NEO-LITHICS 1/04The Newsletter of

Southwest Asian Neolithic Research

Editorial

DialoguePeltenburg, PPN CyprusKuijt, Le Brun, Özdoğan, Rollefson, Sampson &Katsarou, Simmons: CommentsPeltenburg: Response to Commentators

Supra-Regional Concepts IITowards New Frameworks: Supra-Regional Conceptsin Near Eastern Neolithization: 4ICAANEWorkshop, Berlin, 1-2 April 2004

Asouti, Bar-Yosef, Benz, Gebel, Henry, Hermansen,Nesbitt, Özdoğan, Peltenburg, Peters, Rollefson,Simmons, Stordeur, Willcox: Pre-WorkshopStatements

5th Workshop on PPN Chipped Stone Industries Fréjus, 1-5 March 2004

Hole, Coqueugniot, Inizan, Gebel: Brief Reports

New Publications and Theses

2 Neo-Lithics 1/04

The first half of 2004 witnessed very fruitful meetingsof Near Eastern Neolithic issues. Starting with the 5thPPN Chipped Stone Industries Workshop at Fréjus onMarch 1-5 (cf. this issue), activity continued in the SASand BANEA conferences. The 4ICAANE Workshop onSupra-Regional Concepts in Near Eastern Neolithizationwas held April 1-2 in Berlin (cf. this issue), and theInternational Conference on the History and Archaeologyof Jordan in Petra during May 23-27 brought many col-leagues together again.

All these meetings reflect the increasing intensity ofNear Eastern Neolithic research at a level not reachedbefore. When one considers the large number of papers,we sense that the research has become a self-multiply-ing phenomenon on its own. More than ever, the atmos-phere in the audience halls and in the corridors demon-strates the positive effects of stimulation when borders

of countries and minds are transcended: Research candevelop on the basis of personal respect and friendship,and new international and inter-school cooperation canbe established through shared insights, with researchagendas driven by specific (even general) needs ratherthan on stagnant policies. More than ever, our researchis breaking through the circles of confined alliances, bethey national, traditional, or even chauvinistic in somedegree or another.

The excitement of this new trend emerges despite theappalling and calamitous macropolitical situation in theNear East. But our research meetings are on the oppo-site track, for they demonstrate that our experience andunderstandings bring us together regardless of our var-ied backgrounds and beliefs.

Hans Georg K. Gebel and Gary O. Rollefson

ContentsEditorial 2

DialogueE. Peltenburg: Cyprus: A Regional Component of the Levantine PPN 3I. Kuijt: Cyprus as a Regional Neolithic Entity: Do Researchers Need to Revisit the Concept of

the Levantine PPNB Interaction Sphere? 8A.Le Brun: Brèves remarques sur une longue histoire 10M. Özdoğan: Cyprus: A Regional Component of the Levantine PPN 11G.O. Rollefson: Cultural Genealogies: Cyprus and Its Relationship to the PPN Mainland 12A.Sampson and S. Katsarou: Cyprus, Aegean, and Near East During the PPN 13A.H. Simmons: The Mediterranean PPNB Interaction Sphere? 16E. Peltenburg: Response to Commentators 18

Supra-Regional Concepts IIG.O. Rollefson and H.G.K. Gebel: Towards New Frameworks: Supra-Regional Concepts in

Near Eastern Neolithization.Short Note on an 4ICAANE Workshop Hold in Berlin, 1-2 April 2004 21

E. Asouti: The Contribution of Subsistence Archaeology to Generating Supra-Regional Models for Understanding Near Eastern Neolithisation 23

O. Bar-Yosef: Targets of Current Neolithic Research in Southwestern Asia 24M. Benz: The Emic View: Social Questions of the Neolithisation of the Near East 27H.G.K. Gebel: There Was No Center: The Polycentric Evolution of the Near Eastern Neolithic 28D. O. Henry: Assessing the Degree of Supra-Regional Homogeneity in Cultural Elements

Within the Near Eastern Neolithic 32B. D. Hermansen: Supra-Regional Concepts From a Local Perspective 34M. Nesbitt: Can We Identify a Centre, a Region, or a Supra-Region for Near Eastern Plant

Domestication? 38M. Özdoğan: Definitions, Perceptions, and Borders 41E. Peltenburg: Space and Perishables: Some Implications of an Expanded Near Eastern Neolithic 42J. Peters: Supra-Regional Understanding of Near Eastern Neolithization: An Archaeozoological

Perspective 43

continued on page 63

Editorial

Before the recent discoveries of early Neolithic occu-pation in Cyprus, Gopher articulated the widely heldopinion that the “Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) of theLevant can be viewed as a single cultural system stretch-ing from the Middle Euphrates to southern Sinai” (Gopher1989: 91). The purpose of this dialogue note is to arguefor a revision of that view to include Cyprus, and to makesuggestions that flow from such a revision.

PPN traits on Cyprus

Islanders c. 8000 cal BC shared a wide range of cultur-al traits with N. Levantine mainlanders. They possessedthe skill, desire and inter-generational transmission ofknowledge to employ the naviform technology for craft-ing blades (Briois et al. 1997; McCartney and Gratuze2003). Technology transfer is an embedded processinvolving relations between expert and novice, and henceit is appropriate to infer movement of people onto theisland. Choice of technique, implying learned motorskills and the necessary social incentives, was allied toproduction of prestige mainland items, Byblos and Amuqpoints. They occur infrequently on Cyprus, and so pro-duction was more for status than function. Knapperssearched for familiar translucent cherts which were muchscarcer than the poorer quality opaques of later, Cypro-LPPNB production. McCartney and Briois (above) havelisted many other Levantine chipped stone traditions

such as glossed pieces, unidirectional pressure techniquesand types of obsidian used on the island. Import ofAnatolian obsidian is typical of the wider Levantine PPNinteracion sphere.

Other continental features repeated on the island areovert symbols. Examples include feline, female and plas-ter figurines, locally made polished stone macehead,stone “baton”, and small, often flat, stones incised withhatched and other designs. There is also evidence forsecondary skull removal and reburial (Peltenburg 2003:92-95).

