypes that share a common theme: their function is out of the ordinary. Their uniqueness may be derived from their rarity, the complex manufacturing techniques exhibited for production, or from the special circumstances in which they were found. They may be considered a combination of tool and object, in that they may have served a specific function while also being imbued with an additional unknown significance as demonstrated by their exceptional status. There are nine special items from the sites investigated, they include: tubes, figurines, beads, worked unperforated teeth, spindle whorls, bracelets, ornaments, toys, and musical instruments (Fig. 6.25). The first in this collection are bone tubes. At Ilıpınar they are made from bird bones. Two at Agios Petros are made of medium-sized animal bones and contain transverse grooves around their shafts.8 Figurines are also made of bone, although clay and, to a lesser extent stone, were favoured. Still, examples at Ilıpınar, Yenikapı, Yeşilova, Dikili Tash suggest that bone was used to construct visual representations of, particularly, zoomorphic objects such 8

 Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008, p. 13.

CHAPTER 6

171

Fig. 6.25. Special Items type: 1 tubes from Ilıpınar. 2 figurine from Ilıpınar. 3 figurine from Yenikapı. 4 bead from Barcın. 5 worked unperforated teeth from Barcın. 6 spindle whorl from Emporio. 7 spindle whorl from Toptepe. 8 ornamental decorative collar from Ulucak. 9 ornamental decorative collar from Çatalhöyük. 10 toy from Ilıpınar. 11 possible musical instruments from Ulucak.

as the bull-shaped item at Yeşilova. Like figurines, beads made of bone were less popular in the region when compared to stone and clay types. For instance, at Barcın just over 2 per cent of the bead collection is made of bone. Nonetheless, bone beads are somewhat frequently found at Aktopralık, Mavropigi, Servia, and Kovačevo. Unperforated teeth may have served a functional role related to boring activities. For instance, at Barcın three teeth were found that, due to their highly polished surface, have been associated with awl-like activities. Like figurines and beads, spindle whorls are made of bone but are rare in comparison to those made of clay. An example from Emporio is made from a femur bone. Photographic evidence shows another bone spindle whorl at Toptepe. An example of a bone bracelet is also recorded at Kovačevo; usually in this region bracelets are made from shell or clay, such as those listed at Uğurlu, Limenaria, and Servia for instance. Special objects also include ornaments. As the label suggests, they are considered to have served a non-functional role and yet exhibit purposeful decoration. While the decorated points at Uğurlu and Ulucak are ornamental they nonetheless have a functional use as well; in this case, special objects identified as ornaments are suggested to have been made for purely aesthetic reasons. A decorative collar piece at Ulucak is considered to be an ornament, along with similar items from Servia. At Toptepe, ornamental worked animal bone is typed by the site director as festooned. Toys are included in this type but are only documented at Ilıpınar. It is difficult to firmly attest that certain pieces of worked bone are associated with leisure, thus this subtype may be underrepresented in the region. Likewise, detection of musical instruments is challenging,

JARRAD W. PAUL

172

but examples have been suggested in the region. A perforated phalanx at Prodromos has been interpreted as a whistle, a possible buzz bone is reported at Ulucak, and two pipes are recorded at Anza. Bowl/Cup Rare in the region, bowls or cups have no set raw material requirement, but are shaped with vertical edges and a flattened bottom. Turtle shell is used at Çatalhöyük to form these items setting a wider regional parallel for this type.9 In the North Aegean, a single bowl/cup is found at Barcın made of antler (Fig. 6.26), and at Servia, a bone cup is found in connection with special items of various raw material including shell pendants and beads.

Fig. 6.26. Bowl/cup at Barcın.

Ring Rings are abundant at Çatalhöyük, with numerous styles suggesting the local importance of this type. This type is not widespread in the North Aegean, with examples seen at only a handful of sites. The three examples from Barcın are made from hollow cylindrical bone and those from Aşaği Pınar are made from long bones of large-sized animals. Rings are also found at Nea Nikomedeia, Kovačevo and Anza (Fig. 6.27). Function largely is interpreted from context, with some examples from Central Anatolia associated with burials.

Fig. 6.27. Ring type examples from: 1 Barcın. 2 Çatalhöyük. 3 Köşk Höyük.

9

 Russell 2005, p. 348.

CHAPTER 6

173

Antler Tools This type encompasses any tool made from deer antler that is not associated with any of the above types. The robust nature of antler usually lends itself to the creation of cutting tools, which thus make up most of this type (Fig. 6.28). An antler hoe is documented at Achilleion, used as a striking instrument, and at Zarkou two antler axes are also noted. Antler is also less frequently utilised than bone, which leads to specialists classing them as one general category, such as at Yenikapı and Elateia, where there are several assorted tools made from antler. Terminology also plays a role, with antler tools labelled baguettes due to their long cylindrical form at Limenaria acting as a cutting tool with a bevelled edge. Low numbers of antler tools and objects are also listed from Proskinitis.

Fig. 6.28. Antler tool examples from: 1 Sitagroi. 2 Yeşilova. 3 Yenikapı.

Preform A preform is any object displaying early signs of manufacture, but never finished to a complete type. Discovery of these objects highlights on-site manufacturing procedures and helps in the reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire. For instance, at Uğurlu, a sheep/goat metapodial bone shows a clear groove running longitudinally from the base of the object down the shaft, marking out a line for splitting. The base is unmodified. Cracking on the surface suggests the bone was brittle when worked, making it the most likely reason for discard. The poor condition may have resulted from the bone being overheated in the initial preparation stage. A preform needle was also found, with perforation on only one side of the base. At Ulucak, the early stages of spoon production seem to be demonstrated, with a cut mark running vertically down the lateral of a large-sized animal long bone (Fig. 6.29). Barcın produces some interesting preforms for awls, needles, rings, and beads, and at the Cave of Cyclops hook preforms give an excellent insight into manufacturing practice. Preform items are also catalogued at Dikili Tash, Makri, Proskinitis, and Dimitra, all indicating early stages of tool manufacture. If found clustered together, preforms may infer

174

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 6.29. Preforms examples from: 1 Uğurlu. 2 Ulucak. 3 Barcın. 4 Visviki.

a working area for on-site manufacture. Working waste or debris, usually bone splinters that have been discarded, may also be classified in this type and contribute to greater understanding of the manufacturing process. Being difficult to distinguish, both preforms and manufacture waste may be collected with general zooarchaeological material and not immediately identified in the field. This is another reason to support a systematic examination of the general zooarchaeological record in tandem with the examination of any worked examples. Tools found exclusively at Additional Sites It is also worth mentioning briefly two types found only at additional sites in this analysis. The first is a sickle made from antler with a longitudinal groove to hold sharp stone tools. It would have been used for agricultural purposes and is reported at Yeşilova, Kovačevo, and Karanovo. The second type is a harpoon, with a morphology similar to modern-day examples. This item was documented at Fikirtepe. Summary In surveying the types of the North Aegean it can be seen that the regional toolkit is diverse and shares some similarities born from raw material realities (Table 6.3). Labelling becomes an important hurdle to overcome in this regard, as comparing types may become confusing without adequate description. It is therefore imperative for those creating a typology to present a clear set of definitions when establishing tool types.

CHAPTER 6

Typology Group

175 Key Sites

Type

point/awl rounded point bi-point pointed tool needle hook pin chisel gouge puncher scraper cutting tool hammer axe/adze wedge misc. cutting tool smoother spatula polishing tool burnisher plaster tool misc. polishing tool spoon spatula-spoon handle shaft perforated object body adornment other special item bowl/cup ring antler tool preform

Uğurlu

Limenaria

Cave of Cyclops

Agios Petros

Ulucak

X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

JARRAD W. PAUL

176 Typology

Key Sites Type

Dikili Tash

Makri

Sesklo

Visviki

Ilıpınar

point/awl rounded point bi-point pointed tool needle hook pin chisel gouge puncher scraper cutting tool hammer axe/adze wedge misc. cutting tool smoother spatula polishing tool burnisher plaster tool misc. polishing tool spoon spatula-spoon handle shaft perforated object body adornment other special item bowl/cup ring antler tool preform

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

Group

X

X X

X

X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

CHAPTER 6

Typology Group

177 Key Sites

Type

point/awl rounded point bi-point pointed tool needle hook pin chisel gouge puncher scraper cutting tool hammer axe/adze wedge misc. cutting tool smoother spatula polishing tool burnisher plaster tool misc. polishing tool spoon spatula-spoon handle shaft perforated object other body adornment special item bowl/cup ring antler tool preform

Barcın

Sitagroi

Nea Nikomedeia

Servia

Prodromos

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X

X

X X X X X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X

JARRAD W. PAUL

178 Typology Group

Key Sites Type

point/awl rounded point bi-point pointed tool needle hook pin chisel gouge puncher scraper cutting tool hammer axe/adze wedge misc. cutting tool smoother spatula polishing tool burnisher plaster tool misc. polishing tool spoon spatula-spoon handle shaft perforated object body adornment other special item bowl/cup ring antler tool preform

Achilleion

Theopetra Cave

Otzaki

Argissa

Zarkou

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X

Table 6.3. Presence-Absence analysis of worked animal bone groups and types at key sites investigated in this study.

X

X X

CHAPTER 6

179

Common Tool Types in the Neolithic North Aegean Some worked animal bone tool types are considered common throughout the region. These are types and subtypes seen at the majority of sites investigated in this study. The most dominant type by far is points/awls. They are recorded at almost every key site investigated in this analysis, as well as being the majority type at additional sites. Drilling down further, similarities are also apparent between subtypes of points, with commonality found in morphology, raw material choice, and manufacturing techniques. Given items at Uğurlu and Ulucak are catalogued using the same typology, it is worth noting the overlaps between these two sites in particular (Fig. 6.30). Subtype A points, split long bones that have been broken on their shaft, are the most frequent subtype for both. Breakage at the shaft was a common feature and probably led to their ultimate discard. Differences in number do occur between sites in the variety of the remaining points (Table 6.4). There is a greater spread of tools between subtypes at Ulucak than at Uğurlu, reflecting a diversity of manufacturing techniques at the former. But, overall, the sites share a markedly similar set of points/awls, created using similar techniques and raw material. Comparing these subtypes with other key sites in the region, it becomes apparent that there are repeated examples of the same tools. For instance, Ilıpınar subtype A awls share a similar form with subtype B points at Uğurlu/Ulucak, both exhibiting whole bases. Ilıpınar subtype B awls also share components with subtype C and D points at Uğurlu/Ulucak, all having rounded and intact split bases. Additionally, the subtype C variant at Ilıpınar includes awls made from ulna bones, in parallel with Uğurlu/Ulucak subtype H points. At Dikili Tash, point subtype IIIB is similar to Uğurlu/Ulucak subtype B. Additionally, Dikili Tash subtype IVB, and to an extent VIIA, are related in form to Uğurlu/Ulucak subtype C. Subtype VIIB shares some characteristics with Uğurlu/Ulucak subtype E. The Cave of Cyclops assemblage also exhibits parallels with those found in Uğurlu and Ulucak. Subtype B points at the cave site have affinities with subtype B points at Uğurlu/Ulucak, and a subtype C point at the Cave of Cyclops has a similar form to the subtype A pin at Uğurlu/Ulucak. To some extent awls subtype B at Barcın share a similar division with Uğurlu/Ulucak subtype H, with emphasis on points made from bones that are not metapodial, although at Uğurlu/Ulucak tibia bones are not included (Fig. 6.31). Subtype

Uğurlu

Ulucak

A B C D E F G H

52  9  8 11  5  3  4  3

 60   9  15   5  10  11   1

Total

95

111

Table 6.4. Distribution of point subtypes between Uğurlu and Ulucak.

180

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 6.30. Pointed tools (1 points/awls. 2 needles. 3 pins) from Uğurlu and Ulucak (courtesy B. Erdoğu and Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

Fig. 6.31. Points/awls from: 1 Uğurlu: subtypes A–H (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul). 2 Ulucak Höyük: subtypes A–H (courtesy Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul). 3 Ilıpınar: subtypes A–C. 4 Dikili Tash: subtypes III, IV, and VII. 5 Cave of Cyclops: subtypes B and C.

CHAPTER 6

181

The widespread use of needles, both perforated and unperforated, suggests they too can be considered a common tool type for the region. This is understandable given the emphasis placed on points/awls, which suggests a clear preference for pointed tools in the prehistoric toolkit. Needles do require additional manufacturing steps when compared to points/ awls, which may parallel the lesser extent to which they are found. They are found both west and east of the Aegean Sea, with their use not indicating any one-way movement of material culture. When comparing the needles from Ilıpınar and Uğurlu, parallels emerge. Mean length is generally consistent, with needles at Ilıpınar measuring 50 mm. Those at Uğurlu are 45.3 mm. Sitagroi needles are also of similar dimensions to those at Uğurlu. At Achilleion they are slightly smaller, averaging 30–40 mm.10 At Agios Petros, needles come in a broad range of lengths, from 4 to 75 mm.11 A comparable subtype A needle at Emporio is also worth mentioning. This artefact shares the same base form as the examples found at Uğurlu but it is perforated in the middle, making it a combination of a subtype A and a subtype B needle. At Yenikapı, a curious parallel with the Uğurlu collection is seen in a wooden artefact that shares some properties with the Uğurlu subtype A needle. Wooden versions of this type may have succeeded bone types at Uğurlu and, conceivably, this is how they may have looked. Spatulas may also be considered a common tool type for the area, consistently made of split rib bones. This tool type is common in Anatolia’s northwest (for example at Uğurlu, Ilıpınar, Barcın, Fikirtepe, Yenikapı), west (Ulucak), and Thrace regions (Hoca Çeşme and Aşaği Pınar). From the assemblage at Ulucak, spatulas are the third most common type. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes, all manufactured on rib bones. Uğurlu spatulas share these characteristics but are far less frequent. At both sites there is an unequal distribution between subtype A (rounded tip) and B (pointed tip), favouring subtype A (Uğurlu subtype A = 69%, subtype B = 31%; Ulucak subtype A = 89%, subtype B = 11%). The more frequent occurrence of spatulas at Ulucak is difficult to explain but may suggest a greater output of ceramics. At Ilıpınar, subtype B spatulas are equivalent with both types at Uğurlu/Ulucak, manufactured on split rib bones with rounded and pointed subtypes which are not distinguished. At Ulucak, decoration in the form of a zigzag pattern is also applied to one spatula, a design choice also seen on an example at Barcın. Like spatulas, spoons are also common in the region. It should be noted that worked animal bone spoons are found at many more sites in Anatolia and the Balkans than are found in Greece (Fig. 6.32). Included in this assessment are traditional spoons (subtype A utensils at Uğurlu/Ulucak), spatula-spoons (subtype B utensils at Uğurlu/Ulucak), and handles, as they are remnants of spoons that would have been in the collection. Again, the northwest of Turkey (Uğurlu, Ilıpınar, Barcın, Aktopralık, Yenikapı, Fikirtepe, and Pendik) and Thrace (Hoca Çeşme and Aşaği Pınar) are particularly well represented with spoon types. Subtype A utensils at Ulucak seem to accord to regionally similar examples, with the broad bowl tapering into a slender handle. At Uğurlu, it is common to find only the bowl 10

 See Winn and Shimabuku 1989.  Efstratiou 1985, p. 45.

11

182

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 6.32. Bone spoons from: 1 Karanovo (adapted from Höglinger 1997, pl. 71). 2 Uğurlu (courtesy B. Erdoğu; J. W. Paul). 3 Ulucak (courtesy Ö. Çevik; J. W. Paul). 4 Barcın (adapted from Gerritsen et al. 2013, p. 110). 5 Dikili Tash (adapted from Séfériadés 1992, pl. 196). 6 Aşağı Pınar (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 259). 7 Aktopralık (adapted from Karul and Avcı 2013, p. 65). 8 Fikirtepe (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2001, p. 33). 9 Yenikapı (adapted from Kızıltan and Polat 2013, p. 153). 10 Hoca Çeşme (adapted from M. Özdoğan 2013, p. 241). 11 Kovačevo (adapted from Sidéra 2013, p. 176). 12 Ilıpınar (adapted from Marinelli 1995, p. 141). 13 Pendik (adapted from Özdoğan 2013, p. 218).

CHAPTER 6

183

of the spoon, with associated handles uncovered separately. Both sites have more spoons during the Neolithic than in the Chalcolithic. Elaborately decorated spoons are found in the Turkish Thrace region (Aşaği Pınar and Hoca Çeşme), the northwest (Fikirtepe and Pendik) and the Balkans (Kovačevo and Karanovo). Most spoon handles are left undecorated, but some (see Kovačevo and Aşaği Pınar) share a similar worked pattern which gives the handle the appearance of being twisted. Previous research has understood the lack of this type in Greece to be indicative of the transfer of certain types.12 The apparent lack of similar items in Greece can though be seen as a raw material choice, with sites in Greece, such as Sesklo and Servia, yielding spoons made from clay rather than bone. Nonetheless, bone handles associated with spoons are found at Sitagroi, and the presence of what is most likely a spatula-spoon type at Theopetra Cave, suggests that there is not a total absence of this tool type in Greece. It could also be suggested, based on consistent frequency, that the smoother, or in some cases chisel, is common in the region. What makes this assessment difficult is the discrepancies in terminology when referring to this tool type, with chisels and smoothers used for different activities. For the purpose of this assessment, if we take the position that the recorder is referring to a long bone, most likely a split or unsplit tibia bone of a medium- or large-sized animal, with a bevelled end, then this type is found frequently within the region. Focusing on what is referred to as a smoother subtype A at Uğurlu, then obvious parallels exist. Makri subtype 2.1a may be considered a parallel to the Uğurlu smoother subtype A, supported by the original recorder’s claim of commonality in the Aegean area.13 An item at the Cave of Cyclops, labelled a blunted tool, also shares similar properties (raw material and morphology) with those found at Uğurlu. Terminology at Karanovo confuses comparison as subtype A smoothers at Karanovo are analogous to the spatula type at Uğurlu. Likewise, chisels at Ilıpınar are considered analogous to the smoother subtype A at Uğurlu. Ornamental motifs should also be mentioned with a few styles recorded in the region. The zigzag pattern is seen on two points (subtype F) in the Uğurlu assemblage dating between 6500 and 5900 cal BC. A further point with a double-v incision appears in Phase IV (5600 cal BC). At Ulucak, records show fragmented pointed tools, with zigzags that share comparable raw material dimensions to the Uğurlu examples. Three objects with zigzags also date to 6000–5700 BC, making it temporally comparable to those found at Uğurlu (Fig. 6.33). Other motifs found at Ulucak include double zigzags, dots, train track, crosshatches, lines and miscellaneous markings. At Barcın a spatula also displays incised crosshatching. In summary, points/awls are the dominant type in the region, alongside other pointed tools such as needles. Spatulas and spoons are also considered favoured tools. Smoothers/ chisels, when the terminology is consistently interpreted, are also reported in high frequencies in the wider zone. Decorative motifs are rare but are seen in the region.

12

 Sidéra 2013, pp. 173–178.  Stratouli 1998a, pp. 36–40.

13

184

JARRAD W. PAUL

Fig. 6.33. Zigzag motif at 1 Uğurlu and 2 Ulucak (courtesy B. Erdoğu and Ö. Çevik; photo J. W. Paul).

