Eur asian Pre his tory, 8 (1–2): 89–95.

NEO LITHIC CHIPPED STONE AS SEM BLAGESIN NORTH WEST ERN ANATOLIA, TUR KEY

Ivan Gatsov1 and Petranka Nedelcheva2

1 New Bul gar ian Uni ver sity, 1618 So fia, 21 Mon te vi deo Str., igatsov@ya hoo.comNa tional Ar chae o log i cal In sti tute and Mu seum, 1000 So fia, 2 Saborna Str.

2 New Bul gar ian Uni ver sity, 1618 So fia, 21 Mon te vi deo Str., pnedelcheva@nbu.bg

Ab stractThis pa per de scribes the main fea tures of the lithic tech nol ogy, col lected in the set tle ments in the ter ri tory of the

South Marmara and Aegean re gion of West Anatolia dur ing the 7–6 mil len nia BC. The re sults of the anal y sis dem on stratethe uni for mity in the tech no log i cal and ty po logi cal pa ram e ters, which may pro vide di rect ev i dence for com mon lithic tra -di tions and pos si bly sim i lar en vi ron men tal char ac ter is tics.

A new ques tion arises fol low ing the Cen tral North west Anatolia re search at the Keçiçayýrý set tle ment in re la tion ship to the noted ear li est traces of PPNB oc cu pa tion in that area. It is pre sumed that the bear ers of the for mer lithic in dus try first pen e trated this area prior to the ar rival of the first mak ers of Neo lithic pot tery.

Key words: Neo lithic chipped stone as sem blages, PPNB, “bul let cores”, west Anatolia.

IN TRO DUC TION

The known the ter ri tory of the ‘bul let cores’ atthe pres ent state of re search is con fined to part ofNorth west Anatolia bounded by the Aegean shores to the west, Yeniºehir re gion to the south and theMarmara Sea. This study pres ents the chippedstone as sem blages in clud ing these spe cial coresfrom the pre his toric set tle ments in the South Mar-mara and the Aegean re gion of West Anatolia.Lithic as sem blages from the ex ca va tions of IlÏ-pÏnar, Menteºe, Fikirtepe and Pendik are in cludedin this pa per. Re cently ad di tional in for ma tion ispro vided from ex ca va tions car ried out at pre his -toric set tle ments of BarcÏn Höyük (Gatsov et al.,2009) and AktopraklÏk, in the Bursa re gion (Balci,2011) as well as from Ulucak, Izmir re gion (Çilin-giroÈlu and Abay, 2005; ÇilingiroÈlu, 2009).

CHRO NOL OGY

Be gin ning in the mid of 7th mil len nium BCcon i cal and bul let cores were ac com pa nied by

char ac ter is tic tool types at Ulucak, level V (Çilin-giroÈlu and Abay, 2005: 12; ÇilingiroÈlu, 2009:7, fig. 2) and Menteºe (Roodenberg et al., 2003:17–59). Put to gether, those cores and tool typesformed one spe cific tech nol ogy. Hav ing in mindthe lat est ap pear ance of bul let cores at a set tle -ment with sound ra dio car bon dates such asIlÏpÏnar, where phase VB dates to 5 500–5 450 BC (Roodenberg and Schier, 2001: 257–278) onemay as sume that this par tic u lar tech nol ogy lasteddur ing ap prox i mately one thou sand years with outvis i ble tech no log i cal and ty po logi cal changes.This is sue is fur ther ex am ined here.

THE RAW MA TE RIAL VA RI ETY

In the re gion un der dis cus sion flint is muchmore com mon raw ma te rial than ob sid ian anddom i nates the lithic as sem blages while less than a few per cent of pieces were made from ob sid ian(Gatsov, 2009). The lithic as sem blages (Fig. 2)that were al ready an a lyzed in IlÏpÏnar and Men-teºe by the au thors, or are still un der study (sites

BarcÏn Höyük and AktopraklÏk) the ob sid ian isless rep re sented. The sit u a tion is not sim ple as upto now it was im pos si ble to de ter mine whether ornot the ini tial knapping ac tiv i ties of ob sid iancores took place in these sites. Work shops of con -i cal and bul let cores were not iden ti fied dur ing the ex ca va tions of IlÏpÏnar and Men- teºe. There fore it seemed that most of the op er a tional se quence ofthose cores that pro duced blades and bladeletstook place away from the ex ca vated area.