Although later in time, the hierarchical layout of Cypro-LPPNB Tenta, with a proliferation of small buildings onslopes below a dominant central structure some 3-6 timestheir size, has the same spatial organisation as at Jerf elAhmar in N. Syria (Todd 1987: Fig. 20; Stordeur andAbbès 2002). The Tenta plan is the last of a sequence inwhich the earlier central buildings were larger, one withred painted floor. Its circular buildings belong to a tra-dition now known to exist in the earliest Shillourokamboslevels (Guilaine and Briois 2001: 41), so Tenta’s analo-gous arrangement of social space may have a long his-tory. The settlement was enclosed, a practice also attest-ed in N. Syria, as at Halula.

Other, more explicitly functional items of material cul-ture demonstrate the extent to which islanders adheredto mainland lifestyles: grooved stones, notched pebbles,stone disc, hammerstones and techniques of bone-work-

Introductory Note on the Dialogue

As outlined in the editorial of Neo-Lithics 1/03, the newDialogue section in this newsletter aims to promote thenecessary exchange on topics that are vital for eitherconceptual / theoretical progress or for the understand-ing of research results that might have the potential tomake us rethink positions we have held hitherto. Suchdialogues – planned to be presented regularly in Neo-Lithics – should start with a pointed or provocative state-ment on a new or controversial topic submitted by oneresearcher, like the clear-cut notes on PPN Cyprus EdgarPeltenburg has written for this issue. The editors for-warded Peltenburg’s paper to twelve colleagues, all ofthem specialists in certain aspects of the subject under dis-cussion. They were invited to reply by writing a short

comment or critique. Eight scholars responded positivelyto our letter of invitation, and six finally agreed to par-ticipate in the discussion. The comments we receivedwere immediately sent to Edgar Peltenburg to give himthe chance to answer or even reconsider his theses.Peltenburg’s final statement arrived by the end of April.All comments were taken into consideration, with thesole exception of the one by Le Brun which arrived onlyafter Peltenburg had departed for fieldwork in Syria.

On the pages below the reader now may follow this dia-logue on PPN Cyprus as it developed among the authors.

For a next Dialogue section, we invite our readers topropose topics they consider necessary to promoteresearch, understanding, and exchange in the Near EasternNeolithic.

Jürgen Baumgarten

Neo-Lithics 1/04 3

Dialogue

Cyprus: A Regional Component of the Levantine PPN

Edgar PeltenburgUniversity of Edinburgh

ing. Robust and influential contacts with neighbouringregions were maintained, as is evident from the recur-rence of obsidian imports, the early developments of thechipped stone industry in line with mainland trajecto-ries and the likelihood of multiple replenishments ofanimals (Horwitz et al. 2004). The decline in obsidian andincreasing preference for opaque raw material for chippedstone after c. 7500 cal BC provide a terminus for a sig-nificant role for Cyprus within the Levantine PPN.

Earlier groups from the North Levant

Cypro-PPNB buildings are predominantly circular, manyof them with over-sized pillars and piers recalling theirmore elaborate forebears at Göbekli and other mainlandsites. Both the Tenta layout and circular buildings, there-fore, are retentions of PPNA built environments. Severallines of evidence suggest that they are the result of ear-lier human occupation on the island. First, McCartney haspointed to the persistence of PPNA chipped stone tradi-tions in Cypro-PPNB assemblages. Second, there is clearevidence that the earliest occupants of Mylouthkia 1A andEarly A Shillourokambos had detailed information onwater sources (wells tapping underground streams atMylouthkia) and varied local resources like red ochreand picrolite, knowledge that implies earlier presence.Third, the variety of faunal taxa in the earliest depositsat Shillourokambos and Mylouthkia indicates a lengthyperiod for these animals to have become established.Taken together, we may infer the existence of earlier cul-tivator-herders with close affinities to the northernLevantine PPNA. There are no signs in Cyprus of theagglutinative architecture of central Anatolia.

A regional Mediterranean facies of the PPN

In spite of restricted evidence, observations can be madeabout Cypro-PPNB communities. Some were sedentaryor semi-sedentary as early as the mid-9th millenniumcal BC according to material from the fill of well 116 atMylouthkia. It included constructional matter such aswhite and red smoothed daub with timber impressions,ecofactual data pointing to fishing and farming at dif-ferent seasons and remains of the house mouse, an intro-duced commensal regarded by some as a strong markerof permanent occupation. The well itself, both in termsof concept and labour (min. 6.25 m3 volume of soilremoval), also suggests a degree of permanence. OtherCypro-PPNB wells at Mylouthkia and Shillourokamboshave no contemporary mainland parallels and so theyare a regionally distinctive facet developed to contendwith drought and water retention problems inMediterranean environments.

Other local features include the the long-lived circu-lar residential architecture, a form often equated withhunters and herders of the marginal, desert zones. There

are probably social reasons for its persistence, but it isthe case that the Cypriot subsistence economy was heav-ily focussed on deer hunting and management (Croft1991). Recent data from the mainland now suggests thatwhat was regarded as a uniquely insular procurementstrategy may be part of a long-lived mainland tradition.Üçağızlı Mağarası, a cave on the coast opposite Cyprus,has a faunal assemblage very close to that of the PPNisland: goat, deer, cattle, pig, as well as dog, fox and cat(Güleç et al. 2002: 262, Table 3). The high proportion ofdeer is particularly noteworthy in this context, not leastbecause deer are barely evident in the wider northernLevantine corridor that supplies so many material cultureparallels for the insular PPN (cf. von den Driesch andPeters 2001). The Upper Palaeolithic cave deposits aremuch earlier, of course, but taxa proportions there raisethe possibility of a Syro-Cilician tradition of intensivedeer exploitation ancestral to the tenacious Cypriot biastowards a deer economy tailored to a similar Medi-terranean environment.

There are also reasons to suggest that coastal dwellersof Syro-Cilicia were instrumental in communicationswith the island. Only they had the local expertise for ini-tial seagoing enterprises, coupled with an awareness ofthe arable potentials of Cyprus. Once established,Cypriots would also have engaged in this maritime inter-action. So, features which today we think of as pecu-liarly insular may well have been part of a wider Syro-Cilician facies of the PPN. This could be tested byinvestigation of suitable sites on the mainland.