Localised Tool Types in the Neolithic North Aegean Although similar common tool types are frequently manufactured, used, and discarded by communities in the region, variations in frequency, manufacturing techniques, raw material choice, and distribution may be analysed in order to localise certain types and subtypes. By investigating differences, as well as similarities, a clearer picture becomes apparent of the nuances in the prehistoric toolkit of the region. A case study of just two sites in Anatolia, Uğurlu and Ulucak, highlights differences between types and subtypes. Major departures are noticed when it comes to needles and hooks. Only two needles are found at Ulucak, both subtype B, whereas there were 23 uncovered at Uğurlu. The complete absence of subtype A needles at Ulucak emphasises the localisation of this tool type at Uğurlu, with its possible link to a symbolic function associated with figurines at the site. There are also no hooks found at Ulucak. Chisels at Ulucak cluster chronologically in the earlier Neolithic levels and are highly regularised. In contrast, at Uğurlu, the chisels share little morphological similarity, and are characterised by their bevelled edge, damaged tips, and compact shaft. The disappearance of the chisel type in later levels at Ulucak is not reflected at Uğurlu, where examples come from Chalcolithic units. Smoothers at Uğurlu, particularly subtype A, are regularised and are in excellent preservation, whereas those at Ulucak vary greatly in morphology and appear more fragmentary. The low frequency of smoothers at Ulucak is counteracted by the sizeable presence of spatulas. A range of perforated objects, which date to the initial and early Neolithic periods, are catalogued at Ulucak. There is little regularity among these types with some used for decoration

CHAPTER 6

185

and others having more practical purposes. In contrast, for the two perforated objects from Uğurlu, one is from the Chalcolithic and the other from an unknown context. Early adoption of this advanced manufacturing technique can thus be ascribed to the Ulucak craftspeople, who utilised this skill to create aesthetically prominent objects. Spoons and spatulaspoons also differ slightly in frequency between the two collections. They comprise 4.5 per cent of the Neolithic assemblage at Ulucak compared to only 1.4 per cent of the Neolithic collection at Uğurlu. Thus, although the two sites share many similarities in the overall structure of their worked bone assemblages, when examined closely on a type-by-type basis, specific individual trends become evident. Investigating other key sites in the region also offers interesting insights into unique tools and objects that are localised to that site only. For instance, while spoons are present at Ilıpınar (4.9 per cent of the overall Neolithic collection) and Barcın (12 per cent of the overall Neolithic collection), toys and figurines made from bone are common at Ilıpınar but not Barcın. Makri is characterised by a high number of cutting tools compared to other sites in the North Aegean, but, unlike other sites, there is no evidence for spoons, hooks, or spatulas. Perhaps at Makri these common items in the toolkit were manufactured from perishable materials, such as wood. In contrast, those living at the Cave of Cyclops relied heavily on tools for fishing, including fish hooks and bi-points. The over-representation of these types reflects a society using their resources to specifically create implements for hunting in favour of tools used for other activities. With little room to raise livestock at the Cave of Cyclops, hunting was an important subsistence strategy. Here too, the limited ceramic repertoire is reflected in the lack of bone polishing tools. While there is one decorative motif that seems to be consistent in the region (zigzag), others are highly localised to individual sites. For example, the double-v motif on the base of a point is seen only at Uğurlu. Likewise, although the presence of highly worked animal bone spoon handles—particularly in Thrace—is consistent, the styling is individualised. For instance, at Aşaği Pınar, a handle is carved with notches to imitate the shape of rectangular beads, a style not replicated elsewhere. Investigating these sites separately underscores how individual communities manufactured items to meet their immediate needs. Although similarities exist between the sites when viewed on a wider level, in the comparison of individual tool types it becomes possible to identify and understand local variations. This process contributes to a better understanding of the role of worked animal bone and, in tandem with macro- and micro-wear analysis, informs discussion of functional attributes RAW MATERIAL Animal Selection and Tool Types During the Neolithic a number of species were consistently used in the region to create tools and objects, with the most frequent being domestic sheep, goat, pig, and cattle. For tool construction, sheep/goat bones were favoured at most key sites under the present investigation: Uğurlu, Ulucak, Ilıpınar, Barcın, Yenikapı, Hoca Çeşme, Cave of Cyclops,

JARRAD W. PAUL

186

Sitagroi, Sesklo, Nea Nikomedeia, Prodromos, Agios Petros, and Kovačevo. At these sites, the dominance of sheep/goat bones is coupled with correspondingly high numbers of points and awls, demonstrating that these animals were frequently used to create these tools. The term medium-sized animal may also be used to describe animals that are sheep/ goat, but it may also refer to deer. Thus, the label medium-sized animals is not always exclusively indicative of sheep/goat. A case study of some key sites shows the frequency of sheep/goat remains in their worked animal bone assemblages. At Ulucak, from the n=102 positively identified animals bones transformed into worked bone from the Neolithic periods, 50 per cent were identified as either sheep/goat (n=16), or sheep-sized (n=35). This compares to 27.5 per cent identified as either cattle (n=12) or cattle-sized (n=16). Unknown large-sized animals (n=4) have also been noted. Deer (n=15) comprises of 14.7 per cent of the Neolithic identifiable animals. Birds (n=1), dog/wolf (n=1), pig-sized animals (n=1), and a possible hare (n=1), highlight the minimal presence of small-sized animals in the worked animal bone collection. At Ilıpınar, from the n=810 positively identified Neolithic animals in the worked bone collection, 59.3 per cent (n=480) are labelled small ruminants (mainly sheep/goat), 2.7 per cent (n=22) as pig and 34.8 per cent (n=282) as cattle. The remaining n=26 are identified as deer (fallow deer and red deer) and brown bear.14 Sites in northern Greece and Thessaly show an even greater distribution of tools made from sheep/goat remains: at Servia animals positively identified as sheep/goat are 51.5 per cent of the Neolithic collection, Nea Nikomedeia 72.3 per cent, Otzaki 80 percent, Prodromos 82.2 per cent, and Argissa 84.4 per cent. This is also reflected north in the Balkans. At Kovačevo the percentage of sheep/goat remains is 65 per cent (Graph 6.3). This case study is typical of the region, with the number of tools made from sheep/goat remains far exceeding those made from cattle and pig. Although sheep/goat bones consistently dominate, the next highest percentage group is not as stable. Looking first at the unworked faunal assemblages provides some interesting insights into the uneven distribution of cattle and pig remains throughout the region. For instance, at Menteşe, Otzaki, Prodromos, and Ulucak there are more cattle remains than pig. This also extends to Knossos. In fact, at Fikirtepe and for a period at Yeşilova, cattle bones are the most frequently recorded animal, in front of sheep/goat. This is coupled with low numbers of pig bones at Uğurlu and Ege Gübre although, for the case at Uğurlu, there are also low numbers of cattle bones. In contrast, at the sites of Paliambela, Sesklo, Argissa, Agios Petros, and Kovačevo, there is more unworked pig than cattle in their assemblages. There are also instances where an even distribution of pig and cattle remains occur, such as Nea Nicomedia, where the difference is 0.2 per cent in favour of pig bones. Similarly, an inconsistent spread of tools and items made from pig and cattle bones is apparent when comparing worked bone collections. At Neolithic levels in Servia, the use of cattle/deer for tool construction (41.2 per cent) is also high for the overall raw material assemblage, with pig rarely used (1.5 per cent). In fact, the frequency of cattle here is almost as high as sheep/goat (51.5 per cent). At Nea Nikomedeia, identifiable cattle from Neolithic levels constitute 12.4 per cent, with tools and objects made from pig bone only representing 14

 Marinelli 1995, p. 124.

CHAPTER 6

187

Graph 6.3. Percentage of positively identified sheep/goat or sheep-sized animal bone in the Neolithic worked animal bone collections at a selection of key and additional sites.

0.83 percent. A higher frequency of cattle remains used for tool construction when compared to pig remains is also seen at Prodromos (13.9 per cent and 1 per cent), Otzaki (10 per cent and 5 per cent, with 5 per cent belonging to either dog/hare/bird), and Argissa (6.1 per cent and no pig remains).15 There is also a small amount of worked cattle bones at Visviki and Zarkou, with no discernible worked pig remains. In comparison, for Sitagroi Phase I of the limited (n=13) identified animals, there are two implements made from pig bones and one made from a cattle bone. At Sesklo, all four types (awl, spatula, chisel, and burnisher) have a variation made from pig bones. Differences in numbers between pig and cattle remains used for bone tool construction are therefore nuanced, and only with a detailed assessment of the assemblages can any further interpretations be made. In general, from the above analysis, remains of cattle were used more frequently than those of pigs. What is clear is that both pig and cattle bones were far less popular when compared to sheep and goat when it came to tool construction. The use of other animal species beyond domestic sheep, goat, pig, and cattle highlights how communities in the region exploited their available environments. There is a breadth of species found in the region. For instance, at Ulucak objects are made from dog/wolf. Bird bones are transformed into objects at Ilıpınar and the Cave of Cyclops, and hare bones were used to create points/awls at Sesklo and Ulucak. Ilıpınar also has a worked implement made from beaver, a species not seen in the unworked collection at the site. 15

 Stratouli 1998a, Table 3.

188

JARRAD W. PAUL

Thus, in the North Aegean there was a clear preference for sheep and goat bones in the construction of bone tools and objects. The size of the animals, their adaptability to the landscape, and use for secondary products would have made them ideal candidates for husbandry. In addition, with the distribution of domestication in the area during this time, increased numbers of sedentary groups turned to maintaining these animals. To achieve the maximum benefit from keeping domesticated animals, individuals and groups would have wanted to utilise an entire slaughtered animal. The worked animal bone collection at most of these sites is also largely a reflection of the unworked bone assemblages, suggesting that sheep/goat served a multitude of purposes, with raw material procurement just one. Pig and cattle were also used in the region; however, their inconsistent use from site-to-site suggests their value to a community varied depending on the necessities of the wider toolkit, and the resources available to those sourcing and constructing tools. Antler as a Raw Material Alternative The only animal missing from the previous section that also makes a sizeable contribution to Neolithic toolkits in the North Aegean is deer. Deer were used for their bones, but more importantly, provided groups with an alternative raw material—antler—for tool construction. Production of tools from antler was outlined in Chapter 2, highlighting the breadth of types for which this sturdy material was utilised. Additionally, some excellent research of late has pieced together the use of antler in the region.16 But even given its durability and ease of procurement, antler is consistently utilised less frequently for tool construction when compared to animal bones. For instance, at Uğurlu Phases VI–IV, antler accounts for just 4 per cent of the raw material used for tool construction. This is comparable to Ulucak during the Neolithic, with 4.6 per cent of items included in the worked bone assemblage made from antler. Deer antler and bones (fallow deer and roe deer) are also found in low frequencies at Ilıpınar (2.7 per cent of the identified species from all phases), and antler is seen even less at Barcın (0.7 per cent of all worked bone from the 2010–2013 seasons). This is consistent with the western side of the Aegean, for instance at Limenaria with 3.6 per cent of the total assemblage made from antler, the Cave of Cyclops 7.3 per cent of the total assemblage, and low numbers at Proskinites, Achilleion, and Zarkou. At Agios Petros, deer bone or antler is not documented at all.17 This is not to say that antler did not play a substantial role for a few sites in the region. At Dikili Tash, antler represents 24.3 per cent of the overall collection, and at Sitagroi during Phase I 38.3 per cent of entire assemblage is antler, with red deer the most frequently gathered species. It is not just antler that was used at Dikili Tash and Sitagroi; deer metapodial bones are also frequently used for point/awl construction, suggesting a dependence on this specific animal. In sum, bone is favoured above antler at all sites, though antler plays a vital role in specific individual collections. The reasons for the dominance of bone over antler are numerous. 16  I would like to thank Dr. Christopher Arabatzis for his insights into the antler assemblage of the Aegean region. See Arabatzis 2019. 17  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008, p. 9.

CHAPTER 6

189

At an object level, antler morphologically needs substantial effort to shape into tools. If we take the most common tool in the region, the point/awl, as an example, the construction of this item comes from readily available bones. Long bones of medium-sized animals, for instance, have naturally straightened profiles. Conversely, antler is contorted, with effort needed to straighten the shafts. Antler, while being robust, cannot easily be manipulated into fine or delicate objects. On one hand, if most tools being made are points/awls used for textile or ceramic manufacture then a certain level of delicacy is needed which antler cannot provide. On the other hand, antler is the perfect raw material for more durable tools, providing the necessary robustness to perform their primary function, which involves mainly cutting and piercing activities. Domestic Versus Wild: Unworked and Worked Animal Bone Collections One of the more recognised elements of the Neolithic across the region is the establishment and ongoing use of domesticated animals in everyday life. Domesticated animals make up a large proportion of the faunal assemblages at sites in the North Aegean, but this is not to say that wild animals are completely ignored in both the worked and unworked assemblages. Even though domestic animals do dominate, the idea that a site needs to exclusively rely on domestic animals to be considered Neolithic is an outdated concept, with wild animal species playing an important, albeit less prevalent role. Identifying wild and domestic animals in a worked bone collection is more difficult than in the unworked collection, just as it is with aging and sexing the raw material of a tool. Due to the extensive working on most implements, it is extremely difficult to assign a species, let alone identify whether it is domesticated or wild. In this regard, this analysis may not fully represent the entire picture; nonetheless, the joint investigation of unworked and worked bone collections sees trends begin to emerge. Looking at the unworked animal remains is a good start to understand the dominance domestic animals play in the region. In all cases from the Neolithic, domestic animals are seen more frequently than wild varieties.18 For instance, at Ilıpınar, 95 per cent of the unworked assemblage comes from domestic animals. This dominance in percentage is mirrored at Argissa (98 per cent of the unworked faunal assemblage is domestic) and Achilleion (94 per cent domestic). Zarkou also has a high rate of domestic over wild animals (96.6 per cent from the NISP). Sitagroi Phase I shows a slight increase in the use of wild animals (91.4 per cent domestic compared to 8.6 per cent wild), and Mavropigi has quite a large wild animal collection when compared to others in the region (88 per cent domestic compared to 12 per cent wild) (Graph 6.4). The worked animal bone assemblages of the region largely mirror the unworked bone collections. Domestic animals were favoured for tool construction, particularly sheep/goat as indicated above, but wild species were not excluded completely. For example, at Ilıpınar 96 per cent of the identified worked animal bone is made from domestic animals and only 4 per cent is from wild animals. At most sites, deer is the dominant wild animal used for 18

 See Halstead and Isaakdiou 2013.

JARRAD W. PAUL

190

Graph 6.4. Comparison of domestic versus wild unworked animal remains found at key and additional sites in the study area.

tool and object construction. At Ulucak, from the 102 positively identified animals from the Neolithic, 17 are made from wild species, including deer, bird, and hare. For the wild deer, the majority of tools (points, punchers and shafts) are made from antler, with two points made from metapodial and tibia bones. As mentioned above, Dikili Tash has a sizeable collection of both antler and deer bone tools and objects, all from wild species. Boar is another wild animal that is consistently found in the region and utilised for worked objects. This animal is found in the unworked assemblages of Uğurlu, Ilıpınar, Ege Gübre, Mavropigi, and Theopetra Cave. In the worked bone collections, a wild boar tusk is found at Elateia and two preform tusks are uncovered from Visviki. Before the advent of animal domestication communities utilised the available wild species to create tools. For instance, at the Cave of Cyclops, one of the few sites that has an existing settlement before the Neolithic, free-breeding animals make up most of the diet.19 But goats were domesticated as early as the eighth millennium to supplement this diet and were, in addition, employed for the creation of tools and objects. Yarımburgaz Cave also contains a settlement beginning in the Palaeolithic. The faunal remains uncovered here from the earliest period are mostly confined to bear (Ursus deningeri) with cut marks linked to butchery. As the Neolithic became more established in the cave, bones began to be worked from domestic animals sourced from the surrounding areas. Ongoing work in this region should shed new light on this assessment.20 19

 Tranalidou 2008, p. 76.  I wish to thank Hazel Azeri for her insights regarding worked bone in the northwest region of Turkey.

20

CHAPTER 6

191

Wild animals, especially wild deer, may have also played a substantial social role, particularly on islands in the Aegean.21 Due to the challenges in obtaining some wild bone elements in this environment, wild animals may have been considered an exceptional and significant resource in comparison to the domestic animals which were kept within the community. In summary, during the Neolithic the bones of domestic animals were favoured over wild animal varieties for tool and object construction, largely mirroring unworked zooarchaeological assemblages. This is not to say that wild animal remains did not continue to play a role after the Palaeolithic; but, the dominance of tools originating from domestic animals suggests a clear shift in procurement.

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES In the transformation from bone and antler into tools, parallels are discernible at some sites. In order to create particular tools, certain essential and similar steps were undertaken by individual communities. Beginning with points/awls made from metapodial bones of medium-sized animals—the most dominant type in the region—a few manufacturing techniques may be identified. At Ilıpınar, a groove is made lengthwise down the shaft and around the distal. Grooves are then split once they are deep enough, and the base broken off at the groove. The tool is then polished and worked into a tip.22 At Uğurlu, the first step in this process—the grooving of the unworked metapodial bone—is demonstrated by a preform showing clear grooving running along the length of the bone. This is also known as the groove-and-split technique and the production of such tools is explicitly mentioned by researchers at Limenaria, Theopetra Cave, Proskinites, and the Cave of Cyclops. Points can also be manufactured from simple bone splinters. For instance, at the Cave of Cyclops elongated splinters are roughed out from the diaphysis of long bones using parallel or converging grooves, resulting in straight sided tools.23 For Makri, points are constructed on split and grooved proximal and distal metapodial bones as well as splinters of long bones. For the splinters, large-sized animals are favoured over medium-sized versions.24 Splitting and/or grinding of long bones is also used as a reduction method to create points at Sitagroi.25 Points are also made from unsplit or whole long bones. For example, at Agios Petros pointed tools are mainly constructed on whole bones,26 though it is interesting to note that this type of manufacturing technique does not exist during the same time period at the neighbouring Cave of Cyclops. For the final step, points are polished by abrasion to create a pointed tip. This can be identified by traces left on the bone, and is reported on items from Uğurlu and Ulucak, and well documented at Theopetra Cave.27 21

 Russell 2012, p. 400.  Marinelli 1995, p. 130. 23  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008, p. 39. 24  Stratouli 1998b, pp. 37–38. 25  Elster 2003, p. 39. 26  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2008, p. 39. 27  See Stratouli 1998a. 22

192

JARRAD W. PAUL

Subtype points also tend to be separated based on manufacturing technique. For example, the subtype B points at Uğurlu are described as longitudinally split bones with an intact base, with some working. Their construction involves grooving and splitting, with analogous techniques noted for items across the region: subtype B at Ulucak, subtype A awl at Ilıpınar, subtype IIIB and VIIA at Dikili Tash, and point subtype B at Cave of Cyclops. This assessment of point construction technique is consistent with previous research focusing solely in the Thessaly region; here, key manufacturing techniques include longitudinal splitting, use of bone splinters, and the working of an entire bone.28 The technique of spatula manufacture is uniform. Due to the restricted raw material selection for this type—exclusively produced on rib bones—the process of creation is simple. A rib bone is split lengthwise and the inner spongy bone smoothed, before rounding the tip. Rib bones are also left unsplit in some instances, with the body smoothed and the tip rounded. Both sequences are found at Uğurlu and Ulucak. These techniques are also used to construct spatulas at Ilıpınar, Barcın, Aktopralık, Yenikapı, Fikirtepe, Hoca Çeşme, Aşaği Pınar, Dikili Tash, Sitagroi, Limenaria, Sesklo, Nea Nicomedia, and Xirolimni. Rib bones are not exclusively used for spatulas; they are utilised in the creation of pointed and cutting tools such as the unsplit cutting tools found at Makri (subtype 2.2a).29 Smoothers in the region are mostly made from split tibia bones. At Ulucak, from the n=18 element-identified subtype A smoothers, 77.8 per cent are made from tibia bones, followed by rib bones (11.1 per cent) and metapodial bones (11.1 per cent). These tibias are split, smoothed on the shaft, and polished to create a bevelled tip. This manufacturing technique is used to make similar bevelled-edged tools at Uğurlu, Proskinites, Sesklo, Aşaği Pınar, Ayio Gala, Sitagroi, and Visviki. Additional steps in the manufacturing process are occasionally shared between sites. For instance, the intentional burning of bone tools to strengthen their tips is seen at Uğurlu, Ulucak, Sesklo, and Servia. Not all tool types are manufactured using a rigid set of techniques. Some techniques vary widely, utilising a range of materials. For instance, the procedures for hook manufacture differ across the region and even within sites. As Moundrea-Agrafioti points out, the larger hooks from Soufli, made from large-sized animal bones, belong to a different morphotechnical format to those at the Cave of Cyclops.30 Additionally a large hook from preNeolithic levels at Sesklo also differs in form and manufacturing procedure (made from a deer antler) and may have been in the process of being completed when discarded. Two large hooks at Uğurlu, interpreted as possible belt hooks, also differ to the ones at Soufli but are somewhat comparable to an example at Kovačevo in terms of morphology. Moreover, with smaller hooks, related to fishing, those at Uğurlu and the Cave of Cyclops are similar in terms of overall morphology, though the example at Uğurlu does have a wider shaft. Thus, while manufacturing techniques may vary from site to site, for the region as a whole certain key manufacturing sequences are repeatedly used to produce similar items. This range includes the more obvious cases such as spatulas; the set of techniques used to create 28

 See Moundrea-Agrafioti 1981.  Stratouli 1998b, p. 39. 30  Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003, p. 138. 29

CHAPTER 6

193

points/awls; and the variety of techniques utilised in the creation of hooks. This suggests a known practice of tool manufacture in the region for certain types, with individuals clearly identifying both the raw material and the steps in production before embarking on tool construction. Additionally, the variations in manufacture reflect localised levels of craft specialisation, with some individuals or groups exhibiting a mastery in the construction of specific tools. A temporal investigation of the manufacturing sequences at sites also gives insight into whether construction methods change or remain the same. For example, at Uğurlu, after the expansion of types and methods in the Neolithic Phases VI–IV, there is a marked decline in the quality of types produced and a wider homogenisation of manufacturing techniques from Phase III onwards. This is reflected in fewer subtypes within the established tool types. It is suggested that this coincides with a greater sense of island identity, also seen in a shift in ceramic wares and stone tool manufacture to localised versions.31

CONTEXT On-site Distribution of Worked Animal Bone Knowing the context of a tool and its relation to other objects at a site is vitally important when trying to further understand its role. Without solid context, interpretations regarding possible use, and associations with other worked bone and raw material types (particularly stone and shell in the Neolithic), become lost. Worked bone deposits may be considered as belonging to either primary or secondary contexts. In this instance, primary contexts include floor layers, covered pits, and burials. Secondary contexts include fills and disturbed layers. At Uğurlu, for the n=64 tools with a known context from Phase IV, there is an even spread of those found in primary and secondary contexts, with n=32 coming from floor and pit/silo contexts and n=32 from fill, disturbed, floor removal, sounding, wall, and outside building contexts. In terms of the objects found in primary contexts at Uğurlu, points (n=15) are most frequent, followed by smoothers (n=6), then needles (n=4). The remaining types include pins, a hook, and undefined items. For those found in secondary contexts, points still dominate (n=11) and smoothers are still well represented (n=6), but there is a greater breadth of other types including pins (n=6), a bi-point, chisel, gouge, spoon handle, rounded point, and undefined items. This sample from Phase IV is atypical of the site however, with approximately one in three objects found in primary contexts compared to secondary contexts in other phases. The trend for worked bone to be found in secondary rather than primary contexts is common for the region. For example, at Barcın, from a sample of 291 awls/points with a known context recovered from 2010–2013, 24.7 per cent are found in primary contexts, compared to 75.3 per cent in secondary.32 This is also reflected for 102 spatulas (primary

31

 See Paul 2016; Paul and Erdoğu 2017.  Dekker 2014, p. 63.