TECH NOL OGY

The dom i nant core types dur ing the pe riodand the ter ri tory un der dis cus sion are uni di rec -tional con i cal, subconical and bul let cores. Thesame knapping ac tiv i ties are doc u mented for both flint and ob sid ian. It was a sta ble, well-de vel oped, lithic tech nol ogy, char ac ter ized by blade andbladelet blank pro duc tion from those core typesand thus char ac ter is tic of the tool as sem blages aswell. Three types of de tach ment tech niques have

been ob served. The first one is pres sure tech nique tes ti fied by pres ence of flint and ob sid ian blade-lets – with ex tremely reg u lar of edges as well asslightly curved pro file. This tech nique has beenap plied to flint and ob sid ian bul let cores. Most ofthe con i cal cores dis play flak ing sur face that takes part of the en tire or al most the en tire cir cum fer -ence of the vol ume of the nod ule form ing a sin gleplat form cores with rounded or semi roundedflak ing sur faces for the de tach ment of blades. The fi nal re sult of these op er a tional se quences is thebul let cores, whose re duc tion reached a de gree ofex treme ex ploi ta tion. In other words the bul letcores could be con sid ered as a last stage of re duc -tion of that sin gle plat form rounded cores. In thelast stage of re duc tion their shape is sim i lar to theri fle bul lets. It is worth point ing out that the re -search in 2011 an a lyzed the bulk of flint and ob -sid ian bul let cores and bladelets among the lithicsfrom Barcýn Höyük. As a rule all de tached piecesdo not dis play in ten tional re touch. Due to the factthat func tional anal y sis was not per formed, it’s

90 I. Gatsov & P. Nedelcheva

Fig. 1. Lo ca tion of the set tle ments men tioned in the text

still not fea si ble to con clude what was the mainuse of these pieces.

The sec ond type of blade de tach ment is lin-ked to the use of punch or in di rect per cus siontech nique re corded on the base of “larger” blades. These are rel a tively thick, ir reg u lar curved spec i -mens, and the prox i mal ends pre served a thickbutt, of ten with a re main ing part of the over hang(‘lipped plat forms’). As far as di rect per cus siontech nique is con cerned it was also ap plied to thede tach ment of flakes.

These de tach ment tech niques were ex e cutedin dif fer ent stages of the knapping pro cess (theop er a tional se quence). Core prep a ra tion wasmostly done by di rect per cus sion, large bladeswere ob tained dur ing the be gin ning of core re duc -tion and were ac com plished by in di rect or punchper cus sion. The last stage of the chaîne opéra-toire pres sure tech nique that shaped and ex ploited the bul let core

RE TOUCHED TOOLS

The best rep re sented for mal tools are flatsemi cir cu lar or cir cu lar end scrap ers of ten withcor tex on the dor sal side, macro end scrap ers, mi -cro end scrap ers, char ac ter is tic per fo ra tors anddrills on ir reg u lar blades, trans verse ar row heads,a few re touched blades with mar ginal par tial re -touch and denticulated blades. End scrap ers werechar ac ter ised by more or less flat cir cu lar andsemi cir cu lar spec i mens. As a rule thick end scra-pers are with at least one steeply re touched andcurved front. In con trast burins, ar row heads,backed blades, re touched bladelets, seg ments arevir tu ally ab sent.