If Syro-Cilicia supplied the fauna (cf. Vigne et al. 1999:55 for Cilicia), domestic-type cereals of the type foundin well 116 at Mylouthkia, may also have existed there.AMS dates of c. 8500 cal BC from barley and two othercereal seeds provide a terminus ante quem for the exis-tence of this package in Syro-Cilicia (Peltenburg et al.2003: 59-71, 83-85). The northern Levantine corridor,often regarded as the core area for the earliest agricul-turists, is not just too distant, it has an unconvincingdonor pedigree. In spite of the earlier occurrence of thesame (wild) types of cereals there, its record of domes-tic crops is discontinuous (e.g. Willcox 2002) and nocontemporary site has yielded a package of domesticcrops as at Mylouthkia 1A. If, as seems likely, associat-ed farming practices derive from the mainland, they donot seem to have come from the Corridor. Dispersal,even by patch jumping, is unlikely from that area. Twoobservations follow. First, it increases the likelihood ofmulti-centric origins for the domestication of crops (cf.Jones and Brown 2000). Second, we need a paradigmshift to recognise that autonomous transitions from for-aging to farming took place outside the corridor. Itsalleged exclusivity is more a reflection of current field-work than past reality.

The chronology of Mylouthkia 1A domestic-type seedsplaces Cyprus at the forefront of a commitment to a farm-

4 Neo-Lithics 1/04

ing lifestyle. It is assumed that, of the wild progenitors,only barley existed on the island and that hence othercultigens were introduced. In circumstances where sta-ples may have been scarce, greater effort would havebeen paid to obtaining maximum yields from meagrestocks of morphologically domestic seedcorn initiallyimported from neighbouring regions. Such adaptive pres-sure would have clearly shown the advantages of agri-culture.

Immigrationist, indigenist and integrationistexplanations

To this point, discussion has been predicated on the prob-ability of a migration of PPN farmer-herders to the islandaround the mid-9th millennium cal BC. They successfullycolonised territory where previously we only have evi-dence of groups at Akrotiri. And yet, the history of dis-covery of early human occupation on the island (Fig. 1)shows an inexorable extension back in time, narrowingthe gap between earlier hunter-foragers and colonists.In addition, migrants relied on pre-existing informationnetworks for knowledge of their goal, so the likeliestimplication is that visitors or settlers will eventually fillthe remaining occupational gap in Fig. 1.

Such groups faced sustenance problems. With few, ifany, megafauna available, they faced a scarcity of endem-ic subsistence resources. People associated with the lastlevels at Akrotiri were reduced to shellfish and birds(Simmons et al. 1999: 170-178, 323). Relying on ethno-graphic, morphometric and age, sex and skeletal elementrepresentation evidence, Horwitz, Tchernov and Hongo(2004) propose that wild animals were intentionallyreleased on the island to serve as food sources. This couldhave been done by hunting parties during and after thegap, at a time when some argue that long-distance hunt-ing intensified in the Levant (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen1989: 64) and we encounter efforts to tame landscapes.The varied spectrum of translocated animals — dog,

goat, sheep, fallow deer, pig and cattle — during the later9th millennium cal BC is better interpreted as the resultof a lengthy process than a Noah’s ark of introductions.

An outstanding question, one germane to processes ofNeolithisation, is whether domestication was undertak-en by indigenous hunter-gatherers, colonist farmers orboth. I addressed the indigenist / immigrationist debatein Peltenburg et al. 2003: 93-99 and concluded that avail-able evidence favoured migrant farmers who, however,were part of a longer process of colonisation. At a recentconference, Watkins (2004) hypothesized that complex,sedentary hunter-gatherer islanders brought over plantsand animals which, by dint of close management, devel-oped the morphological traits of domestication. Wildwheat at Shillourokambos, beyond its natural habitat,could support the argument. This version of Binford’sMarginal Zone Hypothesis sees human groups artifi-cially producing stands of grain that characterised opti-mal zones. In other words, islanders independently invent-ed agriculture. We need to find sites to demonstrate thissince Akrotiri shows no signs of complexity, sedentismor an evolution towards the intensification of food pro-curement. If eventually sustained by the evidence, theindigenist explanation would be an interesting excep-tion to the general observation that complex, sedentaryhunter-gatherers existed in areas of resource abundance.

To identify Cyprus as a primary or secondary Neolithiccentre is too categorical. The situation seems much moredynamic than suggested by these totalising models. Forexample, Early Holocene rising sea levels caused eco-logical stress in a variety of palaeoplains at differenttimes, creating population increases in areas not subjectto inundation. In these circumstances, hunter-gatherersmay have been motivated to stock the island with animalsand to stay there for increasing amounts of time. Werethey exclusively the ancestors of the Cypro-PPNB, how-ever, adaptive processes would have led to the occur-rence of far more insular traits than are evident. The suiteof mainland features described above suggests that therewere also significant influxes of PPN farmers. In thisreconstruction, colonisation is regarded as a long-termprocess with successes, reversals and mixed adaptiveadjustments as indicated by the chequered history of cat-tle and the hybrid nature of chipped stone industries. Anintegrationist explanation in which groups lived on eitherside of the Klidhes straits and there was a continuum ofpopulation transfers of deer-focused Syro-Cilician hunter-gatherers and farmers is most likely (Fig. 2).

Cyprus provides some of the most detailed evidenceavailable for Neolithic dispersals: purposive, highlyorganised, risky and prolonged movements of people,managed animals and seedcorn. Rather than treat it asan anomaly, we should consider it as a model for a wide-spread Neolithic phenomenon. While it is not the resultof a “spirit of the crusade” (Cauvin 2000: 208), an his-torically contingent expansionary ethos is evident. This

Neo-Lithics 1/04 5

5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

years cal BC

2000

1990

1980

1960

dates AD

Fig. 1. Temporal revisions in the later 20th century AD of evidence for human occupation on Cyprus.

driving force was probably energised by the underlying,reflexive developments of sedentism, cultivation, landtenure and property, leading to territorial acquisition.