32

194

JARRAD W. PAUL

context: 29.4 per cent; secondary context: 70.6 per cent) and 82 spoons (primary context: 22.0 per cent; secondary context: 78.0 per cent) from a known context. The numbers of worked animal bone from primary contexts in the region is limited, yet it is still important to consider the particular contexts of their deposition. This is especially true for worked animal bone items associated with burials, as examining skeletal remains with material evidence in this primary context can lead to a deeper understanding of social and economic processes.33 At Barcın, 17 items (including points/awls, spatulas, and spoons) from the above sample of 291 were recovered from burials. Items include common points/awls (both made from metapodial bones and other long bones) and more rarer items, such as a belt hook with two perforations. Spoons found in burials in the majority of cases have very long and thin handles with little sign of use-wear,34 though some have use-wear markings and were already broken when interred.35 At Ilıpınar, Marinelli also mentions that some spoons were listed in burials; it is suggested that the inclusion of a spoon within a burial inventory must denote some special meaning.36 At Fikirtepe, almost all burials have no items included with the skeletal remains, with the exception of one that contained a worked animal bone spoon and a clay cult table with incised decoration.37 Workshops are difficult to identify from the Neolithic,38 let alone those designed exclusively for bone tool production. Despite this, at Achilleion an area designated as a workshop is reported in Phase II. This well-defined zone produced an intense collection of worked animal bone not seen elsewhere on-site: bone points, needles, a knife, a handle, an antler hoe, antler fragments, a bone spatula, and a perforated bone object classified as a possible belt hook.39 The label of workshop in this regard is appropriate, especially considering the surrounding contexts, which yielded a heavy concentration of chipped stone tools. It is also important to mention here the post-depositional factors that may be traced on bone tools and objects from the region. Understanding the processes an artefact may have undergone between its final use and its recovery provides insight into the overall history of a site and the significance of a tool. The colour of a tool can prove useful in this regard. Most tools appear a shade of brown due to contact with soil over a long period of time, but a variation in bone colour can indicate degrees of burning.40 Burning is a common phenomenon on bone tools, resulting in a brittle appearance and a change in natural colouration. At Ulucak for example, some subtype A points have traces of intense burning on the entire bone surface, resulting in tools that are black, grey, and some so badly burnt they have turned white. At Uğurlu, a burnt fill context contains tools blackened by fire in conjunction with other burnt objects. Blackened tools are also seen at Ege Gübre, and at Kovačevo, some have black and grey surface colouration.

33

 Robb et al. 2001, p. 213.  For a detailed analysis of spoons with burials at Barcın see Dekker 2014, pp. 117–122. 35  Erdalkıran 2015, p. 33. 36  Marinelli 1995, p. 132. 37  M. Özdoğan 2001a, p. 33. 38  See Baysal 2013. 39  See Winn and Shimabuku 1989. 40  See David 1990, pp. 65–79; Gilchrist and Mytum 1986, p. 32. 34

CHAPTER 6

195

Fig. 6.34. Root etching on worked bone at Uğurlu (courtesy B. Erdoğu; photo J. W. Paul).

Another post-depositional factor that may impact bone tools is root etching. This occurs when roots of plants scratch the surface of a bone, leaving distinctive marks across the surface. From Phase V at Uğurlu comes a subtype A point that has evidence of deep root etching on its surface, providing further evidence that its deposition is within one of the oldest layers at the site (Fig. 6.34). Context therefore provides a wealth of additional information that influences our understanding of a tool or object. Items found in fills or disposal areas are most likely to have been discarded at the end of their working life; this should be reflected in the condition of the tool. Conversely, those found in primary contexts (burials or undisturbed floor layers) should have a higher chance of being in original working order and may have been left or stored either intentionally or unintentionally. Geographic Setting: Islands, Mainland, Caves, and Mounds Geography played a major role in how humans interacted with their surroundings in the Neolithic, influencing how groups operated, both internally and externally. As noted in Chapter 2, island communities had particular challenges owing to the harsh realities of establishing a settlement in an area bound by sea. It has been shown that individual sites have exhibited localised variations of worked animal bone within an established system of regional trends. The physical location of a site also seems to have had some influence on the types of tools constructed. For instance, when comparing the assemblages of Uğurlu (island site) and Ulucak (mainland site) the similarities and differences become apparent. The physical limitations of an island site compared to one on an open plain in this comparison is not reflected in the size of the site. For instance, the Uğurlu mound is 250 × 200 m and the Ulucak mound is 120 × 140 m. Additionally, the Uğurlu settlement extends over 6 ha, at Ulucak it is only 3 ha.

JARRAD W. PAUL

196

As seen above, pointed tools dominate both assemblages. Both sites record high numbers of rounded points and pins, with a preference for subtype A pins over subtype B. Major departures are noticed when it comes to the needles and hooks. For Uğurlu, fish hooks and fish bones at the site are surprisingly limited given its proximity to the ocean. Optimised reliance on domesticated grains and livestock as the main source of nutrition may be a factor, but low numbers of fish and hooks may be related to depositional factors (for example, the discard of hooks off-site) rather than limited manufacture and use. It could also reflect a dependence on fishing nets rather than hooks. In addition, the complete absence of subtype A needles, and needles in general, at Ulucak emphasises the localisation of this tool type at Uğurlu. Polishing tools also seem highly localised to each site. Smoothers found at Uğurlu are regularised, particularly subtype A. Their state of preservation is also usually excellent, characterised by a smoothed bevelled tip. In contrast, the condition of Ulucak smoothers varies greatly, and they appear more fragmentary, with less regularised form. This may indicate that smoothers were used more frequently to produce a greater number of items. Additionally, there is a smaller divide between subtype A and B smoothers during the Neolithic at Ulucak (subtype A: 64.1 per cent of the total number of smoothers; subtype B: 35.9 per cent) when compared to Uğurlu (subtype A: 89.7 per cent of the total number of smoothers; subtype B: 10.3 per cent). The low frequency of smoothers at Ulucak is counteracted by the sizeable presence of spatulas. Spatulas at Ulucak comprise 14.2 per cent of the Neolithic assemblage, whereas at Uğurlu spatulas are far less frequent, constituting only 7.3 per cent of the Neolithic assemblage. Further, perforated and ornamented worked animal bone are more frequent at Ulucak when compared to Uğurlu. The differences in assemblages from a type (smoothers, spatulas, and perforated and ornamented tools) and subtype (points/awls) perspective, while minor, are still apparent between the two sites. Differences in raw material selection at the two sites are also interesting to observe. Much of the worked Uğurlu material comes from long bones of medium-sized animals. This is the case at Ulucak as well, but there are higher occurrences at Ulucak of tools made from largesized animal bones during the Neolithic (Ulucak 25 per cent; Uğurlu 16.6 per cent). A reason for this difference can be explained by geographic setting. Ulucak is located on a plain, where large animals could easily have been kept. In contrast, Uğurlu is located on an island, with transportation of livestock a reality faced by the early inhabitants. Due to its distance from the mainland, medium- and small-sized animals would have been favoured for the initial journey. Low numbers of large-sized animals are also documented at other island sites in the region. At Agios Petros for instance there are no tools made from largesized animals or deer (both bone and antler) during the Neolithic periods.41 Small-sized animals were also favoured for tool construction at Limenaria, on the island of Thassos.42 It thus seems that when dealing with assemblages from island sites, large-sized animals bones were less available when compared to their medium- and small-size counterparts. Mound sites, or magoulas, in the Greek Neolithic are built up from settlements, leaving a lasting impression on the landscape. Comparing a few mound sites on the flat plain of 41

 Efstratiou 1985, p. 45.  Papadopoulos and Malamidou 2008, p. 429.

42

CHAPTER 6

197

Thessaly from the Early and Middle Neolithic phases in Greece (6500–5500 BC) underscores some overlaps in material culture. The sites of Zarkou, Soufli, Argissa, Otzaki, Achilleion, and Sesklo all contain early evidence of domestic agriculture and animals. Most of these sites favour local stone for tool construction, and seemingly all have relatively low numbers of worked animal bone. Awls are found at all sites, and only at Soufli and Achilleion are perforations used to create hooks and needles. Differences occur between these sites in terms of type frequency, with the work of Stratouli invaluable in this regard (Table 6.5).43 The comparison of Otzaki and Argissa, at a type level, is insightful. Slight differences in the material assemblages separate the two; for

Type 1.0 undetermined pointed tool 1.1 large point 1.2 fine point 1.3 point made from an ulna 1.4 longitudinally split long bones with a base 1.5 point without a base 1.6 ribs and antler point 1.7 double point 1.8 point with only a proximal section 1.9 point with only a shaft 1.10 points with a thickened and perforated base 3.1 from bones of small animals 3.2 from unworked long bones of large animals 3.4 small size 3.5 elongated and trapezoidal 3.7 made from antler 3.8 made from unsplit rib bones 3.9 made from longitudinally split rib bones 3.10 perforated items with a transverse working-edge Total

Nea Servia Nikomedeia

Site Prodromos

Otzaki

Argissa

Total

 94  55  26  20 102

 8  7  2  1  9

10 11  8

 1  3

 6  1  4

118  74  29  21 126

131   9   1   6

25  6  1  1

25  2 -

 4 -

 2 -

187  15   4   7

  2 -

 1

-

-

-

  2   1

 50

-

31

 2

10

 93

  4

-

-

-

-

  4

  4   1   2  30

 1  1  3

 2  4  5

 1

 1

  4   2   2   7  40

-

 2

-

 1

 2

  5

537

68

98

12

26

741

Table 6.5. Comparison of Stratouli’s artefact type group 1 (pointed tools) and 3 (transverse working-edged tools) from Neolithic levels at Nea Nikomedeia, Servia, Prodromos, Otzaki, and Argissa. 43

 See Stratouli 1998a.

198

JARRAD W. PAUL

example, Stratouli’s type 1.2, or fine bone points, are attested only at Otzaki. In contrast, bevelled-edged tools made from the unsplit bones of small/medium-sized animals (Stratouli type 3.1) were favoured at both sites, consistently with high frequencies. Points with and without bases are also common at both (Stratouli types 1.4 and 1.5). Further, tibia bones are preferred for tool construction at both sites. Indeed, when comparing these sites with Zarkou, there is a preference at all three sites for pointed tools with an active bevelled edge that are made on tibia bones. Due to inconsistent regional labelling—and associated difficulties with terminology—these may be designated cutting tools, chisels or, alternatively, polishing tools. At Sesklo, Wijnen’s assessment of 24 worked animal bone objects places burnishers (or smoothers) as the most frequent type.44 Burnishers are also recorded at Prodromos,45 but at no other northern Greek site in this analysis. The bevelled-edged tools made from the unsplit bones of small/medium-sized animals (Stratouli type 3.1) catalogued by Stratouli at Nea Nikomedeia, Otzaki, and Argissa do however share morphological parallels with the types labelled as burnishers, making it another example of terminological inconsistency in the region, especially relating to this polishing tool. Cave sites are also interesting to review, with the Cave of Cyclops, Yarımburgaz Cave, and Theopetra Cave all containing habitation from periods prior to the Neolithic. Caves were used as a natural shelter for those in prehistory, offering communities a place to consolidate resources in relative safety. They do not seem to have been entirely domestic spaces, with researchers also modelling possible ritual behaviours within caves.46 Indeed, based on the economic activities derived from decorated ceramics, skeletal remains, the restricted set of bone tool types available, and limited areas of bone working in the cave, Stratouli posits a vibrant social-symbolic role for worked animal bone at Theopetra Cave.47 From an analysis of cave site worked bone collections, it is apparent that the perforation of tools was practiced, seen at Yarımburgaz and Theopetra, with a high level of skill also evident in the quality of hooks produced at Cave of Cyclops. Thus, it can be seen that the manufacture of bone tools during the Neolithic at these three cave sites was controlled, well executed, and followed a known sequence. Additionally, with the introduction of domestic animals and other lifestyle factors during the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic, each cave site seems to have adapted their individual assemblage. For instance, at the Cave of Cyclops hooks and bi-points associated with fishing/hunting are found in earlier levels. As the Neolithic becomes established, points—normally associated with textile and ceramic production—become the favoured type. Likewise, the lack of everyday items and the presence of status material at Yarımburgaz Cave during the Neolithic, when compared to the Mesolithic, suggests that the cave may have acquired a more symbolic character through time. Therefore, the role of geography in shaping how communities created and used worked bone is evident when comparing settlements with similar and diverse geographic settings. Raw material selection and a subsequent set of types and subtypes is then seen to be a reflection, in some part, of the geographic situation of each settlement. 44

 Wijnen 1981, p. 43.  Perlès 2001, p. 238. 46  See Tomkins 2009. 47  See Stratouli 2000. 45

CHAPTER 6

199

The Connection between Worked Animal Bone and Other Neolithic Material Culture Worked bone was not created in isolation. Instead, it was connected and entangled in the wider material culture at any given site.48 Stone, clay, and wood are raw materials needed from the beginning to end of the worked bone production chain. Likewise, animal bone tools were utilised in the production sequences of ceramics, textiles, and leather products. Taking Uğurlu as an example, it becomes obvious that worked animal bone is continually found in connection with other items onsite. For instance, the introduction of Spondylus as a raw material begins in Phase IV and has links with the worked bone industry at the site in regard to both manufacture and use.49 Spondylus shells were transformed into tiny bracelets; their size might indicate that people wore them as children and then potentially broke them as they transitioned into adulthood. Along with stone tools, animal bone tools could have been used to shape the raw shell. Although no obvious site of Spondylus bracelet manufacture (that is, a workshop) has been found, there are instances of bracelets recovered in a possible later Chalcolithic working area. This working area contained pits with worked animal bone that may have been involved in shell processing.50 For the chipped stone assemblage at Uğurlu, locally sourced flint remains the dominant raw material, with many of the blanks used directly without retouching.51 An example of a fill deposit during this period is typical of the material found onsite; it includes eight worked bone and antler objects, four worked sea shells, one stone tool, two stone slings, one clay object, and one figurine. In comparison, a floor unit at Ulucak from a comparable phase contains nine worked animal bone items alongside ceramics, obsidian, flint, a grinding stone, a pendant, a figurine, and polishing stones. The large variety of worked bone types on this floor unit, including a needle which is rare in the collection, indicates a domestic setting rather than a workshop. Wood is an important component in the raw material makeup of Neolithic sites; however, it is largely invisible in the archaeological record due to its poor preservation capacity. Its use can be inferred from indirect evidence, such as post holes for house construction seen at Nea Nikomedeia, Proskinites, and Elateia. In some instances, wooden artefacts do survive due to the soil conditions in which they were discarded. At Yenikapı wooden artefacts are well preserved and give insight into tool types that are only otherwise known to be made from bone.52 For instance, a parallel with the Uğurlu collection is seen in a wooden artefact that shares some morphological properties with the Uğurlu subtype A needle type, though with additional incisions across the shaft. It is conceivable than that wooden versions of this type may have be created and used in conjunction with bone at Uğurlu and might also explain why there are no subtype A needles at Ulucak. This hypothesis is furthered by evidence that subtype A needle production from bone is halved after the Neolithic period at Uğurlu. The change in raw material sourcing may then explain the 48

 See Hodder 2012.  See Baysal and Erdoğu 2014. 50  See Paul and Erdoğu 2017 and Paul 2016 for more information on the Chalcolithic working areas at Uğurlu and their association with worked bone and Spondylus. 51  Guilbeau and Erdoğu 2011, pp. 1–19. 52  Mazlum and Serdar 2017. 49

JARRAD W. PAUL

200

fewer number of needles later in the site’s history, as wood requires less effort to acquire and construct when compared to bone. The connection between types that are made on different raw material can also be seen in the appearance of spoons in the region. While bone spoons are a common worked animal bone type they are also made from clay, especially in the western side of the North Aegean. Likewise, figurines are made of stone and clay, along with other ornamentation such as beads and bracelets. Spindle whorls are also made of various material including bone, stone, and clay. The limited number of cutting tools made from bone, such as scrapers and axes, is also explained by their more frequent manufacture from stone. Therefore, some tools and objects in the Neolithic toolkit of the North Aegean did not conform to a strict raw material selection. The reasons for raw material selection would have been influenced by numerous factors, including availability of material, proximity to the source, and possible social or ritual factors. The small glimpses of wooden tool and object types also suggests that this material was also used as a prehistoric item to support community activities. Bone is then seen in this analysis as just one raw material alternative amongst others. It was vital in the manufacture of some items, but also was substituted at times with stone, clay or wood. Similarities and Differences with Worked Animal Bone Assemblages North, South, East, and West of the North Aegean The North Aegean did not exist in isolation. An important crossroad for interaction, this region was influenced by factors that existed from all sides. To the east is central and eastern modern-day Turkey, to the west is western modern-day Greece (Epirus and the Ionian Islands) and countries in Eastern Europe (Serbia and Romania), to the north sits Bulgaria, and to the south, Central Greece, the Peloponnese and remaining Aegean islands (Cyclades and Dodecanese). Additional sites investigated as part of this analysis highlight a rich and diverse worked animal bone toolkit in adjacent regions during the Neolithic. East To the east of the North Aegean lies central and eastern Turkey where numerous Neolithic sites have been uncovered. Once thought to be a bridge between the Near East and Europe, it is now understood to have played a pivotal role in influencing the changes in lifestyle associated with Neolithic processes.53 A recent synthesis of worked animal bone types in Anatolia, based largely on the extensive evidence from Çatalhöyük and other sites in the area, has shown that many sites have a rich worked animal bone assemblage, but unfortunately, they are not thoroughly published.54 The investigation of a few published sites nonetheless throws up some interesting points.

53

 See Sagona and Zimansky 2009; Sagona 2006.  See Russell 2016.

54

CHAPTER 6

201

At Bademağacı Höyük, well-made hooks show some similarities to those located in the northwest corner of Anatolia.55 Carved decorations on spatulas, spatula-spoons, and pins at Hacılar are also reminiscent of some of the exquisite carved spoon handles in the Thrace region. The Hacılar spatula-spoon type is also comparable in form to those found at Uğurlu, Ulucak, Barcın, Kovačevo, and Theopetra Cave.56 Moving further east into the centre of Anatolia, a number of well-documented collections show parallels with items in the North Aegean. Intentional firing of pointed tools tips and well-executed crafting techniques to create awls and hooks at Aşıklı,57 and toggles at Boncuklu,58 from as early as the eighth millennium BC show that these manufacturing process were known, at least at these sites, well before the advent of the seventh millennium BC. The Neolithic toolkit at Tepecik-Çiftlik during Phases V and IV is also fairly consistent with those found in the North Aegean, although localised by its more frequent use of wild animal bones for tool construction.59 Mersin-Yumuktepe also yielded a rare point with denticulated sides which may be interpreted as an ornamental piece or potential projectile point; it is reminiscent of the festooned-bone objects of Toptepe.60 Antler is utilised for shafts and hammers at Köşk Höyük; its use for specific tool types is a characteristic that is seen in the North Aegean, where antler shafts in particular were favoured.61 Worked animal bone tools used for piercing, scraping, digging, and hammering at Köşk Höyük are also found in primary burial contexts, like some sites (Barcın, Ilıpınar, and Fikirtepe) in the northwest Turkey subregion of the North Aegean. Connections with the North Aegean are also evident at the premier site in this area, Çatalhöyük. Points made from sheep/goat long bones were favoured in both cases (43.4 per cent of overall collection at Çatalhöyük), with needles also found in high frequencies (8.7 per cent).62 Spoons are found too, although in relatively small numbers (0.5 per cent). The presence of hooks, chisels/gouges, rounded points, and handles shows an overlap of tool types. Çatalhöyük also differs from many sites in the North Aegean with a high frequency of rings made from bone (just under 11 per cent of the overall assemblage). Only found at three key sites under present investigation (Barcın, Aşaği Pınar, and Kovačevo), the disparity in this type of object localises the Çatalhöyük collection. Russell suggests that rings at Çatalhöyük might have marked a type of group membership.63

55

 Duru 2012, p. 20.  Duru 2012, pp. 4–7; Mellaart 1970, pp. 161–163. 57  Özbaşaran 2012, pp. 155–156. 58  Baird et al. 2012, p. 231. 59  Bıçakçı et al. 2012, p. 102. 60  Caneva 2012, p. 9. 61  Öztan 2012, pp. 37–42. 62  Russell 2005, p. 340. Analysis here is based on the 565 tools recorded from the 1995–1999 excavation seasons. 63  Russell 2016, p. 131. 56

202

JARRAD W. PAUL

South To the south of the study area are sites on both sides of the Aegean, in modern mainland Greece and western Turkey, plus sites on the southern Aegean islands. Franchthi Cave, in the eastern Peloponnese, when compared to cave sites in the North Aegean, shows some striking similarities and differences. As with all sites north, points are the most frequent type at Franchthi Cave, 72.6 per cent of the overall assemblage.64 Spatulas are well represented at just under 14 per cent of the overall collection. Pendants, preforms, miscellaneous cutting tools, and beads are also recorded. Additionally, some fish hook design is reminiscent of those found at the Cave of Cyclops. However, differences do occur. For example, bone point subtype 1 is a sheep/goat metapodia that is unsplit with an intact base, with only the tip shaped into a point. Additionally, when compared to the Cave of Cyclops, the frequency of fish hooks is significantly less: 1.5 per cent of the overall assemblage at Franchthi Cave compared to 26.8 per cent of the assemblage at the Cave of Cyclops. Both sites feature a previous Mesolithic occupation layer (and even a preceding Palaeolithic layer at Franchthi), making the lack of hooks at Franchthi even more significant. It must be noted however that, as at Uğurlu, the lack of fish hooks does not necessarily mean the community did not fish. On the contrary, at Franchthi fishing could have been a vital subsistence strategy, especially during the period of implementing animal domestication on the island. Instead, we should consider how these tools would have been deposited. As fishing can occur away from a settlement it is likely any broken objects could have been discarded off-site and are therefore not evident in the archaeological record. In contrast, broken pointed objects found on-site might suggest that activities related to their use (sewing clothes, basket weaving, textile manufacturing) were performed within the settlement. Further south on Crete, a sample of Neolithic Knossos worked animal bone suggests a high frequency of sheep/goat bones (80 per cent) used for the manufacture of tools and other items, which is consistent with the North Aegean.65 Spatulas made from rib bones provide a further similarity. Likewise, Çukuriçi on Anatolia’s southwest coast has bone tool types typically found in the North Aegean, including points/awls, pins, spatulas, and smoothers.66 North and West Moving north past the extremities of Greece, communities at Neolithic sites that are now positioned in Bulgaria and Macedonia created and used worked animal bone extensively. A comparison between Karanovo and Uğurlu brings out some key similarities and differences between the regions. First, in terms of the broader material cultural record, there are examples of cross-cultural contact. A white-painted pottery sherd found at Uğurlu is indicative of the early Karanovo pottery horizon, making it distinctive when compared to