DIS CUS SION AND CON CLU SIONS

The geo graphic dis tri bu tion of bul let coresin cor po rates a large ter ri tory spread ing out fromNW Pontic moun tains, Anatolia, North ern or Up -

Neo lithic chipped stone as sem blage, Turkey 91

Fig. 2. 1–4 “bul let cores” from IlÏpÏnar, South Marmara re gion

per Mes o po ta mia (in sites such as Nemrik) and its tra di tion lasted from the 9th mil len nium to the 6thmil len nium BC. On the other hand the list of ty po -logi cal el e ments de scribed above dis tin guishesbe tween ter ri to ries with chro no log i cal and cul -tural dif fer ences. The ap pear ance of bul let coresin such a huge ter ri tory and dur ing sev eral mil len -nia char ac ter ized by sim i lar re duc tion stages, canbe con sid ered as a su pra re gional el e ment. At thesame time all the other ty po logi cal and tech no log -i cal el e ments in the assmeblages are en tirely dif -fer ent in each area, pe riod and cul ture af fil i a tion.

In the North west Pontic re gion, the steppelow lands and the Cri mean pen in sula, the new andim por tant re sults (Biagi and Kiosak, 2011). Ofgreat im por tance are two Mesolithic cul tural units– Kukrek and Grebenyky cul tures with their epon -y mous set tle ments. Kukrek cul ture, which …” isat trib uted to …the end of the Paleolithic….. Thebear ers …pro duced subconical, bul let and pen cillike cores for the man u fac ture of par al lel-side bla-delets. Char ac ter is tic tools are “Kukrek in serts”and “Kukrek burins”, as well as burins on flakes.The micro liths con sist of a backed re touched pointad ja cent to an oblique trun ca tion (Biagi and Kio-sak, 2010: 24), …”tra pezes and microburins areab sents” (Biagi and Kiosak, 2010: 23–24). Thelithic in dus try of Grebenyky, the other Mesolithiccul ture is char ac ter ized by con i cal and bul let core,blade and flake end scrap ers, notched blades, iso-sceles tra pezes, “Kukrek in serts” (Biagi and Kio-sak, 2010: 27). The sites of this cul ture are lo cated in the con ti nen tal steppe low lands. New radiome-tric dates from the key site Myrne, Mesolithic cul -ture Grebenyky, were re lated to the sec ond half of 8 mil len nium BC (B­`dfh et al., 2008: 35). In the same time the geomorphological con di tions, faunaand cli mate of Kukrek and Grebenyky Mesolithiccul tures (Qq`lim, 1982; Biagi and Kiosak, 2010:21–22) are to tally dif fer ent in re spect to Neo lithicthe set tle ments in South Marmara re gion. The for -mer re gion pres ents fully de vel oped Neo lithic econ -omy with cor re spond ing ty po logi cal in ven tory.

Here the ques tion is whether or not the bul letcore tech nol ogy as so ci ated with the above listedtool types listed, could be seen as ev i dence of a lo -cal cul tural sub stra tum. Up to now in the area un -der study only the lithics from AÈaçli group (AÈa- çli, Gumuºdere and Domalý) from the Turk ishBlack Sea shore could be con sid ered as ev i dences

of the Epiplaeolithic/Mesolithic sub stra tum (Gat-sov and ÖzdoÈan, 1994). The is sue is the ap pear -ance of backed blades, which do not fit with theSouth Marmara lithic as sem blages and pose a ques -tion con cern ing the con nec tion be tween the two ar -eas.

From the Konya plain, Cen tral Anatolia thepres ence of bul let core tech nol ogy have been re -corded at Çatalhöyük and Hacilar (Conolly,1999). The spec i mens pub lished by P. Bialor(1962) are larger than the sim i lar core type in theMarmara re gion…. “ blade core with blade fac etsall around the cir cum fer ence (Bialor, 1962: 86,fig. 7: 1–4). It was men tioned as well as a “cy lin -dri cal blade core with nar row pointed end”(Bialor, 1962: 97, 96, fig. 8, 21). Here, there isalso a dif fer ence in the bul let core size – the Çatal- höyük bul let spec i men are big ger (Carter et al.,2005). In this re gard the bul let cores from Çayönü Tepesi (Binder, 2008; Caneva et al., 2001) ap pear much ear lier and the chro no log i cal place is dif fer -ent from that of the Marmara Early Neo lithic as -sem blages. In ad di tion, sim i lar cores and per fo ra -tors from the area of the East ern Wing of the Fer-tile Cres cent were pub lished (Koz³owski, 1999:II, IV; Koz³owski and Aurenche, 2005: 144).These lithics come from the site of Nemrik, lo -cated in Up per or North ern Mes o po ta mia, and theob tained ra dio met ric dates place the set tle ment inthe 7th mil len nium BC (Koz³owski, 1999).