Summary

1. Cyprus constituted another region of the LevantinePPNB interaction sphere;

2. The genesis of much of its Neolithic population wasin the Syro-Cilician zone;

3. Its farming economy emphasizes the pre-eminenceof the North Levant in adopting agriculture and itprovides clues on the character of the PPNB in theSyro-Cilician zone;

4. AMS dating of Mylouthkia domesticates provides aterminus ante quem of c. 8500 cal BC for the adop-tion of a farming regime by some communities;

5. The early dates favour multi-centric hotspots for theshift to food production economies;

6. Core areas for the agricultural transition existed out-side the Levantine Corridor;

7. The Cypriot subsistence economy, which is differentfrom other parts of SW Asia (mixed, deer-focused),calls for regional histories of agricultural origins;

8. Long-distance, repeated maritime translocation andpenning of animals in the 9th millennium cal BChighlights the need for animal-specific (e.g. fox fordress etc.), multi-site approaches to studies of “pre-domestic” fauna and pro-active policies of appropri-ating stock;

9. This case postulates migration of both cultivators andfarmers;

10.Cyprus gradually dropped out of the Levantine inter-action sphere after c. 7500 cal BC.

References

Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A.1989 The Levantine ‘PPNB’ Interaction Sphere.

In Hershkovitz (ed.) 1989: 59-72.

Briois F., Gratuze B. and Guilaine J.1997 Obsidiennes du site Néolithique Précéramique de

Shillourokambos (Chypre). Paléorient 23: 95-112.

6 Neo-Lithics 1/04

Fig. 2 Integrationist model for interactions between Cyprus and Syro-Cilicia in the PPNA-B

EXPLORATION: hunter-gatherer visitors; stocking theisland with game

COLONISATION (i): cultivator-hunters stay for more prolongedperiods

COLONISATION (ii): farmerssettle optimal niches

CONSOLIDATION: successfulestablishment with strongPPNA-B features and insularadaptations, but no residualhunter-gatherer traits

EXPANSION: settlementsbeyond coastal regions

CYPRUSKLIDHES STRAITS

60-100 kmSYRO-CILICIA

Cyp

ro -

PP

NB

Farmers with stocks of seeds andmanaged animals

Return visits to replenish stocks

PPNA

PPNB

Anatolian obsidian exchanges

Cauvin J. 2000 The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture.

Translated by T. Watkins. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Croft P. 1991 Man and Beast in Chalcolithic Cyprus. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 282/3: 63-79.

Gopher A. 1989 Diffusion Process in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant: The

case of the Helwan Point. In Hershkovitz 1989: 91-105.

Guilaine J. and Briois F.2001 Parekklisha Shillourokambos. An Early Neolithic Site in

Cyprus. In S. Swiny (ed.), The Earliest Prehistory ofCyprus: From Colonization to Exploitation: 37-53.American Schools of Oriental Research, ArchaeologicalReport 5. Boston.

Güleç E., Kuhn S. and Stiner M.2002 2000 Excavation at Üçağızlı Cave. Kazı Sonuçlari

Toplantısı 23.1: 255-264.

Hershkovitz I. (ed.)1989 People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second

Symposium on Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and NeolithicPopulations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.British Archaeological Reports, International Series 508.Oxford: B.A.R.

Horwitz L., Tchernov E. and Hongo H.2004 The domestic status of the early Neolithic fauna of Cyprus:

A view from the mainland. In Peltenburg and Wasse (eds.)2004.

Jones M. and Brown T.2000 Agricultural origins: the evidence of modern and ancient

DNA. The Holocene 10.6: 769-776.

McCartney C. and Gratuze B.2003 The Chipped Stone. In Peltenburg et al. 2003: 11-34.

Peltenburg E. et al.2003 The Colonisation and Settlement of Cyprus: Investigations

at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996. (LembaArchaeological Project, Cyprus III.1). Studies inMediterranean Archaeology 70:4. Sävedalen, ÅströmsFörlag.

Peltenburg E. and Wasse A. (eds.) 2004 Neolithic Revolution: New perspectives on southwest Asia

in light of recent discoveries on Cyprus. Oxford: Oxbow.

Simmons A.H. and Associates 1999 Faunal Extinction in an Island Society: Pygmy

Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus. New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

Stordeur D. and Abbès F.2002 Du PPNA au PPNB: mise en lumière d’une phase de

transition à Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la SociétéPréhistorique Française 99: 563-595.

Vigne J.-D., Buitenhuis H. and Davis S.1999 Les premiers pas de la domestication animal à l’ouest de

l’Euphrate: Chypre et l’Anatolie centrale. Paléorient 25:49-62.

von den Driesch A. and Peters J.2001 Früheste Haustierhaltung in der Südosttürkei. In R.

Boehmer and J. Maran (eds.), Lux Orientis. Archäologiezwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für HaraldHauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag: 113-119. InternationaleArchäologie. Studia honoraria 12. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

Watkins T. 2004 Putting the colonization of Cyprus into context. In

Peltenburg and Wasse (eds.) 2004.

Willcox G. 2002 Geographical variation in major cereal components and

evidence for independent domestication events in WesternAsia. In R. Cappers and S. Bottema (eds.), The Dawn ofFarming in the Near East. Studies in the Near EasternProduction, Subsistence, and Environment 6: 133-140.Berlin: ex oriente.

Neo-Lithics 1/04 7

Archaeological research in Cyprus over the last 10 yearshas resulted in a re-evaluation of commonly held posi-tions on the timing of the peopling of this island, the eco-nomic context under which different Cypriot economicsystems were based, and the extent to which these arerelated to the cultural practices and movement of peoplefrom the southern Levant or Anatolia. Stimulated byGopher (1989), and clearly building upon the work ofBar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen (1989), Peltenburg arguesthat the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) of the Levant canbe viewed as a single cultural system stretching from theMiddle Euphrates to the southern Sinai, and most impor-tantly for this discussion, should include Cyprus. In mak-ing this argument Peltenburg cites a range of similar cul-tural practices (such as secondary mortuary practices),architecture (including the presence of long-lived cir-cular residential architecture and location of structures),as well as material practices (including the importationof Anatolian obsidian).

I agree wholeheartedly with Peltenburg that active dis-cussion of the possible biological, economic and socialinterrelationships between Cyprus and the broader NearEast is overdue and that there is tantalizing evidence forconnections between Cyprus and the southern Levant.However, our opinions diverge as to how we shouldapproach this discussion as well as the material corre-lates for social interaction and cultural identity. I am, forexample, concerned that Peltenburg compresses datafrom different periods in a way that seriously undermineshis main comparative argument. This is seen multipletimes with his treatment of architecture from differentregions. For example, he links the spatial organization ofCypro-LPPNB Tenta with that of Jerf el-Ahmar, but hedoes not really substantiate this argument. Similarly, heargues that the Tenta layout and circular buildings are“retentions of PPNA built environments”. He does not,however, provide alternative linking data, suggestingthat the organization at Tenta may have a long history.This important argument is not explored or supported inhis paper, nor has he made a case for cultural linkagewith this example.