64

 See Payne et al. 1973.  Isaakidou 2005, pp. 211–212. 66  Horejs et al. 2015, p. 304. 65

CHAPTER 6

203

local wares on the island.67 Additionally, the appearance of worked snail shells at Karanovo has parallels with the abundance of unworked shells at Uğurlu. Suggestive of ritual associations, these were contextually associated with figurines and a subtype A needle at Uğurlu. Shells and some needle types at Karanovo are considered grave goods, and perhaps both sites were using these objects in conjunction with ritual or burial practices. Similarities between Karanovo and Uğurlu also extend to other worked bone types. Pointed objects dominate both collections, comprising 41.3 per cent of the overall assemblage at Karanovo and 67.6 per cent of the Neolithic assemblage at Uğurlu. Chisels, or smoothers as they are termed at Uğurlu, also account for a large proportion of the assemblages (20 per cent at Karanovo and 17.8 per cent at Uğurlu). In terms of morphologically similar types, awls and points predominate. For instance, Karanovo subtype A is analogous with Uğurlu subtype B; Karanovo subtype B with Uğurlu subtype C; Karanovo subtype C with Uğurlu subtype E; and Karanovo awl subtype C with Uğurlu subtype H. Additionally, the chisels at Karanovo exhibit parallels with subtype A smoothers at Uğurlu, particularly in regard to their open shafts. The Karanovo collection contains perforated and decorated objects, antler points, and antler shafts, all also found at Uğurlu. There are divergences with type distribution when comparing both sites. The large number of spoons at Karanovo (10.8 per cent) is not reflected in the Uğurlu collection (1.4 per cent). This phenomenon may relate to raw material acquisition, the first stage of the chaîne opératoire. Transporting large animals, such as cattle, via watercraft onto Gökçeada during the Neolithic would have been difficult. Medium-sized animals, such as sheep and goat, would have been favoured for the journey due to their size, durability, and adaptability when compared to their larger ungulate counterparts. Thus, on a broad scale, similarities exist between the worked bone assemblages of Karanovo and Uğurlu. They include the dominance of pointed tools, similar typed subtyped points, and greater numbers of smoothers. Some contrasts between the two assemblages become evident when investigating on a type-by-type basis. For instance, the high frequency of spoons at Karanovo is not reflected at Uğurlu. When viewed overall, the similarities far outweigh the contrasts, with both collections exhibiting similar types and tool groupings. This situation may be a direct result of influence from the east, as both sites can trace some initial material connections to an existing Anatolian tradition. The worked animal bone collections of Yabalkovo and Anza also exhibit close connections with those in the North Aegean. Pointed tools dominate both collections, with evidence of spatulas also reported.68 Chisels (or smoothers) are found at Yabalkovo which share similar morphological characteristics (made from hollow bones). Spoons also show evidence of similar production sequences to those uncovered in northwest Anatolia. Likewise, connections with Anatolia and the wider North Aegean are seen at Anza with the presence of bone rings and pendants. Differences do occur, particularly seen in the breadth of types found at Anza, including the inclusion of musical instruments. But as with Karanovo, it seems there are more similarities than differences with these collections. 67

 Erdoğu 2014, p. 160.  Gimbutas 1974, pp. 52–53; Leshtakov et al. 2007, p. 197.

68

204

JARRAD W. PAUL

Worked bone of the Starčevo Culture (ca. 5500–4600 BC), which covers the entire Balkan region, has also been studied extensively, highlighting similarities with the adjacent North Aegean, and local differences.69 In terms of raw material, high frequencies of antler was used for tool construction during the Mesolithic period for sites forming part of the Starčevo Culture. This is superseded in most cases by domestic animal species, particularly long bones, further into the Neolithic. Nonetheless, antler is still seen as an important material source into the Neolithic for the creation of sickles, chisels, hammers, and axes, much like at Sitagroi and Dikili Tash, in the North Aegean. Abrasion, as a technique for working bone, is also introduced during the Neolithic with the advent of abrasive stone tool types. Spatula/spoons are considered to be an influence from Anatolia and the Near East during the Neolithic, with this type not seen in the previous local Mesolithic phase. Other tool types, such as awls and scrapers, continue from the Mesolithic, and are still used extensively during the Neolithic. West of the study area presents a number of sites that date to the Neolithic period. In Serbia extensive work regarding worked animal bone has been conducted,70 and in Albania the Neolithic record is underreported in English but information regarding sites is increasing.71 Sites north, south, east, and west of the study can be seen to influence and be influenced by sites in the North Aegean. A common set of tools and objects made of bone is evident at most sites outside the study area, particularly for points/awls and other types that are usually determined by raw material, such as spatulas. However, localised types and raw material frequencies separate many of the sites outside the North Aegean, with certain subregions forming their own distinctive characteristics, evident, for example, in the high frequency of rings at Çatalhöyük.

CONTRIBUTION OF WORKED ANIMAL BONE

FROM THE

NEOLITHIC

The Influence of Worked Animal Bone in the Neolithic Transition of the North Aegean The examination of the worked animal bone of the North Aegean has thus far shown some key insights. Widespread regional trends are obvious, for instance the high frequency of point manufacture, the favouring of sheep/goat bones and limited cutting tools. Coupled with these are localised trends that become evident when comparing and contrasting sites. These include refined spoon production in Thrace and northwest Anatolia, low numbers of deer and antler for tool and object construction, and an inconsistent use of domestic animals that are not sheep/goat, such as cattle and pig. It is also evident that many of the types created and used during the Neolithic period were also constructed in the preceding period, especially true when studying the Mesolithic assemblages from the western side of the Aegean and the Neolithic collections of central Anatolia. These tool types were therefore not new to Neolithic, but rather, were introduced into the region with the establishment of 69

 Vitezović 2016, pp. 123–137.  Vitezović 2011, pp. 117–136. 71  See Papadopoulos et al. 2014. 70

CHAPTER 6

205

new Neolithic communities. Because of this, it is difficult to assign a single North Aegean worked animal bone culture like other raw material groups of the period. For instance, one can speak of a pottery horizon as part of the Sesklo culture of Thessaly, a trade network of obsidian from Melos, an impressed pottery tradition in west Turkey, or a material grouping that is considered part of the Fikirtepe culture of northwest Anatolia. A worked animal bone culture of the North Aegean might be best described as an emphasis on pointed tools made from domesticated sheep/goat long bones. This can also be expanded to include a reliance on domesticated animals over wild animals. What does set the North Aegean region apart is the localisation of toolkits within individual sites, with the variations in these suggesting a uniqueness to each site’s assemblage. While the worked animal bone assemblage at each site does not drastically alter from one to another, each does have at least some component unique to itself—it is this that sets the region apart. In this case, it is the variations in the localised toolkits that offer uniqueness to each assemblage: the subtype A needles at Uğurlu, or the increased use of deer at Dikili Tash, for example. Toolkits with similar themes may then be matched to other collections, with each type analysed linking individual key sites into a web of overlapping concepts and ideas. This then forms a network that stretches throughout the region and, as observed with an analysis of additional sites, outside the region. The worked bone assemblages of the North Aegean should not be understood as a single culture or horizon; this would imply a wholesale adoption of the same types, much like the so-called Neolithic Package attempted to explain individualised processes during the period. Instead, collections should be considered as local adaptions of regional trends, that in some cases began before the advent of the Neolithic. Worked animal bone thus contributes to wider understandings of Neolithic transition by underscoring the fragility of the concept. Multiple sites existed with one another in this region and clearly interacted, as seen in the commonality of broad material cultural trends, such as the emergence of pottery, domesticated animals and grains, architecture, and tool types. As larger syntheses try to explain the processes of how these communities established themselves in this region, worked animal bone goes some way in supporting the notion that this was an extremely complex process. In this regard, rather than the evidence at sites supporting an overarching narrative, the narrative needs to be driven by evidence from individual sites. This complexity can only be understood after an investigation on a site-by-site basis. Such detail throws up data such as the presence of bone spoons in Turkey and the Balkans, but not in Greece, which has traditionally been seen as evidence for the lack of transition during the early Neolithic.72 However, the fact that clay spoons, and a possible bone spatula-spoon, have been recorded in earliest levels in Greece suggests that this tool type is not completely absent in the record. Thus, in the comparison of worked animal bone at individual sites across the region, set within a contextual understanding of the material assemblages of the Neolithic, further insights may be discerned.

72

 Reingruber 2011, p. 294.

206

JARRAD W. PAUL

At a regional level there is no doubt that sites in the North Aegean are materially connected.73 The Neolithic saw the dispersal of domesticated animals, dependency on agriculture, and the increased use of ceramics. Worked animal bone was a component of this material culture but was not dependant on this new way of life. On the contrary, the production of bone tools, as with stone, was familiar technology before the Neolithic. Common manufacturing characteristics, types, and raw material selection are evident in the region and reflect a sense of familiarity with the transformative aspects of animal bone production. But not all bone tool types were mutual. All were not created the same way, and all certainly did not function in the same way. Examining worked animal bone assemblages between sites on a type, as well as a group basis, sheds light on individual site practices. In this case, detailed descriptions are imperative to help researchers identify key features and characteristics of tool types. Only with this information can comparisons be made. Recent Scientific Evidence and the Role of Worked Animal Bone from the Neolithic Archaeology is one subdiscipline that has greatly relied on scientific methodology to further the material record, beginning with the advent of radiocarbon dating, and continuing to encompass a range of scientific testing methods. Specific to animal remains, ZooMS is an exciting scientific avenue that allows researchers, through mass spectrometry, to identify collagen in bone samples which aids in identifying species.74 For instance, the previous troubles in differentiating sheep and goat long bones can now be better understood using this technology. A main aim for this book was to reconcile the material record in the North Aegean Neolithic, using worked animal bone as an example, with recent evidence coming from scientific evidence in the form of genetic and DNA analysis. From the end of the last millennium, DNA sequencing has been used to test and enhance our understanding of traditional theoretical concepts in archaeology.75 Over the past two decades, genetic findings relating to Neolithic migration from the Near East into the Aegean and Europe have begun to enhance and, in some cases, overturn previous thoughts about migration patterns. For example, mitochondrial DNA from Near Eastern Neolithic communities (8700–6600 cal BC) was compared to those in the Aegean and Europe. Results suggest that the first Neolithic farmers entered Europe following a maritime route through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands.76 This initial path could have followed a seafaring route, via Cyprus and the Aegean islands along the southern coast of Anatolia and up the western coast of Greece. Likewise, paleogenomic data taken from individuals in Theopetra Cave, Revenia, Paliambela, and Barcın find striking genetic similarity between early farmers from the Aegean and those documented in Europe.77 Results also show the mixing of migrated farmers with local populations occurred in low levels across Europe. Modern Anatolian and Aegean populations also do not appear 73

 Lichter 2005, pp. 59–70.  See Bradfield 2013, pp. 2606–2613; Desmond et al. 2018. 75  See Matisoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012. 76  See Fernádez et al. 2014. 77  Hofmanová et al. 2016. 74

CHAPTER 6

207

to be the direct descendants of the Neolithic people of the same region. Moreover, an investigation of ancient genomes from the Neolithic suggests that North Aegean populations may have been the product of multiple westward migrations, including those from southern Anatolia, mixed with descendants from local Aegean Mesolithic groups who then went on to adopt farming.78 Neolithic populations in the North Aegean also seemed to have a stronger genetic affinity with those in the Levant than those in central Anatolia. The North Aegean is therefore now understood to be genetically noted for its diversity. Overall, a complex picture emerges for the flourishing of communities in the Neolithic, with people moving and thriving through the pre-existing coastal and interior interaction networks of the region. The worked animal bone record of the North Aegean certainly fits within this updated model, with an emphasis on diversity over uniformity. The complexity of each tool assemblage mirrors the intricate migration and settlement patterns from those incoming and those already established during the Neolithic in the North Aegean. This region can be seen then not as a simple transferral point between the Near East and Europe, but as a vital crossroad, which ultimately influenced—through genetics and material culture—populations in Europe. Europe has been traditionally seen as the destination for many of these migrants, reconfirming outdated concepts and theories. Genetic evidence has now shown that this period of human migration was not a simple process, and that the destination may well have been dependent on the numerous logistical and geographical realities faced by migrating individuals and communities. In some cases, like Uğurlu, the destination can even be visible from the origin which may, as previously discussed, indicate other intangible but compelling motivations to relocate. Research now suggests a long and complicated history of human movement in the area, supported by a range of established and emerging processes such as domestication, architecture, and tools. The conclusions reached from the current analysis of worked animal bone largely reflects this emerging genetic evidence, favouring complexity over simplicity and highlighting multiple influences and origins. The tools and objects of this region made of bone and antler are just one element that contributed to supporting the diverse communities who inhabited the region.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS This current analysis is a good starting point for the large-scale investigation of worked animal bone collections in a single region, but the usefulness of the data can be extended. The establishment of an online database to store published data from the North Aegean would be an ideal launch pad for an extensive repository of worked bone information from adjacent regions during similar chronological periods. The creation of an online database could help inform researchers working with this material and help standardise existing and establishing typologies.79 At a basic level, an individual 78

 Kılinç et al. 2017.  See also Paul 2019 for more detail.

79

JARRAD W. PAUL

208

tool or object would be given context (period, place, find location if known) and then a group, type, and if necessary subtype, identifier. The aim here is not to impose a strict guideline for labels, but instead allow users to access other typologies efficiently and effectively and to accurately position their assemblage within the system. An ongoing comment section could also allow users to interact with one another. Moreover, a section to link established parallel types could be included. For instance, the subtype B points at Uğurlu may be used as a parallel at another site with a similar item such as, in this study, they have been paralleled with subtype B points/awls at Ulucak, Ilıpınar awl subtype A, Dikili Tash point subtype IIIB and VIIA, and Cave of Cyclops point subtype B. Through this process certain terminological inconsistencies may be unpacked, or at the very least, acknowledged by others when referring to their own collection. The importance of this type of delivery method is ease-of-access to the material. In this sense, it is also vital that users should have the ability to restrict certain areas of their information if under any uncertainty or if still yet to be published. Open access would also be favoured for delivery of content, owing to the multiple research benefits. Priority access to this online database would therefore be granted to researchers via institutional login identification and would be monitored monthly by specialist administrators. Additional delivery methods for the study of worked animal bone could include the creation of more field manuals. Most other subdisciplines in the field, such as zooarchaeology and lithic analysis, have numerous textbooks to help students and those unfamiliar with the effective study of their material. Many zooarchaeological textbooks cover worked animal bone, but it is often considered secondary and commonly linked only through raw material selection. While knowledge of raw material is vital in the understanding of worked animal bone, a complete assessment of a tool or object should also be emphasised. A recent field manual highlights the post-excavation analysis of worked animal bone,80 but a broader approach is needed now that research in worked animal bone, as a subdiscipline, has entered an unparalleled period of interest. Worked animal bone studies is poised to continue its expansion and, with the advent of new scientific methodologies, is being pushed into exciting new areas. But its core should never be forgotten. Typology and cross-cultural comparison is the vital first step in understanding any worked bone collection. The ability to position an item within a region and then compare it with other analogous items is still worthy within the current emphasis on specialisation within the research field. A combination of both practices will ensure the growth of relevant and useful worked animal bone studies. SUMMARY Many daily activities of the Neolithic could not be completed without the direct, or indirect, use of animal bone tools and objects, making them an extremely important component in the prehistoric toolkit. Their value during the Neolithic, and to modern researchers as seen in this discussion, is now evident. 80

 See Tiley-Nel and Antonites 2015.

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION During the sixth and fifth millennium BC, the Neolithic way of life became established at sites in the North Aegean, with communities adopting processes including domesticating animals, crops, increased ceramic production, complex architecture, and increased tool variety. Establishing a settlement reliant on new agricultural practices and domestic animal rearing would have been a difficult task, involving forward planning and the accumulation of resources. Alongside this, tools and objects continued to be created, adapted, and utilised to support this new lifestyle. Most were made from rudimentary raw materials, with stone and bone already exploited well before the Neolithic. By examining the tools used to support this Neolithic sedentary lifestyle, insights emerge into how communities concentrated their energies. Through the listing of all known worked animal bone types in the North Aegean, parallels and local variations of items are now apparent, thus highlighting regional correspondences and diversifications. The subsequent discussion has also provided answers to the research questions posed at the beginning of this book regarding typology, raw material selection, manufacturing technique, context, the role of worked animal bone during the Neolithic and future directions. Tool Typology Points/awls dominate, but localised subtypes exist to differentiate sites. Needles are also popular, alongside spatulas and spoons. Smoothers and chisels, when the terminological inconsistencies are acknowledged, also appear in large numbers. Decorative motifs are rare, but when recorded, are found on a variety of worked animal bone types. Local variations of tool types, in terms of frequency, form, and raw material selection, are also apparent. Hooks, in particular, vary widely from site to site, as does the level of ornamentation applied to spoon handles. Raw Material Sheep/goat bones are favoured as a raw material source for points/awls in particular due to the processes for their manufacture. Other domesticated raw material sources, such as cattle and pig bones, are seen in different frequencies at different sites in the region. Antler is less commonly used when compared to bone in most cases. At a few sites, deer bone and antler is favoured for tool construction. The widespread occurrence of domesticated species in the overall unworked zooarchaeological record over wild species is reflected in worked animal bone assemblages. This is not to say that wild species were not used at all

210

JARRAD W. PAUL

for tool manufacture. Wild deer was the animal of choice when antler was required for tool construction. In addition, wild species may have been specifically selected for items with special significance. Manufacturing Techniques Manufacturing techniques for the region were varied and depended largely on the type of tool being made. For some types, such as spatulas, there was a limited and repeated set of actions and raw material used to create an item. Others, like point/awl manufacture, involved a set of manufacturing techniques (such as the split-and-groove technique) that allowed the creator more control over the details of the finished tool, usually at the expense of time. Some other types, such as hooks, were made using a range of techniques, not conforming to any set regional standard. In some cases, tools and objects, such as pins and spoons, were elaborately carved with intricate detail, calling attention to the talent of the artisan. Context Tools and objects were mostly found in secondary contexts throughout sites in the region. Those that were found in a primary context give insight into the daily practices of the communities living on-site, not only as to how worked animal bone was utilised but also how bone objects related to the wider material assemblage. Worked animal bone was placed within a larger system of other raw material alongside, most commonly, clay, stone, and wood. In combination, these provided a system of essential items for everyday use, including shelter, clothing, storage, cooking, and entertainment. Geography also played a role in the frequency of certain worked animal bone types. When comparing island and mainland sites some differences are noticeable, for instance the size of an animal used for tool construction, however this is not consistent. When viewing items beyond the geographical region of the study, similarities and differences are apparent in worked animal bone collections. Points/awls still dominate, but differences in raw material selection, type frequencies, and morphological characteristics localise sites outside the North Aegean. Contribution of Worked Animal Bone Studies to the Neolithic North Aegean Examining worked animal bone assemblages from the North Aegean and comparing them to recent genetic evidence has provided further insights and evidence into the movement of Neolithic groups. The conclusions reached about migration from studying worked animal bone largely mirror those gathered from genetic studies. That is, localised worked animal bone variations follow larger regional trends that trace the movement of people through multiple and repeatedly different pathways. Interestingly, this concept of localised variations within a larger system of material culture has been reported in other material culture of the region since the early twentieth century.1 The current study has shown that worked animal bone can now be firmly placed within this model. 1

 Wace and Thompson 1912, pp. 240–241.

CHAPTER 7

211

Future Directions Worked animal bone studies continue to grow into a vibrant subdiscipline, with exciting new scientific methodologies (such as ZooMS) being employed to provide a more accurate picture of the collections. This study also advocates for the creation of a relational online database to store published information as another avenue to share and grow this field of study. Further, the creation of specific worked animal bone field manuals to aid in data collection, recording, and interpretation would also assist those entering the specialisation. The combination of established typological and technical analysis, coupled with cuttingedge technology, will ensure that researchers can assess, and provide new interpretations of, worked animal bone collections into the future.