In other words, the ex act and tem po ral dis tri -bu tion of the bul let core tech nol ogy is not welldoc u mented. Up till now bul let cores were notfound in Cy prus, Crete and con ti nen tal Greece(Kaczanowska and Koz³owski, in press) or in theBul gar ian ter ri tory as well (Gatsov, 2009). Weshould ex pect more in for ma tion from the on go ing re search in the South Marmara re gion and theAegean re gion of West Anatolia (BarcÏn Höyük,Aktopraklýk and Ulucak). If ad di tional el e mentsof this tech nol ogy will orig i nate in strat i fied con -texts then it would be pos si ble to for mu late morere fined ob ser va tions. Nev er the less, at this stage of re search the Mesolithic as sem blages from North -west Pontic should not be con sid ered as a for ma -tive phase for the ear li est Neo lithic tra di tion in the area of Marmara and Aegean re gion of WestAnatolia.

The above de scrip tion and well de fined lithictechno com plex ap peared dur ing the 7th mil len -

92 I. Gatsov & P. Nedelcheva

nium BC – 6th mil len nium BC in South Marmarare gion and Aegean shore. This in dus try in cor po -rated bul let core re duc tion tech niques joined byflat cir cu lar and semi cir cu lar end scrap ers, macro and mi cro end scrap ers, blade per fo ra tors anddrills, tra pezes, etc.

The pre lim i nary re sults in di cate that the gen -eral tech no log i cal and ty po logi cal struc ture of theav er age lithic as sem blage dated to the first half ofthe 7th mil len nium BC and first half of 6th mil len -nium BC, is un change able. The debitage and toolcat e go ries are rep re sented in more or less sim i larfre quen cies. This fact sug gests a gen er al isedsteady be hav ior and cor re spond ing daily ac tiv i -ties by the mak ers of this in dus try in re spec tivesites. Prob a bly the ap pear ance of sim i lar tech no -log i cal tra di tions within sim i lar en vi ron ment fea -tures, may ex plain to a cer tain de gree the strictanal ogy be tween the lithic as sem blages, dis cus-sed in this pa per.

The Ear li est Neo lithic ar ti facts in Cen tralNorth west ern Anatolia?

Re cently new ques tions re lated to the ear li esttrace of Neo lithic oc cu pa tions in Cen tral NWAnatolia emerged. Since 2006 sal vage ex ca va -tions have been ini ti ated at at KeçiçayÏrÏ led byTuran Efe (2004). The set tle ment is lo cated in theEskiºehir prov ince 18 km south of Seyitgazi, Cen -tral NW Anatolia. The in ves ti ga tions of TuranEfe ex posed strati graphic con texts from the pre-and Early Neo lithic as well as Late Chalcolithicpe ri ods (Efe et al., in press; Gatsov and Nedel-cheva, in press). Then lithics from trench b 88 de -serve spe cial at ten tion. The lithic as sem blage in -cludes a core from tab u lar flint with two op po sitepre pared plat form (Fig. 3). its ex ploi ta tion wascom pleted from both plat forms. Ini tially it was arel a tively flat flint nod ule which ex plains why acrest was not nec es sary at the back. The lack ofcrest dif fers the spec i men from a real naviformcore (Quintero and Wilke, 1995; Wilke et al.,2007). Among the lithics tab u lar flake cores in the fi nal stage of re duc tion with traces of prep a ra tionare abun dant, as well as chipped disks on tab u larflint with steep and semi-steep ir reg u lar re touch(Fig. 4), and leaf-shaped points with re touch cov -er ing both sides (Fig. 5).