As another example, Peltenburg implies a further cul-tural connection when he remarks “…more explicitlyfunctional items of material culture demonstrate the

extent to which islanders adhered to mainland lifestyles.”The implied intellectual connection is that functionaltools reflect cultural interconnections and the importanceof a mainland lifestyle. I find this a weak argument. Theitems listed by Peltenburg are functional tools, and I failto see why these represent unique traits characteristic ofmainland lifestyles rather than the presence of similarfunctional tools developed independently. Again, myconcern here is not with the broader point Peltenburgmakes – that there were significant interconnectionsbetween Cyprus and the people of other areas – so muchas the weak nature of this argument and the limited con-sideration of the implications of this process.

In several sections of his essay Peltenburg returns toa discussion of regional comparative data, and he exploresthe implications of material and cultural similaritiesbetween Cyprus and the Levant. He raises an interest-ing point when he argues that the process of culturalexchange and interaction is likely to have been muchgreater in the past than is reflected in the archaeologi-cal record. This is, of course, a comment that can prob-ably be made of almost any period of time, but it is impor-tant to keep this in mind when addressing broaderarguments for links between Cyprus and the Levant.

From my perspective the major question that arisesfrom Peltenburg’s article is not if Cyprus constitutedanother region of the Levantine PPNB interaction sphere;rather, the critical question is much broader: how shouldarchaeologists modify/define the Levantine PPNB inter-action sphere in light of the considerable amount ofarchaeological research that has been conducted since1989 when Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen published theirarguments for a PPNB interaction sphere? Moreover,how does this fit with other syntheses, such as those byCauvin (2000) and Kuijt and Goring-Morris (2002)?The large number of excavations over the last 15 yearshas dramatically altered our understanding of the spa-tial distribution of archaeological sites of this period,their associated material culture, and the degree to whichsocial, economic and ritual practices were shared amongthese communities. These projects have highlighted thatthere is considerable variation in social and economicpractices within single regions, as well as between theseregions that are largely subsumed within the context of

8 Neo-Lithics 1/04

Dialogue

Cyprus as a Regional Neolithic Entity: Do Researchers Need to Revisit the Concept of the Levantine PPNBInteraction Sphere?

Ian KuijtDepartment of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame

the Levantine PPNB interaction sphere. From this per-spective, therefore, I think that it is necessary to ask howthis new body of research leads us to re-evaluate the util-ity and breadth of the concept of a Levantine PPNB inter-action sphere before assigning a new designation.

Finally, I want to make a few observations about theunique nature of Neolithic past, how these have the poten-tial to inform researchers working in other areas of theNear East, and how we as archaeologists encapsulate theperceived interrelationships between Cyprus and theNear East. As noted by Peltenburg, and explored in detailin a wide-range of other publications, it appears that theprocesses of colonization and contact by Neolithic com-munities in Cyprus with other neighboring areas wereboth extensive and highly complex. As a case study,research in Cyprus has the unique potential to help usunderstand what is going on in other areas of the NearEast. As a geographically separate land mass separatedfrom the mainland, the study of the Cypriot Neolithichas the potential to inform scholars about broader issuesof prehistoric trade and exchange, social networks, andregionalism in the Near East, as well as more specificregional questions.

How, then, are we to discuss and label the similaritiesand differences between Cyprus and neighboring areas?It is interesting in this regard to see that Peltenburg isuncomfortable labeling Cyprus as a primary or second-ary Neolithic centre. He argues that these labels are toocategorical, as the island situation is more dynamic thansuggested by these totalizing models. I strongly agreewith Peltenburg: everything we know about NeolithicCyprus indicates a fascinating interweaving of complexsocial, economic, and probably political interrelation-ships between people living on Cyprus and in other near-by areas. At the same time I would argue that in someways his argument that Cyprus be constituted as anoth-er region of the Levantine PPNB interaction sphere rep-resents a call to membership of an even broader totaliz-ing model: that of the Levantine PPNB interaction sphere.

Putting aside the issues of labeling and totalizing, Ithink that there are two questions being presented here.First, how can archaeologists highlight elements of sharedcultural practices within a geographical region during a

specific period of time, and simultaneously remain sen-sitive to local variation in material culture, social prac-tices, and economic systems? Second, what evidence isthere for membership in and a broader cultural identitywith these areas? While in need of further developmentand evaluation, Peltenburg’s proposal to broaden the dis-cussion of the Levantine PPNB interaction sphere hasthe potential to engage researchers in this debate. WhileI am sympathetic to the broader regional comparativedirection of his paper, it is necessary to point out that thearchaeological exploration of eastern Mediterraneanregional interconnections is still in its infancy.Collectively, Peltenburg’s discussion provides a valu-able initial step in directing attention towards the ques-tions of how archaeologists should define the PPNBLevantine interaction sphere, and just as importantly,how researchers should compare cultural similaritiesfrom different regions in a way that is sensitive to localvariation and the evolutionary process.

References

Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A.1989 The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere. In I.

Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change:Proceedings of the Second Symposium on UpperPaleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations ofEurope and the Mediterranean Basin, British ArchaeologyReports, International Series 508: 59-72. Oxford: B.A.R.

Cauvin J. 2000 The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture.

Translated by T. Watkins. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gopher A. 1989 Diffusion Process in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant: The

case of the Helwan Point. In Hershkovitz (ed.), People andCulture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposiumon Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and NeolithicPopulations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin,British Archaeology Reports, International Series 508: 91-105. Oxford: B.A.R.

Kuijt I. and Goring-Morris N.2002 Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-

Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review andSynthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 361-440.