SUMMARY The movement of people and their daily-life practices in the North Aegean during the Neolithic were multifaceted, entangled in a complex web of immaterial and material forces. The North Aegean was not just a stepping-stone or bridge in the movement of Neolithic processes from the Near East into Europe. Instead it was an active area, with a mix of incoming and established communities that adopted lifestyle practices suited to the needs of individual groups. To understand how these processes worked, emphasis needs to be placed on the people at the centre of this transformation, and the material culture they left behind. It is only through a detailed examination and analysis of the surviving archaeological material, such as the worked animal bone tools and objects in this study, that assessments can be made regarding their significance in prehistory. Worked animal bone played an extremely important role during the Neolithic throughout the North Aegean. Items in this toolkit were conventional yet adaptive to the communities creating, maintaining, and using them at this geographic and cultural interchange. An expansive regional network of prehistoric sites underscores the importance of the area, with influences stretching as far as the Near East and into Europe. The worked animal bone tools and objects of the Neolithic North Aegean were thus vital elements in a larger and complicated system, facilitating communities who were establishing a new way of life in this dramatic landscape.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABAY, E. 2005

“Neolithic settlement at Ulucak Höyük and its cultural relations with neighbour regions in Western Anatolia,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 75–84. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. AGELARAKIS, A. and EFSTRATIOU, N. 1996 “Skeletal remains from the Neolithic site of Makri-Thrace. A preliminary report,” in Archaeometrical and Archaeological Research in Macedonia and Thrace: Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of the Hellenic Archaeometrical Society, 26–28 March 1993, edited by I. Stratis, M. Babelidis, K. Kotsakis, G. Tsokas and E. Tsoukala, pp. 11–21. Thessalonki: Hellenic Archaeometrical Society. AKERS, R. M. and DENBOW, D. M. 2008 Anatomy and Physiology of Domestic Animals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ALBRECHT, G., ALBRECHT, B., BERKE, H., BURGER, D., MOSER, J., RÄHLE, W., SCHOCH, W., STORCH, G., UERPMANN, P. and URBAN, B. 1992 “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene finds from Öküzini: A contribution to the settlement history of the Bay of Antalya, Turkey,” Paléorient 18(2): 123–141. ALGAN, O., YALÇIN, M. N., ÖZDOĞAN, M., YILMAZ, Y., SARI, E., KIRCI-ELMAS, E., YILMAZ, İ., BULKAN, Ö., ONGAN, D., GAZIOĞLU, C., NAZIK, A., POLAT, M. and MERIÇ, E. 2011 “Holocene coastal change in the ancient harbor of Yenikapı-İstanbul and its impact on cultural history,” Quaternary Research 76: 30–45. ALPASLAN ROODENBERG, S. 2001 “Newly found human remains from Menteşe in the Yenişehir Plain: The season of 2000,” Anatolica 27: 1–14. 2011 “Homicide at Aktopraklık, a prehistoric village in Turkey,” Near Eastern Archaeology 74(1): 60–61. ALPASLAN ROODENBERG, S. and MAAT, G. 1999 “Human skeletons from Menteşe Höyük near Yenişehir,” Anatolica 25: 37–51. ALPASLAN ROODENBERG, S., GERRITSEN, F. A. and ÖZBAL, R. 2013 “Neolithic burials from Barcın Höyük: The 2007–2012 excavation seasons,” Anatolica 39: 93–111. ALRAM-STERN, E. 2015 “Visviki Magoula – Velestino. The so-called megaron reconsidered.” Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στέρεας Ελλάδας 4: 75–84. ALRAM-STERN, E. and DOUSOUGLI-ZACHOS, A., eds. 2015 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino: Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. ALRAM-STERN, E., SARRIS, A., VOUZAXAKIS, K., ALMATZI, K., ARACHOVITI, P., RONDIRI, V., EFSTATHIOU, D., STAMELOU, E., GARCIA, C. C., KALAYCI, T., SIMON, F.-X., CANTORO, G., DONATI, J. and MANATAKI, M. 2017 “Visviki Magoula revisited: Comparing past excavations’ data to recent geophysical research,” in Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by A. Sarris, E. Kalogiroopoulou, T. Kalayci and L. Karimali, pp. 137–148. Ann Arbor: International Monograph in Prehistory. ALUŠÍK, T. 2017 “Community interaction and (intended) land use in Neolithic Greece: The testimony of the defensive architecture,” in Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by A. Sarris, E. Kalogiroopoulou, T. Kalayci and L. Karimali, pp. 187– 198. Ann Arbor: International Monograph in Prehistory.

214

JARRAD W. PAUL

AMMERMAN, A. J. 1989 “On the Neolithic transition in Europe: a comment on Zvelebil and Zvelebil (1988),” Antiquity 63: 162–165. AMMERMAN, A. J. and CAVALLO-SFORZA, L. L. 1984 The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. AMMERMAN, A. J., EFSTRATIOU, N., NTINOU, M., PAVLOPOULOS, K., GABRIELLI, R., THOMAS, K. D. and MANNINO, M. A. 2008 “Finding the early Neolithic in Aegean Thrace: The use of cores,” Antiquity 82: 139– 150. ANDREOU, S., FOTIADIS, M. and KOTSAKIS, K. 1996 “Review of Aegean Prehistory V: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece,” American Journal of Archaeology 100(3): 537–597. ARABATZIS, C. 2013 “The bone tools from the Neolithic settlement of Proskinites, Greece,” in The Sound of Bones. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group in Salzburg 2011, edited by F. Lang, pp. 33–39. Salzburg: ArchaeoPlus. 2019 Antler Artefacts from the Neolithic Lakeside Settlement Anarghiri IXB, Western Macedonia, Greece. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Bern. ARBUCKLE, B. S., KANSA, S. W., KANSA, E., ORTON, D., ÇAKIRLAR, C., GOURICHON, L., ATICI, 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., POWLOWSKA, K., RUSSELL, N., TWISS, K. and WÜRTENBERG, D. 2014 “Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across Neolithic Turkey,” PLoS One 9(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099845. ARBUCKLE, B. S. and MAKAREWICZ, C. A. 2009 “The early management of cattle (Bos Taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia,” Antiquity 83: 669–686. ARSEBÜK, G., HOWELL, F. C., KUHN, S. L., FARRAND, W. R., ÖZBAŞARAN, M. and STINER, M. C., eds. 2010 “The caves of Yarımburgaz: Geological context and history of investigation,” in Culture and Biology at a Crossroads: The Middle Pleistocene Record of Yarimburgaz Cave (Thrace, Turkey), pp. 1–27. İstanbul: Zero Books/Ege Publications. ATAMTÜRK, D., ÖZBAL, R., GERRITSEN, F. and DUYAR, I. 2018 “Analysis and interpretation of Neolithic period footprints from Barcın Höyük, Turkey,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18(1): 163–174. ATICI, L., PILAAR BIRCH, S. and ERDOĞU, B. 2017 “Spread of domestic animals across Neolithic western Anatolia: New zooarchaeological evidence from Uğurlu Höyük, the island of Gökçeada, Turkey,” PLOS One 12(10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186519. AYALON, E. and SOREK, C. 1999 Bare Bones: Ancient Artefacts from Animal Bones. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. AZERI, H. 2014 “Bone tools: Standard component of Neolithic assemblages at Balkans. A case study: Aşağı Pınar,” poster presented at European Association of Archaeologists 20th Annual Meeting, 10–14 September 2014, Istanbul. 2015 The Evaluation of the Bone Assemblage of Asagı Pınar Mound’s Chalcolithic Period. Unpublished MA diss., Istanbul University. BAHN, P. 2004 The New Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology. London: Penguin Books. BAKALAKIS, G. and SAKELLARIOU, A. 1981 Paradimi. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. BAILEY, D. W. 2000 Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. London and New York: Routledge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BAIRD, D. 2012

215

“The Late Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic of the Anatolian Plateau, 13,000–4000 BC,” in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East VI, edited by D. T. Potts, pp. 431–465. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. BAIRD, D., FAIRBAIRN, A., MARTIN, L. and MIDDLETON, C. 2012 “The Boncuklu Project: The origins of sedentism, cultivation and herding in central Anatolia,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3, Central Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 219–244. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. BALTER, M. 2001 “Did plaster hold Neolithic society together?” Science 14(294): 2278–2281. BAYNE, N. 2000 The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements. Bonn: Habelt. BAYSAL, E. 2013 “Will the real specialist please stand up? Characterising early craft specialisation, a comparative approach for Neolithic Anatolia,” Documenta Praehistorica 40: 233– 246. BAYSAL, E. and ERDOĞU, B. 2014 “Frog in the Pond: Gökçeada (Imbros), an Aegean stepping-stone in the Chalcolithic use of Spondylus shell,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80: 363–378. BECKER, C. 1991 “Die Tierknochenfunde von der Platia Magoula Zarkou – neue Untersuchungen zu Haustierhaltung, Jagd und Rohstoffverwendung im neolithisch-bronzezeitlichen Thessalien,” Praehistorische Zeitschrift 66(1): 14–78. 1999 “The Middle Neolithic and the Platia Magoula Zarkou: A review of current archaeozoological research in Thessaly (Greece),” Anthropozoologica 30: 3–22. 2013 “The meaning of ‘smoothing’ implements from the Levantine PPNB, seen from the Basta perspective,” in From these Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Osseous Objects, edited by A. Choyke and S. O’Connor, pp. 127–139. Oxford: Oxbow Books. BEISAW, A. M. 2013 Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones. A Manual. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. BEMENT, L. C. 2010 “Replicating bone tools and other fauno technologies,” in Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology through Production and Use, edited by J. R. Ferguson, pp. 225–240. Colorado: University Press of Colorado. BIÇAKÇI, E., GODON, M. and ÇAKAN, Y. G. 2012 “Tepecik-Çiftlik,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3, Central Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 89–134. İstanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. BITTEL, K. 1970 “Bemerkugen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf den Fikirtepe bei Kadiköy (Istanbul),” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19–20: 1–19. BLACKWELL, L. and D’ERRICO, F. 2014 “Bone Tools, Paleolithic,” in Encyclopaedia of Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith, pp. 950–962. New York: Springer. BLOEDOW, E. F. 1993 “The date of the earliest phase at Argissa Magoula in Thessaly and other Neolithic sites in Greece,” Mediterranean Archaeology 5–6: 49–57. BÖKÖNYI, S. 1973 “Stock breeding,” in Neolithic Greece, edited by D. R. Theocharis, pp. 165–178. Athens: National Bank of Greece.

216

JARRAD W. PAUL

BONEV, N. and BECCALETTO, L. 2007 “From syn- to post-orogenic Tertiary extension in the north Aegean region: constraints on the kinematics in the eastern Rhodope–Thrace, Bulgaria–Greece and the Biga Peninsula, NW Turkey,” in The Geodynamics of the Aegean and Anatolia, edited by T. Taymaz, Y. Yilmaz and Y Dilek, pp. 113–142. London: Geological Society. BOYADZIEV, Y. D. 1995 “Chronology of prehistoric cultures in Bulgaria,” in Prehistoric Bulgaria, edited by D. W. Bailey and I. Panayotov, pp. 149–191. Madison: Prehistory Press. BRAMI, M. and HEYD, V. 2011 “The origin of Europe’s first farmers: The role of Hacılar and western Anatolia, fifty years on,” Praehistorische Zeitschrift 86(2): 165–206. BRADFIELD, J. 2013 “Investigating the potential of micro-focus computed tomography in the study of ancient bone tool function: Results from actualistic experiments,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2606–2613. 2015 “Use-traces analysis of bone tools: A brief overview of four methodological approaches.” South African Archaeological Bulletin 70: 3–14. BRICE, W. C. 1966 South-West Asia: A Systematic Regional Geography, Vol. 3. London: University of London Press. BRINKMANN, R. 1971 “The geology of Western Anatolia,” in Geology and History of Turkey, edited by A. S. Campbell, pp. 117–190. Libya: The Petroleum Exploration Society of Libya. BROODBANK, C. 1999 “Colonisation and configuration in the insular Neolithic of the Aegean,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by P. Halstead, pp. 15–41. Sheffield: Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology. 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006 “The origins and early development of Mediterranean maritime activity,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19(2): 199–230. BROODBANK, C. and STRASSER, T. F. 1991 “Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonisation of Crete,” Antiquity 65(247): 233– 245. BRÜCKNER, H., KELTERBAUM, D., MARUNCHAK, O., POROTOV, A. and VÖTT, A. 2010 “The Holocene sea level story since 7500 BP – Lessons from the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black and Azov Seas,” Quaternary International 225: 160–179. BUC, N. 2011 “Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools,” Journal of Archaeological Sciences 38: 546–557. BUDD, C., LILLIE, M., ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, S., KARUL, N. and PINHASI, R. 2013 “Stable isotope analysis of Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations from Aktopraklık, northern Anatolia,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 860–867. BUDD, C., KARUL, N., ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, S., GALIK, A., SCHULTING, R. and LILLIE, M. 2018 “Diet uniformity at an early farming community in northwest Anatolia (Turkey): Carbon and nitrogen isotope studies of bone collagen at Aktopraklık,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10(8): 2123–2135. BUDJA, M. 2013 “Neolithic pots and potters in Europe: The end of ‘demic diffusion’ migratory model,” Documenta Praehistorica 40: 39–55. ÇAKIRLAR, C. 2012a “The evolution of animal husbandry in Neolithic central-west Anatolia: The zooarchaeological record from Ulucak Höyük (c. 7040–5660 cal. BC, Izmir, Turkey),” Anatolian Studies 62: 1–33.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

2012b “Neolithic dairy technology at the European-Anatolia frontier: Implications of archaeozoological evidence from Ulucak Höyük, İzmir, Turkey, ca. 7000–5700 cal. BC,” Anthropozoologica 47(2): 77–98. CAMPANA, D. V. 1989 Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. Oxford: Archaeopress. 1997 “Miscellaneous finds: The bone artefacts from Netiv Hagdud,” in An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, pp. 181–188. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Harvard University. CAMPANA, D. V. and CRABTREE, P. J. 2018 “Bone implements from Chalcolithic Tepecik-Çiftlik: Traces of manufacture and wear on two classes of bone objects recovered from the 2013 excavation season,” Quaternary International 472: 75–83. CAMPS, G. 1986 “The young sheep and the sea: Early navigation in the Mediterranean,” Diogenes 34: 19–45. CAMPS-FABRER, H. 1966 Matière et art mobilier dans la préhistoire nord-africaine et saharienne. Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques. CANEVA, I. 2012 “Mesin-Yumuktepe in the seventh millennium BC: An updated view,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3, Central Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 1–29. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. CASE, H. 1969 “Neolithic explanations,” Antiquity 43: 176–186. CESSFORD, C. and NEAR, J. 2005 “Fire, burning and pyrotechnology,” in Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Themes from the 1995–1999 Seasons, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 171–182. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. ÇEVIK, Ö. 2012 “Ulucak Höyük 2009-2011 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 34: 143– 158. 2019 “Changing ideologies in community-making through the Neolithic period at Ulucak,” in Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BC, edited by A. Marciniak, pp. 219–239. Atlanta: Lockwood Press. ÇEVIK, Ö. and ERDOĞU, B. 2020 “Absolute chronology of cultural continuity, change and break in Western Anatolia between 6850–5460 cal. BC: The Ulucak Höyük case,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 20(1): 77–92. CHAPMAN, J. 2015 “The Balkan Neolithic and Chalcolithic,” in The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, edited by C. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545841.013.068. CHATZOUDIS, A. 2002 “Preliminary study of bone objects,” in Rescue Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Stavroupoli, edited by A. B. Grammen and S. Kotsos, pp. 609–626. Thessaloniki: Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece. CHERRY, J. F. 2004 “Mediterranean island prehistory: what’s different and what’s new,” in Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands, edited by S. M. Fitzpatrick, pp. 233–250. Westport: Praeger. CHILDE, V. G. 1936 Man Makes Himself. London: Watts & Co.

218

JARRAD W. PAUL

CHOYKE, A. M. 1997 “The bone tool manufacturing continuum,” Anthropozoologica 25–26: 65–72. 2007 “Objects for a lifetime—tools for a season: The bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23,” in The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés, edited by A. Whittle, pp. 641–665. Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. CHRISTIDOU, R. 1997 “Dimitra. Bone-working,” in Neolithic Macedonia, edited by D. V. Grammenos, pp. 128–199. Athens: The Archaeological Receipts Fund. 1999 Outils en os néolithiques du Nord de la Grèce: Étude technologique. Unpublished PhD diss., Université de Paris X-Nanterre. 2005 “Aspects of bone exploitation in the Neolithic sites of Eastern Macedonia, Greece,” in From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, edited by H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lõugas, pp. 91–104. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus. 2011 “Analyse du terriroire et outillages osseux néolithiques du Nord de la Grèce,” in Archéologie du territoire, edited by G. Kourtessi-Philippakis and R. Treuil, pp. 121– 135. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. 2012 “A preliminary study of the bone industries of Limenaria,” in Ten Years of Excavation Research in the Prehistoric Settlement of Limenaria, Thassos, Proceedings of the Conference, Thassos, July 11, 2003, edited by S. Papadopoulos and D. Malamidou, pp. 225– 274. Thessaloniki: 18th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. ÇILINGIROĞLU, A., DERIN, Z., ABAY, E., SAĞLAMTIMUR, H. and KAYAN, I. 2004 Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002. Louvain: Peeters. ÇILINGIROĞLU, A., ÇEVIK, Ö. and ÇILINGIROĞLU, Ç. 2012 “Ulucak Höyük: Towards understanding the early farming communities of Middle West Anatolia: The contribution of Ulucak,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 4, Western Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 139–175. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. ÇILINGIROĞLU, Ç. 2005 “The concept of ‘Neolithic package’: Considering its meaning and applicability,” Documenta Praehistorica 32: 1–13. 2009 Central-West Anatolia at the End of the 7th and Beginning of the 6th Millennium BCE: In Light of Pottery from Ulucak. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Tübingen. 2011 “The current state of Neolithic research at Ulucak, İzmir,” in Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by R. Krauß, pp. 67–76. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf. 2012 The Neolithic Pottery of Ulucak in Aegean Turkey: Organisation of Production, Interregional Comparisons and Relative Chronology. Oxford: Archaeopress. CRISTIANI, E., DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. and VITEZOVIĆ, S. 2016 “Fishing with lure hooks at Late Neolithic site of Vinča – Belo Brdo, Serbia,” Journal of Archaeological Science 65: 134–147. CURCI, A. and TAGLIACOZZO, A. 2003 “Economic and ecological evidence from the vertebrate remains of the Neolithic site of Makri (Thrace–Greece),” British School at Athens Studies 9: 123–131. DARCQUE, P., KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, H., MALAMIDOU, D., TREUIL, R. and TSIRTSONI, Z. 2007 “Recent researchers at the Neolithic settlement of Dikili Tash, eastern Macedonia, Greece: An overview,” in The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Symposium “Strymon Praehistoricus”, edited by H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich and G. Ivanov, pp. 247–256. Sofia: Museum of History-Kyustendil. DARVILL, T. 1997 “Neolithic landscapes: Identity and definition,” in Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2, edited by P. Topping, pp. 1–14. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DAVID, B. 1990

219

“How was this bone burnt?” in Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Archaeological and Palaeontological Studies from Europe, Africa and Oceania, edited by S. Solomon, I. Davidson and D. Watson, pp. 65–79. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Anthropology Museum. DAVIS, S. J. M. 1987 The Archaeology of Animals. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. DAVISON, K., DOLUKHANOV, P., SARSON, G. R. and SHUKUROV, A. 2006 “The role of waterways in the spread of the Neolithic,” Journal of Archaeological Sciences 33: 641–652. DAWSON, H. 2011 “Island colonisation: Settling the Neolithic question,” in The First Mediterranean Islanders: Initial Occupation and Survival Strategies, edited by N. Phoca-Cosmetatou, pp. 31–54. Oxford: University of Oxford School of Archaeology. D’ERRICO, F., BLACKWELL, L. R. and WADLEY, L. 2012 “Identifying regional variability in Middle Stone Age bone technology: The case of Sibudu Cave,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 2479–2495. DEGUILLOUX, M.-F., LEAHY, R., PEMONGE, M.-H. and ROTTIER, S. 2012 “European Neolithisation and ancient DNA: An assessment,” Evolutionary Anthropology 21: 24–37. DEKKER, K. 2014 What Tools Can Tell. The Bone Tools of Barcın Höyük. Unpublished MA diss., Free University of Amsterdam. DEMANGEL, R. 1926 Le Tumulus dit Protésilaos (Fouilles de Constantinople). Paris: De Boccard. DEMOULE, J.-P. and LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M. 1994 “Rapport préliminaire (campagnes 1986–1993),” Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 118(2): 561–618. 2001 “Kovačevo (Bulgarie), un établissement du Néolithique le plus ancien des Balkans,” in Communautés villageoises du Proche-Orient à l’Atlantique (8000-2000 avant notre ère). Séminaire du College de France, edited by J. Guilaine, pp. 85–102. Paris: Éditions Errance. DEMOULE, J.-P. and PERLÈS, C. 1993 “The Greek Neolithic: A new review,” Journal of World Prehistory 7(4): 355–416. DERIN, Z. 2005 “The Neolithic architecture of Ulucak Höyük,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 85–94. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2007 “Neolithic shellfish gathering at Yeşilova: An ethnoarchaeological view,” in EthnoArchaeological Investigations in Rural Anatolia, Vol. 4, edited by T. Takaoğlu, pp. 45–57. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2010 “İzmir’in Prehistorik Yerleşimi-Yeşilova Höyüğü 2008 Yılı Çalişmaları,” Kazı Sonuçlan Toplantısı 31(1): 475–491. 2011 “Yeşilova Höyük,” in Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by R. Krauß, pp. 95–106. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. 2012 “Yeşilova Höyük,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 4, Western Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 177–195. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. DERIN, Z., AY, F. and CAYMAZ, T. 2010 “İzmir’in Prehistorik Yerleşimi-Yeşilova Höyüğü 2005-2006 yılı Çalişmaları,” Arkeoloji Dergisi 13(1): 7–58.