The main ques tion is linked agaun to the un -sat is fac tory level of re search into the Epipalaeo-

Neo lithic chipped stone as sem blage, Turkey 93

Fig. 3. Core from tab u lar flint from KeçiçayÏrÏ

Fig. 4. Chipped disk from KeçiçayÏrÏ

lithic sub stra tum in this are. Un til now only a sin -gle Palaeo lithic site was re corded. Hence, the lack of com par a tive base col lec tion cre ates a mahordif fi culty and ham pers a better un der stand ing oflo cal lithic evo lu tion. In other words “it is verydif fi cult to dis tin guish more or less clear lines be -tween pre-and Pot tery Neo lithic at KeçiçayÏrÏ”(Gatsov and Nedelcheva, in press).

Re gard ing the lithics from KeçiçayÏrÏ weshould note that they are en tirely dif fer ent whencom pared to the ear li est Neo lithic chipped stoneas sem blages from the Marmara re gion and theAegean re gion of West Anatolia.

The ques tion here is at that point of the re -search if this re gion was pen e trated by mi grat inggroups re lated to the PPNB who set tled in that re -gion be fore the first new com ers pre sent ing thePot tery Neolithic?

REF ER ENCESBALCI S. 2011. The chipped stone in dus try of Akto-

praklÏk C (Bursa): Pre lim i nary re sults. AnatoliaAntiqua 19, 1–11.

BIALOR P. 1962. The chipped stone in dus try of ÇatalHöyük. Ana to lian Stud ies 12, 67–110.

BINDER D. 2008. Technologie lithique et comporte-ment so cial dans le PPN de Çayönü Tepesi(Turquie). Paléorient 34, 5–21

BIAGI P., KIOSAK D. 2010. The Mesolithic of thenorth west ern Pontic re gion. New AMS dates for theor i gin and spread of the blade and tra peze in dus triesin south east ern Eu rope. Eur asia Antiqua 16, 21–41.

B¤AEG¤ O., QRAMJN C., J¤NQAJ E. 2008. Mmb­

o`d­mbrcjeb­ d`qh nmpejelh~ Lhole. Qeo­~ ¤pqm-

ohvl­ l`rih Qneubhnrpi Chnrpi 83, 96,33–37.

CANEVA I., IOVINO M.-R., LEMORINI C.,ÖZDO(AN A., ZAMPETTI D. 2001. A com binedanal y sis of lithic as sem blages from Çayönü. Be -yond Tools Re de fin ing the PPN Lithic As sem blages of the Lev ant. In: I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D.Zampetti and P. Biagi (eds) Be yond tools. Pro ceed -ings of the Third Work shop on PPN Chipped Lithiclndustrie. Stud ies in Early Near East ern Pro duc -tion, Sub sis tence, and En vi ron ment 9. Ex oriente,Berlin, 165–181.

CARTER T., KAYCAN N., MILIÆ M. 2005. Chippedstone. Çatalhöyük 2005 Ar chive Re port. Cul turaland en vi ron men tal ma te ri als re ports [On line].Avail able at: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ar chive_re ports/2005/ar05_31.html [Ac cessed 21 Oc to ber2011].

ÇILINGIRO(LU Ç. 2009. Of Stamps, Loom Weightsand Spin dle Whorls: Con tex tual Ev i dence on theFunc tion(s) of Neo lithic Stamps from Ulucak,Izmir, Tur key. Jour nal of Med i ter ra nean Ar chae ol -ogy 22(1), 3–27.

ÇILINGIRO(LU A., ABAY E. 2005. Ulucak Höyükex ca va tions: new re sults. Med i ter ra nean Ar chae ol -ogy and Archaeometry 5(3) Spe cial Is sue, 5–21.

CONOLLY J. 1999. Tech ni cal strat e gies and tech ni calchanges at Neo lithic Çatalhöyük, Tur key. An tiq uity73, 791–800.