Neo-Lithics 1/04 9

L’installation sur l’île de Chypre d’un peuplement stableet permanent semble marquée du sceau de la fatalité, dumoins dans les deux scénarios les plus élaborés proposéspour en rendre compte. Dans l’un, défendu par N. StanleyPrice (1977) il y a près de 30 ans, ce serait la détériora-tion des conditions climatiques, correspondant au «hia-tus palestinien», qui aurait poussé les hommes à s’em-barquer pour Chypre. Dans l’autre que présenteaujourd’hui Edgar Peltenburg, l’élévation du niveau dela mer est invoquée comme l’une des causes possibles.Cette nouvelle version de l’Arche de Noé, qu’on le veuilleou non, voit donc des populations sinistrées ou menacéespar la montée des eaux céder à ce que l’on peut nommerle « syndrome de Gribouille », selon le nom du hérosd’un livre pour enfants, qui se jette dans une mare pouréviter de se faire mouiller par la pluie. Sans doute ceshommes avaient-ils estimé que seuls les rivages conti-nentaux pouvaient être touchés par cette catastrophe etqu’il était beaucoup plus sûr d’aller se réfugier sur uneterre déjà entourée par l’eau.

Quoi qu’il en soit, l’origine continentale du Néolithiquepré-céramique chypriote est indéniable, la fouille deShillourokambos l’a amplement démontré. Mais faut-ilpour autant reprendre en la naturalisant en Cypro-EPPNB,Cypro-MPPNB et Cypro-LPPNB, une nomenclature uti-lisée sur le continent et lourdement connotée? Outre lefait d’employer un terme qui est source de confusion,c’est aussi gommer les anachronismes et les particular-ismes régionaux. Un tel choix laisse en effet entendreque Chypre évolue au même rythme d’un continent qui,lui-même, évoluerait dans sa totalité du même pas. OrPeltenburg (cf. plus haut) place vers 7500 cal. BC lemoment où Chypre se différencie du continent, maisailleurs il souligne que dès après 8000 cal. BC, c’est-à-dire dès après la phase nommée « Cypro-EPPNB », aucuninflux continental important n’intervient (Peltenburg etal. 2003 : 102). Aussi la périodisation alternative présen-tée par Peltenburg (ibid.: 87, table 11.3) me semble-t-elle préférable qui ne fait appel qu’au terme deNéolithique pré-céramique chypriote pour recouvrir unepériode où trois phases : ancienne, moyenne et récente,sont distinguées.

Parmi les traits qui distinguent Chypre du continentfigure en bonne place la persistance du plan circulaireet, par voie de conséquence, l’organisation de la sociétéqui sous-tend ce type de plan, la maison étant autant faitepour dominer un milieu physique que pour mettre en

ordre un environnement social. Une telle persistanceconduit d’ailleurs à s’interroger sur la lecture de ce quePeltenburg nomme « overt symbols», car, dans le mondedes symboles, tout est culturel et doit se comprendre parrapport à la société qui en fait usage, à un moment donnéde son histoire et dans un contexte précis. S’appuyantsur le lien noté dans les marges désertiques entre archi-tecture circulaire et chasseurs-éleveurs, Peltenburg pro-pose de voir l’une des causes de cette persistance dansle rôle important joué dans l’économie de subsistancechypriote par la chasse et le contrôle des daims deMésopotamie. Mais est-il pertinent de transposer àChypre, dans un milieu insulaire, un modèle observéailleurs dans un autre environnement, dans un milieudésertique ? Il faudrait en outre d’autres documents pourillustrer l’importance du daim au début du Néolithiquechypriote, car si cet animal est bien présent àShillourokambos dès les niveaux anciens, il n’apparaîtà Mylouthkia qu’à la période IB, c’est-à-dire auNéolithique pré-céramique moyen (ibid.). Quant auNéolithique pré-céramique récent, la séquence deKhirokitia montre pour sa part une diminution régulièredu pourcentage des daims, de 44% au niveau D à 9% auniveau I, qui est parallèle à l’augmentation de celui desmoutons/chèvres : 30% au niveau D et 82% au niveau I(Davis 1994: 306-7, table 1).

La vieille opposition entre « colonising hypothesis »et « antecedent hypothesis » n’est pas résolue. Elle s’esttransportée sur un nouveau terrain, celui de la domesti-cation des plantes et des animaux. Mais le manque d’unedocumentation plus large se fait là cruellement sentir.Cette lacune concerne aussi bien Chypre que le facièsméditerranéen du pré-céramique expert dans l’art de lanavigation, dont propose Peltenburg l’existence et qu’ilm’est d’autant plus facile à accepter que j’en ai naguèreavancé l’idée (Le Brun 2001: 116-7). Cette expertise, dureste, ne laisse pas de surprendre, car le bassin orientalde la Méditerranée est vide de toute île à l’exception dela seule Chypre, et ne présente pas les conditions les plusfavorables pour inciter à pratiquer la navigation en hautemer.

Une meilleure connaissance de ce faciès, mais ausside ce qui se passe entre l’Euphrate et la côte méditer-ranéenne devient urgente. Ces données nouvelles per-mettraient d’évaluer le Néolithique pré-céramique chypri-ote avec une plus grande rigueur qu’il n’est maintenantpossible en l’absence d’une référence dépourvue des dis-

10 Neo-Lithics 1/04

Dialogue

Brèves remarques sur une longue histoire

Alain Le Brun CNRS – UMR, Nanterre

torsions qu’impose la distance. Certains traits particuliers,certaines réminiscences pourraient alors trouver leurexplication.

Bibliographie

Davis S.J.M. 1994 Even more bones from Khirokitia : The 1988-1991 exca-

vations. In A. Le Brun (dir.) Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia(Chypre), 1988-1991: 307-333. Paris, Erc.

Le Brun A.2001 At the Other End of the Sequence: The Cypriot Aceramic

as seen from Khirokitia. In S. Swiny (ed.), The EarliestPrehistory of Cyprus: From Colonization to Exploitation:109-118. American Schools of Oriental Research,Archaeological Report 5. Boston.

Peltenburg E. et al.2003 The Colonization and Settlement of Cyprus. Investigations

at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996. (LembaArchaeological Project, Cyprus III.1). Studies inMediterranean Archaeology 70:4. Sävedalen, AströmsFörlag.

Stanley Price N.1977 Khirokitia and the Initial Settlement of Cyprus, Levant 9:

66-89.