220

JARRAD W. PAUL

DESMOND, A., BARTON, N., BOUZOUGGAR, A., DOUKA, K., FERNANDEZ, P., HUMPHREY, L., MORALES, J., TURNER, E. and BUCKLEY, M. 2018 “ZooMS identification of bone tools from North African Later Stone Age,” Journal of Archaeological Science 98: 149–157. DESHAYES, J. 1972 “Dikili Tash and the origins of the Troadic culture,” Archaeology 25(3): 198–203. DEWEY, J. F. and SENGÖR, C. 1979 “Aegean and surrounding regions: Complex multiplate and continuum tectonics in a convergent zone,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 90: 84–92. DOGIAMA, L. 2017 “Casting a wide network: Preliminary results from the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Revenia, Pieria (Greece),” in Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by A. Sarris, E. Kalogiroopoulou, T. Kalayci and L. Karimali, pp. 446–462. Ann Arbor: International Monograph in Prehistory. DÖNMEZ, S. 2006 “The prehistory of the Istanbul region: A survey,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43: 239–264. DÜRING, B. 2011 The Prehistory of Asia: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013 “Breaking the bond: Investigating the Neolithic expansion in Asia Minor in the seventh millennium BC,” Journal of World Prehistory 26: 75–100. DURU, R. 2012 “The Neolithic of the Lakes Region: Hacılar – Kuruçay Höyük – Höyücek – Bademağacı Höyük,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 4, Western Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen, and P. Kuniholm, pp. 1–65. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. EFSTRATIOU, N. 1985 Agios Petros, a Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades: Aegean Relationships during the Neolithic of the 5th Millennium. London: British Archaeological Reports. 2006 “Looking for the Early Prehistory of Greek Thrace: Research problems, prospects and first results,” in Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic, edited by I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg, pp. 69–82. Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran. EFSTRATIOU, N. and KALLINDZI, N. 1994 Makri Arhaiologikes Ereunes. Thessaloniki: Ekdoseis Banias. EFSTRATIOU, N., FUMANAL, M. P., FERRER, C., UREM KOTSOS, D., CURCI, A., TAGLIACOZZO, A., STRATOULI, G., VALMOMTI, S. M., NTINOU, M., BADAL, E., MADELLA, M. and SKOURTOPOULOU, K. 1998 “Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Makri, Thrace, Greece (1988-1996): A preliminary report,” Saguntum: Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia 31: 11–62. EKDAL, E., EGE, A., KARALI, T. and DERIN, Z. 2012 “Luminescence dating studies of Yeşilova Höyük,” Geochronometria 39(4): 268–275. EISMA, D. 1978 “Stream deposition and erosion by the eastern shore of the Aegean,” in Environmental History of the Near East and Middle East since the Last Ice Age, edited by W. C. Brice, pp. 67–81. London: Academic Press. ELSTER, E. S. 2001 “Middle Neolithic to Early Bronze Age tools from Sitagroi, Greece,” in Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 355–369. Oxford: Archaeopress. ELSTER, E. S. and RENFREW, C., eds. 2003 Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968–1970, Vol. 2, The Final Report. Los Angeles: Monumenta Archaeologica.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

ERDALKIRAN, M. 2015 “Neolithic bone spoons from Barcın Höyük,” TUBA-AR 18: 25–36. 2017 “Barçın Höyük 2015 Yılı Kemik Aletlerinin Ön Raporu,” Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 32: 235–249. ERDOĞU, B. 1999 “1997 Yılı Edirne Ili Yüzey Araştırması,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 16: 345–358. 2000 “The problems of dating prehistoric axe factories and Neolithisation in Turkish Thrace,” Documenta Prehistorica 27: 155–166. 2001 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures in Turkish Thrace. Unpublished PhD diss., Durham University. 2003 “Visualising Neolithic landscape: The early settled communities in western Anatolia and eastern Aegean Islands,” European Journal of Archaeology 6(1): 7–23. 2005 Prehistoric Settlements of Eastern Thrace: A Reconsideration. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2011 “A preliminary report from the 2009 and 2010 field seasons at Uğurlu on the island of Gökçeada,” Anatolica 37: 45–65. 2013 “Uğurlu, a Neolithic settlement on the Aegean island of Gökçeada,” in The Neolithic of Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 1–33. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. 2014 “Gökçeada Uğurlu Archaeological Project: A preliminary report from the 2011–2013 field seasons,” Anatolica 40: 157–178. 2017 “Whither the Aegean Neolithic?” in Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva, pp. 29–42. Abington: Routledge. EVERSHED, R. P., PAYNE, S., SHERRATT, A. G., COPLEY, M. S., COOLIDGE, J., UREM-KOTSU, D., KOTSAKIS, K., ÖZDOĞAN, M., ÖZDOĞAN, A. E., NIEUWENHUYSE, O., AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G., BAILEY, D., ANDEESCU, R.-R., CAMPBELL, S., FARID, S., HODDER, I., YALMAN, N., ÖZBAŞARAN, M., BIÇAKCI, E., GARFINKEL, Y., LEVY, T. and BURTON, M. M. 2008 “Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding.” Nature 455: 528–531. FEHLMANN, D. 2010 “Worked bone, tooth and antler objects from the Early Neolithic site of Asparn/ Zaya-Schletz (Lower Austria),” in Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, Technological and Functional Signature, edited by A. LegrandPineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David and V. Scheinsohm, pp. 31–40. Oxford: Archaeopress. FERNÁDEZ, E., PÉREZ-PÉREZ, A., GAMBA, C., PRATS, E., CUESTA, P., ANFRUNS, J., MOLIST, M., ARROYO-PARDO, E. and TURBÓN, D. 2014 “Ancient DNA analysis of 8000 BC Near Eastern farmers supports an Early Neolithic pioneer maritime colonisation of mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands,” PLOS Genetics 10(6): e1004401. doi: 10.1371/journal. pgen.1004401. FIRATLI, N. 1958 “Tuzla,” Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı 8: 30–31. FITZPATRICK, S. M., ed. 2004 “Synthesizing island archaeology,” in Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands, pp. 3–20. Westport: Praeger. FRENCH, D. H. 1967 “Prehistoric sites in northwest Anatolia I: The İznik area,” Anatolian Studies 17: 49–100. 1969 “Prehistoric sites in northwest Anatolia II: The Balıkesır and Akhısar/Manısa areas,” Anatolian Studies 19: 41–98. GALANIDOU, N. 2014 “Advances in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology of Greece for the new millennium,” Pharos 20(1): 1–40.

222 GALIK, A. 2015

JARRAD W. PAUL

“Geräte und Schmuck aus Knochen, Geweih und Mollusken,” in Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen 1941 auf der Visviki-Magula/Velestino. Die neolithischen Befunde und Funde, edited by E. Alram-Stern and A. Dousougli-Zachos, pp. 455–465. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

GALLIS, K. J. 1985 “A late Neolithic foundation offering from Thessaly,” Antiquity 54: 20–24. GATSOV, I. 2003a “Chipped stone assemblages from Pendik: Technological and typological analysis,” in From Villages to Towns: Studies presented to Ufuk Esin, edited by M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen, pp. 283–292. Istanbul: Arkeoloji Ve Sanat Yayınları. 2003b “The latest results from the technological and typological analysis of chipped stone assemblages from Ilıpınar, Pendik, Fikirtepe and Menteşe, NW Turkey,” Documenta Praehistorica 30: 153–158. GEIST, V. 1998 Deer of the World. Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. GEMICI, H. C. 2018 The World of Figurines in the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic North Aegean: The Case of Uğurlu Höyük – Gökçeada. Unpublished MA diss., Middle Eastern Technical University. GERRITSEN, F. 2009 “Barcın Höyük excavations, 2008,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantıları 31: 411–420. GERRITSEN, F. A. and ÖZBAL, R. 2008 “Barcın Höyük excavations, 2007,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantıları 30: 457–464. 2012 “The NIT excavations at Barcın Höyük, 2011,” Netherlands Institute for the Near East – Netherlands Institute in Turkey Annual Report 2011: 3–10. GERRITSEN, F., ÖZBEL, R. and THISSEN, L. 2013a “Barcın Höyük: The beginnings of farming in the Marmara region,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 93–112. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. 2013b “The earliest Neolithic levels at Barcın Höyük,” Anatolica 39: 53–92. GILLIGAN, I. 2010 “The prehistoric development of clothing: Archaeological implications of a thermal model,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17: 15–80. GILCHRIST, R. and MYTUM, H. C. 1986 “Experimental archaeology and burnt animal bone from archaeological sites,” Circaea: Bulletin of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 4(1): 29–38. GIMBUTAS, M. 1974a “Achilleion: A Neolithic mound in Thessaly. Preliminary report on 1973 and 1974 excavations,” Journal of Field Archaeology 1(3–4): 277–302. 1974b “Anza, ca. 6500–5000 BC. A cultural yardstick for the study of Neolithic Southeast Europe,” Journal of Field Archaeology 1(1–2): 27–66. GIMBUTAS, M., WINN, S. and SHIMABUKU, D., eds. 1989 Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6,400-5,600 B.C. Los Angeles: UCLA Press. GRAMSCH, B., BERAN, J., HANIK, S. and SOMMER, R. S. 2013 “A Palaeolithic fishhook made of ivory and the earliest fishhook tradition in Europe,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2458–2463. GRAVINA, B., RABETT, R. J. and SEETAH, K. 2012 “Combining stones and bones, defining form and function, inferring lives and roles,” in Bones for Tools – Tools for Bones: The Interplay between Objects and Objectives, edited by K. Seetah and B. Gravina, pp. 1–12. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

GREENFIELD, H. J., ed. 2014 Animal Secondary Products: Domestic Animal Exploitation in Prehistoric Europe, the Near East and the Far East. Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow. GRIFFITTS, J. L. 2006 Bone Tools and Technological Choice: Change and Stability on the Northern Plains. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona. 2005 “From the Near East to Greece: Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn’t transfer,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 275–290. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2011 “Use wear analysis on Catalhoyuk bone tools,” in Çatalhöyük 2011 Archive Report: Çatalhöyük Research Project, edited by S. Farid, pp. 52–66. http://www.catalhoyuk. com/archive_reports/2011. GROENHUIJZEN, M. R., KLUIVING, S. J., GERRITSEN, F. A. and KÜNZEL, M. 2015 “Geoarchaeological research at Barcın Höyük: Implications for the initial Neolithic occupation of northwest Anatolia,” Quaternary International 367: 51–61. GUILBEAU, D. and ERDOĞU, B. 2011 “Des «lames de Karanovo» dans le site néolithique d’Uğurlu (île de Gökçeada, Turquie),” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 135: 1–19. GÜRER, Ö. F., KAYMAKÇI, N., ÇAKIR, Ş. and ÖZBURAN, M. 2003 “Neotectonics of the southeast Marmara region, NW Anatolia, Turkey,” Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 21: 1041–1051. HAKKER-ORION, D. 1999 “Bones: Characteristics, types and processing methods,” in Bare Bones: Ancient Artefacts from Animal Bones, edited by E. Ayalon and C. Sorek, pp. 8–12. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. HALSTEAD, P. 1981 “Counting sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece,” in Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond, pp. 307–339. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999 “Neighbours from hell: the household in Neolithic Greece,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, pp. 77–95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. HALSTEAD, P. and ISAAKIDOU, V. 2013 “Early stock-keeping in Greece,” in The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning and S. Shennan, pp. 129–144. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. HAMILAKIS, Y., KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N., LOUGHLIN, T., CARTER, T., COLE, J., FACORELLIS, Y., KATSAROU, S., KAZNESI, A., PENTEDEKA, A., TSAMIS, V. and ZORZIN, N. 2017 “Koutroulou Magoula in Fthiotida, Central Greece: A middle Neolithic tell site in context,” in Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by A. Sarris, E. Kalogiropoulou, T. Kalayci and L. Karimali, pp. 81–96. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. HELLSTRÖM, P., ed. 1987 Paradesisos: A Late Neolithic Settlement in Aegean Thrace. Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet. HIGGS, E. S. and JARMAN, M. R. 1969 “The origins of agriculture: A reconsideration,” Antiquity 43(169): 31–41. HILLER, S. and NIKOLOV, V., eds. 1997 Österreichisch-Bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo, Vol. 1, Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984–1992. Salzburg: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Sohne. 2000 Österreichisch-Bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo, Vol 2, Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien: Phoibos Verlag.

JARRAD W. PAUL

224 2002

HODDER, I. 2005

Österreichisch-Bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo, Vol. 3, Die Ausgrabungen in O19. Salzburg-Sofia: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Salzburg and Archäologisches Institut mit Museum der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

“Changing entanglements and temporalities,” in Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons, pp. 1–22. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 2012 Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. London: Wiley Blackwell. 2013 Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons. Ankara: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. HOFMANOVÁ, Z., KREUTZER, S., HELLENTHAL, G., SELL, C., DIEKMANN, Y., DÍEZ-DEL-MOLINO, D., VAN DORP, L., LÓPEZ, S., KOUSATHANAS, A., LINK, V., KIRSANOWA, 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., PAPAGEORGOPOULOUS, C. and BURGER, J. 2016 “Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113(25): 6886–6891. HÖGLINGER, P. 1997 “Neolithisches Bein- und Geweihgerät,” in Karanovo I.1, Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984–1992, edited by S. Hiller and V. Nikolov, pp. 157–196. Salzburg and Sofia: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Sohne. HOOD, S. 1981 Excavations in Chios 1938-1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala Volume I. London: Thames and Hudson. 1982 Excavations in Chios 1938-1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala Volume II. London: Thames and Hudson. HOREJS, B. 2012 “Çukuriçi Höyük: A Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement in the region of Ephesos,” in The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research, Vol. 4, Western Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 117–131. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. HOREJS, B., MILIĆ, B., OSTMANN, F., THANHEISER, U., WENINGER, B. and GALIK, A. 2015 “The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC: Maritime networks and colonisation,” Journal of World Prehistory 28: 289–330. HOURMOUZIADIS, G. 1971 “Dio neai egkatastaseis tis archaioteras Neolithikis eis tin dytikin Thessalian,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 4(2): 164–175. ISAAKIDOU, V. 2003 “Worked and utilised bone and antler: Practical and cultural rationales for the selection of raw materials,” British School at Athens Studies: Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances 9: 233–238. 2005 Bones from the Labyrinth: Faunal Evidence for Management and Consumption of Animals at Neolithic and Bronze Age Knossos, Crete. Unpublished PhD diss., University College London. 2017 “Meaningful materials? Bone artefacts and symbolism in the Early Bronze Age Aegean,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36(1): 43–59. KALAYCI, T., SIMON, F.-X. and SARRIS, A. 2017 “A manifold approach for the investigation of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements in Thessaly, Greece,” Geosciences 7(3). doi: 10.3390/geosciences7030079.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

KALOGIROPOULOU, E. 2017 “Islands out of the mainstream: Landscapes of action, settlements and social identities in the Neolithic Aegean,” in Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by A. Sarris, E. Kalogiroopoulou, T. Kalayci and L. Karimali, pp. 218–233. Ann Arbor: International Monograph in Prehistory. KARAGIANNOPOULOS, C. 2016 “Prodromos Karditsas, Magoula Agios Ioannis. A prehistoric settlement in the Western Thessalian plain,” in The Human Face of Radiocarbon: Reassessing Chronology in Prehistoric Greece and Bulgaria, 5000-3000 cal BC, edited by Z. Tsirtsoni, pp. 381–393. Lyon: MOM Éditions. KARAMITROU-MENTESIDI, G. 1998 “Xirolimni Kozanhs 1998,” To Archaiologiko Ergo sth Makedonia kai sti Thraki 12: 476–477. 2007 “Μαυροπηγή 2005: Λιγνιτωρυχεία και αρχαιότητες,” ΑΕΜΘ 19: 511–539. KARAMITROU-MENTESIDI, G., EFSTRATIOU, N., KOZLOWSKI, J. K., KACZANOWSKA, M., MANIATIS, Y., CURCI, A., MICHALOPOULOU, S., PAPATHANASIOU, A. and VALAMOTI, S. M. 2013 “New evidence on the beginning of farming in Greece: The Early Neolithic settlement of Mavropigi in western Macedonia (Greece),” Antiquity 87(336): http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/mentessidi336/. KARAMITROU-MENTESSIDI, G., EFSTARTIOU, N., KACZANIWSKA, M. and KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 2015 “Early Neolithic settlement of Mavropigi in western Macedonia,” Eurasian Prehistory 12(1–2): 47–116. KARKANAS, P. and EFSTRATIOU, N. 2009 “Floor sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: Micromorphology reveals cycles of renovation,” Antiquity 83: 955–967. KARUL, N. 2007a “Aktopraklık 2004–2006 Yılı Çalışmaları Genel Bir Değerlendirme,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25(1): 65–78. 2007b “Aktopraklık: Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Gelişkin Bir Köy,” in Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar - Yeni Bulgular, edited by M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen, pp. 387–392. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. 2017 “Northwest Anatolia: A Border or a Bridge between Anatolia and the Balkans during the Early Neolithic Period?” in Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva, pp. 7–18. Oxon: Routledge. KARUL, N., ERES, Z., ÖZDOĞAN, M. and PARZINGER, H. 2003 Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur. Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 1. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. KARUL, N. and BERTRAM, J.-K. 2005 “From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeşme in Turkish Thrace,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 117–129. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. KARUL, N. and AVCI, M. B. 2011 “Neolithic communities in the eastern Marmara region: Aktopralık,” Anatolica 37: 1–15. 2013 “Aktopraklık,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and İstanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 45–68. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. KAYAN, İ. and VADAR, S. 2007 “The physical geography of the Media River Delta,” in The Madra River Delta: Regional Studies on the Aegean Coast of Turkey, edited by K. Lambrianides and N. Spencer, pp. 9–23. London: The British Institute at Ankara.

226

JARRAD W. PAUL

KAZANCI, N., LEROY, S., ILERI, Ö., EMRE, Ö., KIBAR, M. and ÖNCEL, S. 2004 “Late Holocene erosion in NW Turkey from sediments of Lake Manyas, Lake Ulubat and the southern shelf of the Marmara Sea, Turkey,” Catena 57: 277–308. KEEGAN, W. F. and DIAMOND, J. M. 1987 “Colonisation of islands by humans: A biogeographical perspective,” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 49–92. KILINÇ, G. M., KOPTEKIN, D., ATAKUMAN, Ç., SÜMER, A. P., DÖNERTAŞ, H. M., YAKA, R., BILGIN, C. C., BÜYÜKKARAKAYA, A. M., BAIRD, D., ALTINIŞIK, E., FLEGONTOV, P., GÖTHERSTRÖM, A., TOGAN, I. and SOMEL, M. 2017 “Archaeogenomic analysis of the first steps of Neolithisation in Anatolia and the Aegean,” Proceedings of the Royal Society 284: 1–9. KIZILTAN, Z. and POLAT, M. A. 2013 “The Neolithic at Yenikapı,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and İstanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 113–165. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. KOPAKA, K. 2008 “What is an island? Concepts, meanings and polysemies of insular Topoi in Greek sources,” Journal of European Archaeology 11(2–3): 179–197. KOTSAKIS, K. 1999 “What tells can tell: Social space and settlement in the Greek Neolithic,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by P. Halstead, pp. 66–76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2002 “Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece. Continuity, discontinuity or change of course?” Documenta Praehistorica 28: 63–73. KOTZAMANI, G. and LIVARDA, A. 2018 “People and plant entanglements at the dawn of agriculture practice in Greece. An analysis of the Mesolithic and early Neolithic archaeobotanical remains,” Quarternary International 496: 80–101. KOUKOULI-CHYSSANTHAKI, H., TREUIL, R., LESPEZ, L. and MALAMIDOU, D. 2008 Dikili Tash, village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale. Recherches franco-helléniques dirigées par la Société archéologique d’Athènes et l’École française d’Athènes (1986-2001). Athens: The Archaeological Society of Athens. KOURTESSI-PHILIPPAKIS, G. 2009 “Lithics in the Neolithic of northern Greece: Territorial perspectives from an offobsidian area,” Documenta Praehistorica 36: 305–312. KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 2007 “Western Anatolia, the Aegean Basin and the Balkans in the Neolithization of Europe,” in A Short Walk through the Balkans: The First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions: Quaderno 12, edited by M. Spataro and P. Biagi, pp. 39–52. Trieste: Trieste Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia. KRAFT, J. C., KAYAN, I. and EROL, O. 1980 “Geomorphic reconstructions in the environs of ancient Troy,” Science New Series 209(4458): 776–782. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. 1999 “The Neolithic use of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly,” in Neolithic Society in Greece, edited by P. Halstead, pp. 142–152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2000 Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998. Athens: Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. and KOTZAMANI, G. 2005 “Worlds in transition: Mesolithic/Neolithic lifestyles at the cave of Theopetra, Thessaly/ Greece,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 173–182. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

LAMBECK, K. 1996 “Sea-level change and shore-line evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic time,” Antiquity 70: 588–611. LANG, F. 2010 “Bone working and production in the Medieval castle of Guetrat (Salzburg),” in Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from American to Russia: Cultural, Technological and Functional Signature, edited by A. Legrand–Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 87–96. Oxford: Archaeopress. LASKARIS, N., SAMPSON, A., MAVRIDIS, F. and LIRITZIS, I. 2011 “Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene seafaring in the Aegean: New obsidian hydration dates with the SIMS-SS method,” Journal of Archaeological Sciences 38: 2475–2479. LE DOSSEUR, G. 2010 “The Neolitisation in Southern Levant: Impact of animal herding on the exploitation of bone materials, from Reticene to adoption of domestic herds,” in Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, Technological and Functional Signature, edited by A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David and V. Scheinsohn, pp. 17–30. Oxford: Archaeopress. LEGRAND, A. 2005 “New evidence on the bone reduction techniques from Khirokitia – Cyprus (7th millennium cal BC),” in From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, edited by H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lõugas, pp. 105–112. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus. LEGRAND, A. and SIDÉRA, I. 2007 “Methods, means, and results when studying European bone industries,” in Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Intepretations in Worked Bone Studies, edited by C. Gates St-Pierre and R. Walker, pp. 67–80. Oxford: Archaeopress. LEGEND-PINEAU, A. 2009 “Bridging the gap: Tools as makers of continuity between Aceramic (Khirokitia culture) and Ceramic Neolithic (Sotira culture) in Cyprus (7th –5th Millennia cal. BC),” Paléorient 35(2): 113–123. LEEKLEY, D. and EFSTRATIOU, N. 1980 Archaeological Excavations in Central and Northern Greece. New Jersey: Noyes Press. LEMOINE, G. M. 1997 Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. Oxford: Archaeopress. LEPPARD, T. P. 2014 “Similarity and diversity in the prehistoric colonisation of islands and coasts by foodproducing communities,” Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 9: 1–15. LESHTAKOV, K., TODORAVA, N., PETROVA, V., ZLATEVA-UZUNOVA, R., ÖZBEK, O., POPOVA, T., SPASSOV, N. and ILIEV, N. 2007 “Preliminary report on the salvage archaeological excavations at the early Neolithic site Yabalkovo in the Maritsa Valley, 2000–2005 field seasons,” Anatolica 33: 185– 234. LESPEZ, L., TSIRTSONI, Z., DARCQUE, P., KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, H., MALAMIDOU, D., TREUIL, R., DAVIDSON, R., KOURTESSI-PHILIPPAKIS, G. and OBERLIN, C. 2013 “The lowest levels at Dikili Tash, northern Greece: A missing link in the Early Neolithic of Europe,” Antiquity 87: 30–45. LESPEZ, L., TSIRTSONI, Z., DARCQUE, P., MALAMIDOU, D., KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, H. and GLAIS, A. 2017 “Identifying the earliest Neolithic settlements in Southeastern Balkans: Methodological considerations based on the recent geoarchaeological investigations at Dikili Tash (Greek Eastern Macedonia),” in Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva, pp. 43–56. Oxon: Routledge.