EFE T. 2004. The Neolithization in In land North west -ern Anatolia. In: C. Lichter (ed.) How did Farm ingReach Eu rope? Ana to lian-Eu ro pean re la tions fromthe sec ond half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th mil len nium cal BC. Pro ceed ings of the In ter na -tional Work shop, Is tan bul, 20-22 May 2004. Deut-sches Archaologisches Institut, Is tan bul, 107–116.

EFE T., GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P. (in press).The Neo lithic Set tle ment of KeçiçayÏrÏ near Seyi-tgazi, Eskitehir. In: M. ÖzdoÈan, N. Baºgelen (eds)The Neo lithic in Tur key: new ex ca va tions and new

94 I. Gatsov & P. Nedelcheva

Fig. 5. Leaf-shaped point with re touch cov er ing both sides from KeçiçayÏrÏ

de vel op ments. Arkeoloji ve Sanat YayÏnlarÏ.GATSOV I. 2009. Pre his toric Chipped Stone As sem -

blages from East ern Thrace and the South Marmara Re gion 7th–5th millenium BC. BAR In ter na tionalSe ries 1904. Archaeopress, Ox ford.

GATSOV I., ÖZDO(AN M. 1994. Some Epi-palaeo -lithic sites from NW Tur key. AÈaçli, DomalÏ,Gumuºdere. Anatolica 20, 97–120.

GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P. (in press). Lithicartefacts from the Neo lithic pe riod in NW Anatolia.Last re sults. In: The IIIrd Kütahya Sym po sium of Ar -chae ol ogy. In ter na tional Ar chae o log i cal Re searchin West ern Cen tral Anatolia.

GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P., ÖZBAL R.,GERRITSEN F. 2009. Pre his toric Barcin Höyük:2007 Ex ca va tions and Chipped Stone Ar ti fact Anal -y sis. In: F. Drasovean (eds) Ten Years Af ter: TheNeo lithic of the Bal kans as Un cov ered by the LastDe cade of Re search. Mu seum of Banat Pub li ca -tions, Timisoara, 35–48.

KACZANOWSKA M., KOZ£OWSKI J.K. (in press).Lithic in dus try from the aceramic lev els of Knossos(Crete, Greece): an al ter na tive ap proach.

KOZ£OWSKI S.K. 1999. The East ern Wing of theFer tile Cres cent. BAR In ter na tional Se ries 760.Archaeopress, Ox ford.

KOZ£OWSKI S.K., AURENCHE O. 2005. Ter ri to -

ries, Bound aries and Cul tures in the Neo lithic NearEast. BAR In ter na tional Se ries 1362. Archaeopress, Ox ford.

QUINTERO L.A., WILKE P.J. 1995. Evo lu tion andeco nomic sig nif i cance of naviform core-and-bladetech nol ogy in the South ern Lev ant. Paléorient21(1), 17–33.

ROODENBERG J., van AS A., JACOBS L.,WIJNENM. 2003. Early set tle ment in the plain of Yeniºehir(NW Anatolia). The basal oc cu pa tion lay ers atMenteºe. Anatolica 29, 17–59.

ROODENBERG J., SCHIER W. 2001. Radicarbon de -ter mi na tions. In: J. Roodenber and L. Thissen (eds)The Ilýpinar ex ca va tions III. Nederlands Instituutvoor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 257–278.

QRAMJN C. 1982. Lholme nomajek` ke|m-

jhq` pqeneÐ Qebeolmcm Oohveolm- kmo{~.

M`rimb` Erki`. Jheb.

WILKE P.J., QUINTERO L.A., ROLLEFSON G.O.,GEBEL H.G.K. 2007. The naviform core-and-blade in dus try in orthoquartzite at ‘Ain Jammam, Jor dan.In: L. Astruc, D. Binder and F. Briois (eds) Systemes techniques et communautes du Neolithique precera- mique au Proche-Ori ent. Tech ni cal Sys tems andNear East ern PPN Com mu ni ties. Edi tions APDCA,Antibes, 193–201.

Neo lithic chipped stone as sem blage, Turkey 95