Considering the inflow of extensive new data pouringin, not only from Cyprus but from all over the Near East,the report by Peltenburg on the Neolithic of Cyprus is amost welcome and timely overview. It is thus evidentthat the time has come to revise our perceptions. With thispaper, Peltenburg is not only bringing in a comprehen-sive overview of the recent evidence from Cyprus, buthe is also listing his arguments and is opening up a stim-ulating discussion that will greatly help in drawing a newpicture. Even though we fully agree with most of theissues mentioned in the paper, there are evidently somepoints that need to be further elaborated.

One of the prime concerns of Peltenburg is to includeCyprus in the core area of the Neolithic formation zone,which is perfectly all right. However, if we are trying toreformulate or to revise biases left over from the incip-ient years of research on PPN, this should be done with-out falling into new traps. In developing new defini-tions, the general picture that is now emerging shouldnot be overlooked. Thus, adding or subtracting isolatedpatches of territories to the conventional core area of theNeolithic would not help in reforming our view. At thispoint, it is now evident that the term “Levantine”, whetherCyprus is included or not, falls short of defining the form-ative zone of the Neolithic.

Recent work in Syria and in Turkey has revealed clearevidence that, even in its incipient stage, the formativezone of the Neolithic was not restricted to the Levant,but to the east it extended at least up to the catchment

area of the Tigris. The chain of intermountain plainslying to the north of the eastern Taurus range, like theflatlands in Syria, are now within the prime area of theNeolithic. Likewise, the Central Anatolian plateau, whichuntil recently was considered as an area of secondaryNeolithization, during the last decade, has also beenrevealing early assemblages. In this respect, the evidenceof the Kaletepe obsidian workshop, with an assemblageyield of tools and cores prepared solely for “export” tothe south, strongly implies that the interaction betweenthe Anatolian plateau and the Levant was much moreactive than we had ever envisaged. Accordingly, it wouldbe much more realistic to eliminate the notion of“Levantine Neolithic” rather than revising it. What weshould use to replace it is yet another question; perhapsuntil someone can find a better geographic term, we canuse the term “Near Eastern Neolithic.”

The question concerning the origins of CypriotNeolithic is, in our view, still open. Peltenburg’s argu-mentation for the northern parts of the Levant as the pos-sible homeland of the Neolithic settlements in Cyprusis based on certain analogies between the two regions.However, as also noted by Peltenburg, it is possible to findsome other traits in Cyprus that do not match with anyof the Neolithic assemblages. In this respect, trying tolook for a single region to be the koiné of CypriotNeolithic might again be the wrong approach; it seemspossible that there might well be multiple regions of ori-gin. In understanding the “Neolithic phenomenon” we

Neo-Lithics 1/04 11

Dialogue

Cyprus: A Regional Component of the Levantine PPN

Mehmet ÖzdoğanEdebiyat Fakültesi, Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı, Istanbul Universitesi

should bear in mind that there was an active and inten-sive interaction through all of the Neolithic formativezone. We should bear in mind that during the Pre-PotteryNeolithic period interaction between distinct regions wasin a different mode than what we are used to from laterperiods. In the later periods inter-regional action wasusually on a linear tract, connecting the center to per-iphery. However in the PPN it is evident that therewas a poly-centric interaction, from all places to all oth-ers.

Accordingly, we should avoid thinking in terms of col-onization models to bring initial settlers from any par-ticular point along the Mediterranean coast. In this respect,it is worth recalling that due to the rise in global sea lev-els since the PPN, we are missing all coastal sites of theepoch. However, as clearly demonstrated by the distri-bution of Melos obsidian, by 12,000 BC at the latestthere was active maritime activity. Thus, it seems pos-sible to suggest the presence of a “coastal – or maritimeNeolithic” for which we do not know any details. Thatwould support the proposal of Peltenburg that there might

still be earlier human occupations on the island thanthose recovered.

The persistence of circular buildings on the island mayalso be a feature of the hypothetical “maritime Neolithic”.In this respect, we were always intrigued by the simi-larity between the round buildings of basal Hoca Çeşmeand of Cypriot remains. Of course, we are fully aware ofthe great geographical distance separating Hoca Çeşmeand Cyprus and the lack of any other contemporary sitesin between. However, the lack of coastal sites in theAegean, or along the coastal strip of western Anatolia,may also be taken as an indicator of missing sites.

Other than the above remarks, I fully agree with allother statements made by Peltenburg; particularly point-ing to the questioning of whether Cyprus should be con-sidered as an area of primary or secondary Neolithization.It now seems evident that the emergence of a new wayof life was the result of an inciting stimulus through avast territory, extending from the Central Anatolianplateau to the southern fringes of the Levant to the Zagroshighlands, not excluding Cyprus.

For decades Cyprus has stood out as a Neolithic orphanwith a cultural system of such unclear parentage that itmight as well have dropped in from the moon. Recently,pre-Khirokitia periods of occupation have been identi-fied, including one contemporaneous with the PPN ofthe mainland. The situation that Peltenburg confronts, itseems, is the determination of how much “cultural DNA”there might be between PPN Cyprus and the northernmargins of the Mediterranean coast (and interior, includ-ing Anatolia), with forebears from the central part of theLevant, and what degree of kinship may have existedwith the southern Levant.

To begin, I would question the easy reference to a “sin-gle cultural system stretching from the Middle Euphratesto the southern Sinai”, as Gopher put it 15 years ago. Tomy reckoning, there are some major differences as oneproceeds from eastern Anatolia down to the Red Sea,and while there are undeniably some threads of closesimilarity that loosely bind the region in a slackly wrappedpackage, I also think the differences one sees from sub-region to sub-region are very important during the entire-ty of the PPN period. Acknowledging that the eastern

Mediterranean region is not one large series of rubber-stamped cultural issues, it is not surprising that it is notan easy objective to identify the principal contributors toCypriot Neolithization.

Peltenburg notes that among the similarities with themainland there are the elements of shared naviform bladetechnology and “prestige” points, both of which argue forintense learning from people familiar with the proce-dures. (I am not convinced of the “prestige” characteraccorded to projectile points. At ‘Ain Ghazal, at least,very few of these “prestigious” Byblos and Amuq pointsescaped damage in the mundane activity of providingmeat for the family; nor were there any run-of-the-millprojectile point types that might be viewed as a sort ofhunting “coarse ware”). He also notes the presence ofexotic imports (obsidian), figurines, and decorated stones,but these are not necessarily parts of a PPN hegemonyimposed on populations in a newly colonized territory;the obsidian certainly demonstrates contact with PPNmainland populations, but that is all.