228

JARRAD W. PAUL

LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M., DEMOULE, J.-P., PERNICHEVA, L., GREBSKA-KULOVA, M. and KULOV, I. 2006 “Kovačevo, an Early Neolithic site in South-West Bulgaria and its importance for European Neolithisation,” in Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic, edited by I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg, pp. 83–94. Langenweissbach: Beier and Beran. LICHTER, C. 2002 “Central Western Anatolia – a key region in the Neolithisation of Europe,” in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th–6th Millennia cal BC, edited by F. Gérard and L. Thissen, pp. 161–169. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2005 “Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: The actual state of research,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 59–74. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. LIRITZIS, Y., ORPHANDIS-GEORGIADIS, L. and EFSTRATIOU, N. 1991 “Neolithic Thessaly and the Sporades,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10(3): 307–313. LUBBOCK, J. 1865 Pre-Historic Times: As Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. New York: D. Appleton and Company. MACGREGOR, A. 1985 Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. London: Croom Helm. MARANGOU, C. 2002 “Rocks and itineraries: Sea and land perspectives on an Aegean island,” in World Islands in Prehistory International Insular Investigations, edited by W. H. Waldren and J. A. Ensenyat, pp. 7–18. Oxford: Archaeopress. MARANGOU, C. and DELLA CASA, P. 2008 “Islands in the Mediterranean: Introduction,” European Journal of Archaeology 11(2–3): 171–177. MARCINIAK, A. 2011 “The secondary products revolution: Empirical evidence and its current zooarchaeological critique,” Journal of World Prehistory 24(2–3): 117–130. MĂRGĂRIT, M. 2017 “Spatulas and braded astragalus: Two types of tools used to process ceramics? Examples from the Romanian prehistory,” Quaternary International 438: 201–211. MARGOMENOU, D., CHERRY, J. F. and TALALAY, L. E., eds. 2005 “Reflections on the ‘Aegean’ and its prehistory: Present routes and future destinations,” in Prehistorians Round the Pond Reflections on Aegean Prehistory as a Discipline, pp. 1–22. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum Publications. MARINELLI, M. 1995 “The bone artefacts of Ilıpınar,” in The Ilıpınar Excavations, Vol. 1, Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91, edited by J. Roodenberg, pp. 121–143. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. MARSHALL, L. G. 1989 “Bone modification and “The Laws of Burial,” in Bone Modification, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 7–24. Orono: Centre for the Studies of the First Americans. MATISOO-SMITH, E. and HORSBURGH, K. A. 2012 DNA for Archaeologists. New York: Routledge. MAZLUM, R. and SERDAR, B. 2017 “Identification of woods dating back to the Neolithic Age released from the Yenikapı (Istanbul) excavations,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9(8): 1825–1833. MCCRACKEN, T. O., KAINER, R. A. and SPURGEON, T. L. 1999 Spurgeon’s Colour Atlas of Large Animal Anatomy: The Essentials. Oxford: WileyBlackwell.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

MCKECHNIE, R. 2002 “Islands of indifference,” in World Islands in Prehistory International Insular Investigations, edited by W. H. Waldren and J. A. Ensenyat, pp. 127–134. Oxford: Archaeopress. MELLAART, J. 1955 “Some prehistoric sites in north-western Anatolia,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 6: 55–88. 1970 “Anatolia before 4000 B.C.,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, Part 1, Prolegomena and Prehistory, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond, pp. 304–326. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MEURS, J. 1996 The Neolithic Colonisation of Crete: Practical Considerations or This Little Piggy Went to Crete. Unpublished MA diss., University of Melbourne. MILIĆ, M. 2014 “PXRF characteristics of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe,” Journal of Archaeological Science 41: 285–296. MILOJČIĆ, V., ed. 1962 Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien I. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. MILOJČIĆ-VON ZUMBUSCH, J. and MILOJČIĆ, V. 1971 Die deutchen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magoula in Thessalien I: Das frühe Neolithikum. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. MOUNDREA-AGRAFIOTI, A. 1981 La Thessalie du Sud-Est au néolithique: Outillage lithique et osseux. Unpublished PhD diss., Université Paris X. 2003 “Mesolithic fish hooks from the Cave of Cyclops, Youra,” British School at Athens Studies 10: 131–141. 2008 “The Mesolithic and Neolithic bone implements,” in The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece, Vol. 1, Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, edited by A. Sampson, pp. 3–49. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 2011 “The Mesolithic and Neolithic bone implements,” in The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece, Vol. 2, Bone Tool Industry, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies, edited by A. Sampson, pp. 3–52. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. MYLONAS, G. E. 1941 “The site of Aktopotamos and the Neolithic period of Macedonia,” American Journal of Archaeology 45(4): 557–576. NANDRIS, J. 1972 “Bos primigenius and the bone spoon,” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology University of London 10: 63–82. NESBIT, M. and SAMUEL, D. 1996 “Archaeobotany in Turkey: A review of current research,” Orient Express 3: 91–96. NEWCOMER, M. H. 1974 “Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon),” World Archaeology 6(2): 138–153. NTINOU, M. and BADAL, E. 2000 “Local vegetation and charcoal analysis: An example from two late Neolithic sites in Northern Greece,” in Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece, edited by P. Halstead and C. Frederick, pp. 38–51. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. O’CONNOR, T. 2000 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing. OLSEN, S. L. 1984 Analytical Approaches to the Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts in Prehistory. Unpublished PhD diss., Institute of Archaeology University of London.

230

JARRAD W. PAUL

OLSON, C., LIMBURG, K. and SÖDERBLOM, M. 2008 “Stone Age fishhooks – how were they dimensioned? Morphology, strength test, and breakage patterns of Neolithic bone fishhooks from Ajvide, Gotland, Sweden,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2813–2823. ONAR, V., ALPAK, H., PAZVANT, G., ARMUTAK, A. and KIZILTAN, Z. 2012 “Istanbul-Yenikapı Theodosius Limani Balık Kalıntıları,” Arkeometri Sonçları Toplantısı 28: 91–96. ORTON, D. and PILIOUGINE, C. 2013 “West Mound faunal and worked bone report, 2013,” in Çatalhöyük 2013 Archive Report: Çatalhöyük Research Project, edited by B. Tung, pp. 150–157. http://www. catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2013. ÖZBAL, R., GERRITSEN, F., ERDALKIRAN, M. and ÖZBAL, H. 2016 “2015 Yılı Barcın Höyük Kazıları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 38: 17–32. ÖZBAŞARAN, M. 2012 “Aşıklı,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3, Central Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 135–158. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. ÖZBEK, O. 2000 “A prehistoric stone axe production site in Turkish Thrace: Hamaylıtarla,” Documenta Prehistorica 27: 167–171. 2008a “Gelibolu Yarımadası güneyindeki bazı höyüklerin son araştırmalar ışığında yeniden değerlendirilmesi,” Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 127: 1–14. 2008b “Kaynarca: A Neolithic mound in Gelilbolu Peninsula,” Anatolia Antiqua 16: 1–12. 2010 “Hamaylıtarla reconsidered: A Neolithic site and its environmental setting in southern Thrace,” Anatolia Antiqua 18: 1–21. 2012 “Sea level changes and prehistoric sites on the coasts of southern Turkish Thrace, 12,000–6,000 BP,” Quaternary International 261: 162–175. ÖZDOĞAN, E. 2011 “Settlement organisation and architecture in Aşaği Pınar, Early Neolithic Layer 6,” in Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by R. Krauß, pp. 213–223. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf. 2016 “Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of western Anatolia,” Documenta Praehistorica 43: 265–282. 2017 “Anatolia and the Balkans the role of the Black Sea between ‘East’ and ‘West’ during the Neolithic period,” in Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva, pp. 19–28. Oxon: Routledge. ÖZDOĞAN, M. 1983 “Pendik, a Neolithic site of Fikirtepe Culture in the Marmara region,” in Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinsasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, edited by R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann, pp. 401–411. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 1986 “Prehistoric sites in the Gelibolu Peninsula,” Anadolu Araştırmaları 10: 51–66. 1989 “Neolithic cultures of Northwestern Turkey,” in Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections, edited by S. Bökönyi, pp. 201–215. Budapest: Varia Archaeologica Hungarica. 1990 “1989 Toptepe salvage excavation,” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 46–49: 22–23. 1993 “Vinça and Anatolia: A new look at a very old problem (or redefining Vinça culture from the perspective of Near Eastern tradition),” Anatolica 19: 173–193. 1997 “The beginning of Neolithic economies in southeastern Europe: An Anatolian perspective,” Journal of European Archaeology 5(2): 1–33. 1998 “Hoca Çeşme: An early Neolithic Anatolian colony in the Balkans?” in Man and the Animal World: Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi, edited by P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem and W. Meid, pp. 435–452. Budapest: Archaeolingua.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1999

231

“Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia,” in Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilisation, edited by M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen, pp. 203–224. Istanbul: Arkeoloji Ve Sanat Yayınları. 2001a “Fikirtepe excavation,” in İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), edited by O. Belli, pp. 32–33. Istanbul: Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund. 2001b “Kırklareli excavations: Aşaği Pınar and Kanlıgeçit,” in İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), edited by O. Belli, pp. 56–63. Istanbul: Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund. 2001c “Pendik excavation,” in İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), edited by O. Belli, pp. 34–35. Istanbul: Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund. 2001d “Toptepe excavation,” in İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), edited by O. Belli, pp. 64–66. Istanbul: Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund. 2001e “Yarımburgaz Cave excavations,” in İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), edited by O. Belli, pp. 8–11. Istanbul: Istanbul University Rectorate Research Fund. 2005 “The expansion of the Neolithic way of life: What we know and what we do not know,” in How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 13–27. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2008 “An alternative approach in tracing changes in demographic composition: The westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life,” in The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences, edited by J.-P. Bocquet-Appel and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 139–178. New York: Springer Science and Business Media. 2010 “Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life: Sorting the Neolithic package into distinct packages,” in ICAANE 6, Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 1, Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status, edited by P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti, pp. 883–893. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2011 “Submerged sites and drowned topographies along the Anatolian coasts: An overview,” in Submerged Prehistory, edited by J. Benjamin, C. Bonsall, C. Pickard and A. Fischer, pp. 219–229. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 2013 “Neolithic sites in the Marmara region: Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Toptepe, Hoca Çeşme, and Aşağı Pınar,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and İstanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 167–269. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. 2014 “A new look at the introduction of the Neolithic way of life in southeastern Europe. Changing paradigms of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life,” Documenta Praehistorica 41: 33–49. ÖZDOĞAN, M. and GATSOV, I. 1998 “The Aceramic Neolithic Period in western Turkey and in the Aegean,” Anatolica 24: 209–232. ÖZDOĞAN, M., MIYAKE, Y, and ÖZBAŞARAN DEDE, N. 1991 “An interim report on excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in eastern Thrace,” Anatolica 17: 59–121. ÖZTAN, A. 2012 “Köşk Höyük. A Neolithic settlement in Niğde-Bor plateau,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 3, Central Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 31–70. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.

232

JARRAD W. PAUL

PAPADAKOU, T., UREM-KOTSOU, D. and KOTSAKIS, K. 2015 “The Early Neolithic pottery from the site Paliambela Kolindros,” The Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace 25: 157–162. PAPADOPOULOS, J. K., MORRIS, S. P., BEJKO, L., SCHEPARTZ, L. A. and AGOLLI, E. 2014 The Excavation of the Prehistoric Burial Tumulus at Lofkënd, Albania. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. PAPADOPOULOS, C., HAMILAKIS, Y. and KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. 2015 “Light in a Neolithic dwelling: Building 1 at Koutroulou Magoula (Greece),” Antiquity 89: 1034–1050. PAPADOPOULOS, C., HAMILAKIS, Y., KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N. and DIAZ-GUARDAMINO, M. 2019 “Digital sensoriality: The Neolithic figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29(4): 625–652. PAPADOPOULOS, S. and MALAMIDOU, D. 2008 “Limenaria: A Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement in Thasos,” in The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age, edited by H. Erkanal, H. Hauptman, V. Şahoğlu and R. Tuncel, pp. 427–446. Ankara: Ankara University Press. 2012 Ten Years of Excavation Research in the Prehistoric Settlement of Limenaria, Thassos. Proceedings of the Conference, Thassos, July 11, 2003. Thessaloniki: 18th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities PAPAGEORGIOU, D. 2008 “The marine environment and its influence on seafaring and maritime routes in the prehistoric Aegean,” Journal of European Archaeology 11(2–3): 199–222. PAPATHANASIOU, A. 2011 “Health, diet and social implications in Neolithic Greece from the study of human osteological material,” in Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture, edited by R. Pinhasi and J. T. Stock, pp. 87–106. West Sussex: Wiley & Sons. PAPTHANASSOPOULOS, G., ed. 1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art. PARZINGER, H. and SCHWARZBERG, H. 2005 Aşağı Pınar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik. Studien im ThrakienMarmara-Raum 2. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. PASINLI, A., UZUNOĞLU, E., ATAKAN, N., GIRGIN, Ç. and SOYSAL, M. 1994 “Pendik Kurtarma Kazısı,” Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri-1993 4: 147–163. PATTON, M. 1996 Islands in Time: Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean prehistory. London: Routledge. PAUL, J. W. 2016 The Prehistoric Worked Bone and Antler Assemblage at Uğurlu, Gökçeada: A Local and Regional Perspective. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Melbourne. 2019 “An assessment of worked bone terminology: A case study of prehistoric Northwest and Western Anatolia,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 56: 163–187. PAUL, J. W. and ERDOĞU, B. 2017 “An examination of the worked bone and antler assemblage at Uğurlu (Gökçeada, Turkey),” Documenta Praehistorica 44: 368–385. PAYNE, R., ANGEL, J. L. and JACOBSEN, T. W. 1973 “Excavations in the Franchthi Cave, 1969–1971. Part II,” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 42(3): 253–283. PERLÈS, C. 2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005 “From the Near East to Greece: Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn’t transfer,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 275–290. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

PERLÈS, C., TAKAOĞLU, T. and GRATUZE, B. 2011 “Melian obsidian in NW Turkey: Evidence for early Neolithic trade,” Journal of Field Archaeology 36(1): 42–49. PERLÈS, C., QUILES, A. and VALLADAS, H. 2013 “Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argoild, Greece),” Antiquity 87: 1001–1015. PERNICHEVA, L. 1995 “Prehistoric cultures in the middle Struma Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic,” in Prehistoric Bulgaria, edited by D. W. Bailey and I. Panayotov, pp. 99–140. Madison: Prehistory Press. PETERS, J., PÖLLATH, N. and ARBUCKLE, B. S. 2017 “The emergence of livestock husbandry in early Neolithic Anatolia,” in The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology, edited by U. Albarella, M. Rizzetto and S. Viner-Daniels, pp. 247–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PÉTILLON, J.-M., PLISSON, H. and CATTELAIN, P. 2016 “Thirty years of experimental research on the breakage patterns of Stone Age osseous points: Overview, methodological problems and current perspectives,” in Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, edited by R. Iovita and K. Sano, pp. 47–63. Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media. PÉTILLON, J.-M. and DUCASSE, S. 2012 “From flakes to grooves: A technical shift in antler working during the last glacial maximum in southwest France,” Journal of Human Evolution 62(4): 435–465. PÉTREQUIN, P. 1993 “North Wind, South Wind,” in Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic, edited by P. Lemonnier, pp. 36–76. London: Routledge. PILAAR BIRCH, S. E., SCHEU, A., BUCKLEY, M. and ÇAKIRLAR, C. 2018 “Combined osteomorphological, isotopic, aDNA, and ZooMS analyses of sheep and goat remains from Neolithic Ulucak, Turkey,” Archaeological and Anthropological Science. doi: 10.1007/s12520-018-0624-8. PINHASI, R. 2006 “Neolithic skull shapes and demic diffusion: A bioarchaeological investigation into the nature of the Neolithic transition,” Documenta Praehistorica 33: 61–70. 2013 “Europe: Neolithic colonisation,” in The Encyclopaedia of Global Human Migration, Vol. 1, Part 2, Holocene migrations, edited by I. Ness, pp. 168–178. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. POWELL, J. 1996 Fishing in the Prehistoric Aegean. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. RAINBIRD, P. 2007 The Archaeology of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. REECE, W. O. 2009 Functional Anatomy and Physiology of Domestic Animals. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. REINGRUBER, A. 2005 “The Argissa Magoula and the beginning of the Neolithic in Thessaly,” in How did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal BC, edited by C. Lichter and R. Meriç, pp. 155–171. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2011 “Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean,” Documenta Praehistorica 38: 291–305. 2017 “The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in a Circum-Aegan perspective: Concepts and narratives,” in Communities, Landscapes, and Interaction in Neolithic Greece, edited by A. Sarris, E. Kalogiropoulou, T. Kalayci and E. Karimali, pp. 8–26. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

234

JARRAD W. PAUL

REINGRUBER, A., TOUFEXIS, G., KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N., ANETAKIS, M., MANIATIS, Y. and FACORELLIS, Y. 2017 “Neolithic Thessaly,” Documenta Praehistorica 44: 34–53. REITZ, E. J. and WING, E. S. 2008 Zooarchaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RENFREW, C., GIMBUTAS, M. and ELSTER, S., eds. 1986 Excavations at Sitagroi, a Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: Monumenta Archaeologica. RICHTER, T. and MAHER, L. A. 2013 “Terminology, process and change: Reflections on the Epipalaeolithic of southwest Asia,” Levant 45(2): 121–132. RIDLEY, C., WARDLE, K. A. and MOULD, C. A. 2000 Servia I: Anglo-Hellenic Rescue Excavations 1971–1973. Athens: The British School at Athens. ROBB, J., BIGAZZI, R., LAZZERINI, L., SCARSINI, C. and SONEGO, F. 2001 “Social ‘status’ and biological ‘status’: A comparison of grave goods and skeletal indicators from Pontecagnano,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115: 213–222. RODDEN, R. J. 1965 “An Early Neolithic village in Greece,” Scientific American 212(4): 82–93. RODDEN, R. J., PYKE, G., YIOUNI, P. and WARDLE, K. A. 1996 Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. Athens: The British School at Athens. ROGUE, C., GUIBERT, P., VARTANIAN, E., BECHTEL, F., TREUIL, R., DARCQUE, P., KOUKOULICHRYSSANTHAKI, H. and MALAMIDOU, D. 2002 “The chronology of the Neolithic sequence at Dikili Tash, Macedonia, Greece: TL dating of domestic ovens,” Archaeometry 44(4): 613–633. ROODENBERG, J. 1995 The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 1999 “Investigations at Menteşe Höyük in the Yenişehir Basin (1996–97),” Anatolica 25: 21–36. 2016 “Neolithic farmers from the eastern Marmara region on the move – closing the circle,” Anatolica 42: 1–10. ROODENBERG, J., and ALPASLAN ROODENBERG, S., eds. 2008 Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia. The Ilıpınar Excavations, Vol. 3. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2013 “Ilıpınar and Menteşe,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 69–91. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. ROODENBERG, J. J. and THISSEN, L. C., eds. 2001 The Ilıpınar Excavations II. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ROODENBERG, J. J., VAN AS, A. and ALPASLAN ROODENBERG, S. 2008 “Barcın Hüyük in the plain of Yenişehir (2005–2006): A preliminary note on the fieldwork, pottery and human remains of the prehistoric levels,” Anatolica 34: 53–66. ROODENBERG, J. J., VAN AS, A., JACOBS, L. and WIJNEN, M. H. 2003 “Early settlement in the plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia): The basal occupation layers at Menteşe,” Anatolica 29: 18–59. ROSELL, J., BLASCO, R., CAMPENY, G., DÍEZ, J. C., ALCALDE, R. A., MENÉNDEZ. L., ARSUAGA, J. L., BERMÚDEZ DE CASTRO, J. M. and CARBONELL, E. 2011 “Bone as technological raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain),” Journal of Human Evolution 61: 125–131.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

ROSENSTOCK, E. 2014 “Like a Su Böreği: Settlements and site formation processes in Neolithic Turkey,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 6, 10500–5200 BC: Environment Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 223–263. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1998 “Improved separation of Neolithic metapodials of sheep (Ovis) and goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy,” Journal of Archaeological Sciences 25: 251–258. RUNNELS, C. N. and VAN ANDEL, T. J. 1995 “The earliest farmers in Europe,” Antiquity 69(264): 481–500. RUSSELL, N. 2001a “The social life of bone: A preliminary assessment of bone tool manufacture and discard at Çatalhöyük,” in Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 241–250. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2001b “Neolithic relations of production: Insights from the bone tool industry,” in Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 271–280. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2005 “Çatalhöyük worked bone,” in Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 339–369. London: British Institute at Ankara. 2012 Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2016 “Anatolian Neolithic bone tools,” in Anatolian Metal VII: Anatolia and Neighbours 10.000 Years Ago, edited by Ü. Yalçın, pp. 125–134. Bochum: Blömeke. RUSSELL, N. and GRIFFITTS, J. L. 2013 “Çatalhöyük worked bone: South and 4040 Areas,” in Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 277–306. London: British Institute at Ankara. SAGONA, A. 2006 Heritage of Eastern Turkey: From Earliest Settlements to Islam. Melbourne: MacMillan Art Publishing. SAGONA, A. and ZIMANSKY, P. 2009 Ancient Turkey. London: Routledge. SAĞLAMTIMUR, H. 2007 “Ege Gübre Neolitik Yerleşimi,” in Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, edited by M. Özdoğan and N. Basgelen, pp. 373–376. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. 2012 “The Neolithic settlement of Ege Gübre,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 4, Western Turkey, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 197–225. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. SAMPSON, A. 1998 “The Neolithic and Mesolithic occupation of the Cave of Cyclops, Youra, Alonnessos, Greece,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 93: 1–22. 2008 The Cyclops Cave on the Island of Youra, Greece. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean Basin, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 2011 The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece, Vol. 2, Bone Tool Industry, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. SCHIBLER, J. 1981 Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Vol. 17. Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag. 2001 “Experimental production of Neolithic bone and antler tools,” in Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, edited by A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, pp. 49–53. Oxford: Archaeopress.

236

JARRAD W. PAUL

SCHLIEMANN, H. 1884 Troia. Ergebnisse meiner neuesten Ausgrabungen auf der Baustelle von Troia, in den Heldengräbern, Bunarbaschi und anderen Orten der Troas im Jahre 1882. Leipzig: Brockhaus. SCHWARZBERG, H. 2009 “Neolithic ‘cult tables’ from Barcın Höyük,” Anatolica 35: 167–177. SÉFÉRIADÉS, M. 1992 “Bone tool report,” in Dikili Tash, village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961-1975), Vol. 1, edited by R. Treuil, pp. 99–112. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. SEMENOV, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. New York: Barnes and Noble. SHERRATT, A. 2006 “La traction animale et la transformation de l’Europe néolithique,” in Premiers chariots, premiers araires. La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IVe et IIIe millénaires avant notre ère, edited by P. Pétrequin, R.-M. Arbogast, A.-M. Pétrequin, S. van Willigen and M. Bailly, pp. 329–360. Paris: CNRS Éditions. SIDÉRA, I. 2005 “Technical data, typological data: A comparison,” in From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, edited by H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. Batey and L. Lougas, pp. 81–90. Tallinn: Tallinn Book Printers. 2013 “Manufacturing Bone tools: The example of Kovačevo,” in Bioarheologija Na Balkanu: Bilans i perspektive, edited by N. Miladinović-Radmilović and S. Vitezović, pp. 173– 178. Beograd: Sremska Mitrovica. SIMMONS, A. H. 2014 Stone Age Sailors: Paleolithic Seafaring in the Mediterranean. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. SYKES, N. 2004 “The introduction of fallow deer to Britain: A zooarchaeological perspective,” Environmental Archaeology 9(1): 75–83. SOUVATZI, S. 2008 A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece. An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2012 “Between the individual and the collective: Household as a social process in Neolithic Greece,” in New Perspectives on Household Archaeology, edited by B. J. Parker and C. P. Foster, pp. 15–44. Winona Lakes: Eisenbrauns. SPANGENBERG, J. E., FERRER, M., JACOMET, S., BLEICHER, N. and SCHIBLER, J. 2014 “Molecular and isotopic characterisation of lipids staining bone and antler tools in the Late Neolithic settlement, Zurich Opera Parking, Switzerland,” Organic Geochemistry 69: 11–25. STAMBOLIYSKA, E. and UZUNOV, Z. 2009 “Catalogue of the Early Neolithic settlements on the territory of Bulgaria,” in The first Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect, Vol. 1, Early Neolithic Sites on the Territory of Bulgaria, edited by I. Gatsov and Y. Boyadzhiev, pp. 63–80. Oxford: Archaeopress. STEFANOVA, T. 1998 “On the problem of the Anatolian-Balkan relations during the Early Neolithic in Thrace,” Documenta Praehistorica 25: 91–97. STORDEUR, D. 1982 “L’industrie osseuse de la Damascène du VIIe au VIe millénaires,” in L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le néolithique et l’âge des métaux, Vol. 2, edited by H. CampsFabrer, pp. 9–25. Paris: CNRS. 1988 Outils et armes en os du gisement natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. Paris: Association Paléorient.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

STRATOULI, G. 1998a Knochenartefakte aus dem Neolithikum and Chalkolithikum Nordgriechenlands. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. 1998b “Bone artefacts from Makri,” in Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Makri, Thrace, Greece (1988-1996): A Preliminary Report, edited by N. Efstratiou, M. P. Fumanal, C. Ferrer, D. Urem Kotsos, A. Curci, A. Tagliacozzo, G. Stratouli, S. M. Valmomti, M. Ntinou, E. Badal, M. Madella and K. Skourtopoulou, pp. 36–40. Saguntum: Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia. 2000 “Neolithic bone and antler artefacts from Theopetra Cave, Western Thessaly: Tracing the use of the cave,” in Theopetra Cave: Twelve Years of Excavation and Research 1987-1998. Proceedings of the International Conference, Trikala, 6-7 November 1998, edited by N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, pp. 307–327. Athens: Institute for Aegean Prehistory. TAKAOĞLU, T. 2005 “Coşkuntepe: An Early Neolithic quern production site in NW Turkey,” Journal of Field Archaeology 30(4): 419–433. 2006 “The Late Neolithic in the eastern Aegean: Excavations at Gülpinar in the Troad,” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 75(3): 289–315. 2013 “Coşkuntepe: A Neolithic village in the coastal troad,” in The Neolithic in Turkey, Vol. 5, Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul, edited by M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm, pp. 35–43. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. TAO, M. 2000 “The early Neolithic pottery from Delnicite near Elesnica,” in Karanovo III: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, edited by S. Hiller and V. Nikolov, pp. 51–57. Wien: Phoibos Verlag. TAYLOR PAGE, F. J. 1962 “Fallow deer,” in Animals of Britain, Vol. 11, edited by L. Harrison Matthews. London: Sunday Times Publications. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENTS OF TURKEY (TAY). 2008 “Tuzla,” The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey – TAY Project. http://www.tayproject.org/TAYmaster.fm$Retrieve?YerlesmeNo=2706&html=masterengdetail.html& layout=web (3 February 2020). 2020 http://www.tayproject.org (20 January 2020). THEOCHARIS, D. R. 1958 “Ek tis prokeramikis Thessalias,” Thessalika 1: 78–86. THISSEN, L. 1993 “New insights in Balkan-Anatolian connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old evidence from the Turkish Black Sea littoral,” Anatolian Studies 43: 207–237. THISSEN, L. and REINGRUBER, A. 2017 “14C Database for Southeast Europe and adjacent areas (6600–5000 cal BC),” in Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, edited by A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva, pp. 123–178. Oxon: Routledge. TILEY-NEL, S. L. and ANTONITES, A. R. 2015 Archaeological Worked Bone and Ivory: A Guide to Best Practice in Perseveration, Research and Curation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. TOMKINS, P. 2009 “Domestication by default. Ritual, ritualization and cave-use in the Neolithic Aegean,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(2): 125–153. TÓTH, Z. 2012 “Bone, antler, and tusk tools of the early Neolithic Körös Culture,” in The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect, Vol. 3, The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary, edited by A. Anders and Z. Siklosi, pp. 171–178. Oxford: Archeopress.

238

JARRAD W. PAUL

TRANTALIDOU, K. 2011 “From Mesolithic fisherman and bird hunters to Neolithic goat herders: The transformation of an island economy in the Aegean,” in The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece, Vol. 2, Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies, edited by A. Sampson, pp. 53–150. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. TREUIL, R., ed. 1992 Dikili Tash, village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale, I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961-1975). Vol. 1. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. TSARTSIDOU, G., LEV-YADUN, S., EFSTRATIOU, N. and WEINER, S. 2009 “Use of space in a Neolithic village in Greece (Makri): Phytolith analysis and comparison of phytolith assemblages from an ethnographic setting in the same area,” Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2342–2352. UMURTAK, G. and DURU, R. 2013 “Yeniden Hacılar. Hacılar Büyük Höyük Kazıları 2011–2012,” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 142: 1–22. VAN ANDEL, T. H. and SHACKLETON, J. C. 1982 “Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic coastlines of Greece and the Aegean,” Journal of Field Archaeology 9(4): 445–454. VAN ANDEL, T. H. and SUTTON, S. B. 1987 Landscape and People of the Franchthi Region. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. VAN DOORN, N. L., HOLLUND, H. and COLLINS, M. J. 2011 “A novel and non-destructive approach for ZooMS analysis: Ammonium bicarbonate buffer extraction,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 3: 281. VANDER LINDEN, M. 2011 “In constant motion? Recent advances in mathematical modelling and radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithisation of Europe,” in The Dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe. Studies in honour of Andrew Sherratt, edited by A. Hadjikoumis, E. Robinson and S. Viner, pp. 25–45. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow. VASILIKI, P. 2017 Shell Ornaments and their Distribution in Northwest Anatolia during Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods (Mid-7th to Mid-6th Millennium B.C.): The Case of the Settlements of Aktopralık Höyük and Barcın Höyük. Unpublished MA diss., International Hellenic University. VASS, L. 2010 “Bone-working in Roman Dacia,” in Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, Technological and Functional Signature, edited by A. LegrandPineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David and V. Scheinsohm, pp. 55–63. Oxford: Archaeopress. VIGNE, J.-D., CARRÈRE, I., SALIÉGE, J.-F., PERSON, A., BOCHERENS, H., GUILAINE, J. and BRIOIS, J. F. 2000 “Predomestic cattle, sheep, goat and pig during the late 9th and the 8th millennium cal. BC on Cyprus: Preliminary results of Shillourokambos (Parekklisha, Limassol),” in Archaeozoology of the Near East IV A, edited by M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin, pp. 83–106. Groningen: Groningen Institute for Archaeology. VITEZOVIĆ, S. 2011 “The Neolithic bone industry from Drenovac, Serbia,” in Written in Bones: Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skeletal Remains, edited by J. Baron and B. Kufel-Diakowska, pp. 117–136. Wrocław: Institute of Archaeology University of Wrocław. 2013 “Bone manufacturing in the Neolithic: The problems of reconstructing the chaîne opératoire and identifying workshops,” Archeometriai Muhely 10(3): 201–208. 2016 “Neolithisation of technology: Innovation and tradition in the Starčevo culture osseous industry,” Documenta Praehistorica 43: 123–137.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

VLACHOS, D. 2003 “Who did it? Perspectives on the beginning of the Neolithic in Greece,” Documenta Praehistorica 30: 131–137. VOGT, P. R. and HIGGS, R. H. 1969 “An aeromagnetic survey of the eastern Mediterranean Sea and its interpretation,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 5: 439–448. WACE, Α. J. B. and THOMPSON, W. B. 1912 Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series. WEINBERG, S. S. 1962 “Excavations at prehistoric Elateia, 1959,” Hesperia 31(2): 158–209. WENINGER, B., ALRAM-STERM, E., BAUER, E., CLARE, L., DANZEGLOCKE, U., JÖRIS, O., KUBATZKI, C., ROLLEFSON, G., TODOROVA, H. and VAN ANDEL, T. 2006 “Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean,” Quaternary Research 66: 401–420. WENINGER, B., CLARKE, L., GERRITSEN, F., HOREJS, B., KRAUSS, R., LINSTÄDTER, J., ÖZBAL, R. and ROHLING, E. J. 2014 “Neolithisation of the Aegean and southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 cal BC period of rapid climate change,” Documenta Praehistorica 41: 1–31. WILD, J. P. 1988 Textiles in Archaeology. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications. WIJNEN, M. 1981 The Early Neolithic Settlement at Sesklo, an Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece. Leiden: Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia. WIJNEN, M., RIDLEY, C., WARDLE, K. A., HUBBARD, R. N. L., WATSON, J. P. N. and JONES, R. E. 1979 “Rescue excavations at Servia 1971–1973. A preliminary report,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 74: 185–230. WINN, S. and SHIMABUKU, D. 1989 “Bone and ground stone tools,” in Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6,400-5,600 B.C., pp. 259–265. Los Angeles: UCLA Press. YAKAR, J. 2011 Reflections of Ancient Anatolian Society in Archaeology: From Neolithic Village Communities to EBA Towns and Polities. Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi. YALÇIKLI, D. 2014 “New evidence for Neolithic habitation in the hinterland of the Troad,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33(3): 245–255. YALTIRAK, C., İŞLER, E. B., AKSU, A. E. and HISCOTT, R. N. 2012 “Evolution of the Barbaburnu Basin and shelf of the Biga Peninsula: Western extension of the middle strand of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, northeast Aegean Sea, Turkey,” Journal of Asian Earth Studies 57: 103–119. YILMAZ, Y., GÖKAŞAN, E. and ERBAY, A. Y. 2010 “Morphotectonic development of the Marmara region,” Tectonophysics 488: 51–70. YIOUNI, P. 1995 “Technological analysis of the Neolithic pottery from Makri,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 119(2): 607–620. ZIDAROV, P. 2008 “Pointed bone tools from Măgura Gorgana,” in Der kupferzeitliche Siedlungshügel Măgura Gorgana bei Pietrele in der Walachei. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Sommer 2007, edited by S. Hansen, M. Toderas, A. Reingruber, I. Gatsov, F. Klimscha, P. Nedelcheva, R. Neef, M. Prange, T. D. Price, J. Wahl, B. Weninger, H. Wrobel, J. Wunderlich and P. Zidarov. Eurasia Antiqua 14: 57–62. ZVELEBIL, M. 2001 “The agricultural transition and the origins of Neolithic society in Europe,” Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1–26.

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (FORMERLY ABR-NAHRAIN) Supplement Series Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson & Claudia Sagona

 1. 2.  3. 4.  5.

6.  7.  8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

Mayer L.A., Bibliography of the Samaritans, 1964, 50 p. Bunnens G., Tell Ahmar, 1988 Season, 1990, 151 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Qumran Aramaic, 1992, 167 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 1995, VIII — 107 p. Bunnens G., Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29-30 September 1994), 1996, VIII — 155 p. Muraoka T., Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, 1998, 151 p. Bunnens G., Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, 2000, X — 557 p. Adamthwaite M.R., Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms and SocioPolitical Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, 2001, XXIV — 294 p. Sagona C., The Archaeology of Punic Malta, 2002, XIV — 1165 p. Sagona C., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Ecclesiastic and Private Collections, 2003, XXII — 374 p. Hopkins L., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, VI. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Sos Höyük and Yigittasi Village, 2003, XXVII — 184 p. Sagona A., A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, 2004, XX — 743 p. McConchie M., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, V. Iron Technology and Iron-making Communities of the First Millennium BC, 2004, XXIV — 393 p. Sagona A., Sagona C., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, I. An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, 2004, XXIV — 600 p. Çilingiroğlu A., Derin Z., Abay E., Sağlamtimur H., Kayan İ., Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002, 2004, XII — 162 p. Payne M., Urartian Measures of Volume, 2005, XX — 387 p. Stoop-van Paridon P.W.T., The Song of Songs. A Philological Analysis of the the Hebrew Book jiriwe riw, 2005, XVI — 540 p.

30 EURO 38 EURO 45 EURO 35 EURO

40 EURO 35 EURO 105 EURO 70 EURO 160 EURO 105 EURO 90 EURO 120 EURO

90 EURO

110 EURO 60 EURO 95 EURO 90 EURO

18. Sagona C., Vella Gregory I., Bugeja A., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Private Collections, 2, 2006, XXII — 276 p. 77 EURO 19. Sagona A., Abramishvili M., Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia, 2008, VIII — 477 p. 94 EURO 20. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Eskişehir, 16-20 August 2004, 2007, X — 348 p. 85 EURO 21. Azize J., Weeks N., Gilgameš and the World of Assyria. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004, 2007, VIII — 240 p. 84 EURO 22. Wightman G., Sacred Spaces. Religious Architecture in the Ancient World, 2007, XX — 1156 p. 120 EURO 23. Aitken J.K., The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, 2007, XVI — 306 p. 85 EURO 24. Steiner M., van der Steen E.J., Sacred and Sweet. Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir ꜤAlla and Tell Abu Sarbut, 2008, VIII — 286 p. 85 EURO 25. Yagodin V.N., Betts A.V.G., Blau S., Ancient Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region. The Duana Archaeological Complex, 2007, VIII — 138 p. 65 EURO 26. McGeough K., Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, 2007, XVIII — 438 p. 95 EURO 27. Rubinson K.S., Sagona A., Ceramics in Transitions. Chalcolithic Through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia, 2008, VI — 364 p. 90 EURO 28. Sagona C., Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, 2008, VIII — 655 p. 98 EURO 29. Bienkowski P., Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau, 2009, XIV — 273 p. 87 EURO 30. Kuty R.J., Studies in the Syntax of Targums Jonathan to Samuel, 2010, XIV — 285 p. 85 EURO 31. Redford S., Ergin N., Perceptions of the Past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine Periods, 2010, X — 236 p. 79 EURO 32. McGeough K., Smith M.S., Ugaritic Economic Tablets. Text, Translation and Notes, 2011, XXVI — 625 p. 98 EURO 33. Hartley J.E., The Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Colour Lexemes, 2010, XVI — 247 p. 78 EURO 34. Connor S.E., A Promethean Legacy: Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Southern Georgia, the Caucasus, 2011, XII — 419 p. 94 EURO 35. Jamieson A., Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C, 2012, XVIII — 385 p. 105 EURO 36. Sagona C., Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World: Collected Essays, 2011, X — 450 p. 95 EURO

37. Ergin N., Bathing Culture of Anatolian Civilizations: Architecture, History, and Imagination, 2011, X — 329 p. 38. Muraoka T., A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 2011, XLVI — 285 p. 39. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 7: The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19-24 April 2010, 2012, X — 332 p. 40. Redford S., Ergin N., Cities and Citadels in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks, 2013, X — 346 p. 41. Summers G.D., Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran. The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Stratigraphy and Architecture, 2013, XXXII — 217 p. 42. Yener K.A., Across the Border. Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, 2013, VIII — 542 p. 43. Pappa E., Early Iron Age Exchange in the West: Phoenicians in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, 2013, XX — 373 p. 44. De Cupere B., Linseele V., Hamilton-Dyer S., Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas, 2013, X — 420 p. 45. Tebes J.M., Unearthing the Wilderness. Studies in the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, 2014, X — 306 p. 46. Kennedy M., The Late Third Millennium BCE in the Upper Orontes Valley, Syria. Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Connections, 2015, XXII — 495 p. 47. Magdalino P., Ergin N., Istanbul and Water, 2015, X — 274 p. 48. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) I. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 496 p. 49. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) II. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 666 p. 50. Mizzi D., Vella N.C., Zammit M.R., “What Mean these Stones?” (Joshua 4:6, 21). Essays on Texts, Philology, and Archaeology in Honour of Anthony J. Frendo, 2017, VI — 286 p. 51. Thys-Şenocak, L., Of Vines and Wines. The Production and Consumption of Wine in Anatolian Civilizations through the Ages, 2017, VIII — 235 p. 52. Muraoka T., Jacob of Serugh’s Hexaemeron, 2018, XVI — 229 p. 53. Verduci J.A., Metal Jewellery of the Southern Levant and its Western Neighbours. Cross-Cultural Influences in the Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean, 2018, XVIII — 435 p. 54. Vella N.C., Frendo A.J., Vella H.C.R., The Lure of the Antique. Essays on Malta and Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of Anthony Bonanno, 2018, VIII — 391 p.

84 EURO 70 EURO

87 EURO 86 EURO 89 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

105 EURO 90 EURO 110 EURO 95 EURO

105 EURO

120 EURO

115 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

130 EURO

110 EURO

55. Yener K.A., Ingman T., Alalakh and its Neighbours, 2020, VIII — 481 p. 56. Jasmin M., de Miroschedji P., Fouilles de Tel Yarmouth (1980-2009). Rapport final. Volume 1: Les fouilles sur l’acropole, 2020, XXXII — 582 p. 57. Jackson H., Jamieson A., Robinson A., Russell S., Heritage in Conflict, 2021, XXVI — 239 p. 58. d’Alfonso L., Rubinson, K.S., Borders in Archaeology. Anatolia and the South Caucasus ca. 3500–500 BCE, 2021, VIII — 357 p.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706

120 EURO 160 EURO 105 EURO 112 EURO