What is missing in all of this is what the resident pop-ulation that descended from the early 10th millennium

12 Neo-Lithics 1/04

Dialogue

Cultural Genealogies: Cyprus and Its Relationship to thePPN Mainland

Gary O. RollefsonDepartment of Anthropology, Whitman College, Walla Walla

hunter-gatherers did when confronted with boatloads ofPPN colonists, if that were indeed the case. Were thesenew people, artifacts and technologies, animals, and ideaswelcomed with open arms? Or was there a great deal ofskepticism, humoring, and even downright hostility?What filtering effects did the locals exact on what ele-ments were meaningful to them, and what kinds of syn-cretism were developed in those areas where assimila-tion was undertaken?

Fundamentally, we are at a loss in understanding thenature of contact between Cypriot populations and main-land populations simply because they are invisible onthe map. We have little idea (if any) of the sea-faringtendencies and skills of the island population (who cer-tainly must have been familiar with the rougher parts ofsea activities), and we are completely (?) in the dark con-cerning the coastal skills of mainland PPN groups, nomatter what part of the Mediterranean coast we mightmention. Littoral orientations are most likely to be foundmost intensively along PPN shorelines, but it is not clearwhere those 10th and 11th millennium cal BP beacheswere: PPNC Atlit Yam, south of Haifa, lies 10-12 mbelow modern sea level (Galili et al. 1993), and PotteryNeolithic sites along the beach at nearby Newe Yam arealso submerged. It would perhaps be profitable to inves-tigate whether, and to what degrees, coastal subsidencein this tectonically active coastline (from Cilicia to Gaza,and all around the island of Cyprus) may have occurred,and how the relationship of elevation and post-glacialrise in sea level may have played out. Was there, possi-bly, an extensive littoral PPN and PN adaptation, for

which we have only the Atlit and Newe Yam evidence?The close relationship of shoreline residents and theirfamiliarity with the sea would go a long way to explain-ing the success of what must have been repeated voy-ages in both directions, and it raises the question if thedirection of Neolithization was necessarily instigated bysailing groups leaving the mainland for the island; couldthe direction have been reversed, with sailors from Cypruspicking and choosing what they wanted to bring backwith them?

If there were marine-oriented groups on both the islandand the mainland coasts, the exchange from one to theother may reveal that “cultural filter” in operation shouldany submerged settlements be discovered from the appro-priate time. Such evidence would clarify the immigra-tionist, indigenist, and integrationist models thatPeltenburg has offered, and it would add a new dimen-sion to understanding Neolithization processes all throughthe Near East. While this might seem speculative, theAtlit Yam evidence argues that more intensive sea floorinvestigations along both the mainland and the easternparts of the Cypriot shores might be successful in resolv-ing some of the issues currently facing us in this part ofCyprus’ prehistory.

Reference

Galili E., Weinstein-Evron M., Hershkovitz I, Gopher A., KislevM., Lernau O. and Kolska-Horwitz L.

1993 Atlit-Yam: A Prehistoric Site on the Sea Floor Off theIsraeli Coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(2): 133-157.

The latest discoveries in Cyprus over the past severalyears not only prove that the dates from the island gofurther back than previously believed, but they alsoemphasize the importance of the Mediterranean islandsin ideological terms to peoples on the mainland. It isnow confirmed that a phase contemporaneous to thePPNA took place in Cyprus, even though it seems to bemore primitive than the Syro-Palestinian version, and amore recent phase, evident in the sites of Shillourokambos(Guilaine and Briois 2001) and Milouthkia (Peltenburg2003), corresponds to an early stage of the PPNB.

Furthermore, impressive discoveries about the EarlyHolocene took place not only in Cyprus, but also in theAegean during the 1990s, and they have yielded newevidence that superseded long-held views about the totalabsence of inhabitants on the islands. New informationverifies that the Aegean islands were not only inhabitedin pre-Neolithic times (Woodman 1990), but they alsoconstituted – even though bare today – complete ecosys-tems that could provide for adequate nutrition.

More specifically, two research programs that wereinitiated simultaneously in the early 1990s yielded the

Neo-Lithics 1/04 13

Dialogue

Cyprus, Aegean, and Near East During the PPN

Adamantios Sampson1 and Stella Katsarou21University of the Aegean, Rhodes 2Department of Speleology, Ministry of Culture, Athens

new information on the Aegean area; the first was under-taken at the Cyclops Cave on Youra Island in the NorthSporades in the northern Aegean, and the second on theCycladic island of Kythnos.

In the Cyclops Cave (Sampson 1998; Sampson et al.1998) consecutive undisturbed layers of habitation fromthe Early Holocene were unearthed, up to approximate-ly 3 m in thickness, under Neolithic deposits. The lithictypes comprise flakes, crescents and trapezoidalmicroliths from flint and obsidian. Of special interest isa collection of bone fish hooks. Finally, the food rem-nants contain plenty of shells and fish remains, bones ofbirds and wild animals, as well as suids and caprineswith signs of early domestication (Trantalidou 2003).

What is assumed from the overall study is that the cavewas used by a small group of active people with advancedknowledge in seafaring. As the marine environment ofthe islands in the region is in the centre of the Aegean,and this would necessarily mean deep waters, difficult searoutes and rough weather, despite the lower sea level atthe time. These people had probably developed an exten-sive range of contacts in the area, as observed in theirfamiliarity to the networks of obsidian transportationand know-how from Milos Island, and the typologicalaffinities between the Youra microliths and similar toolsfrom caves in southeastern Turkey (Yalcinkaya 1995;Sampson et al. 1998). The association of this group ofpeople to the Asia Minor side of the Aegean is of par-ticular importance, due to the observation that the inhab-itants of Youra, although partly based on fishing andhunting as a means of obtaining nutrition, were alreadyinvolved in domesticating pigs and caprines. This prac-tice was most likely carried out either in a pre-coloniz-ing stage or through contacts with inhabitants of the AsiaMinor coast while people still lived on Youra.

Human presence on Youra covers a long period of theHolocene, from the beginning of 9th millennium cal BCuntil the middle of 7th millennium cal. BC and typo-logically belongs to the Mesolithic. Nevertheless, thecharacteristic of early domestication on Youra, alreadypresent in the lower layers, adds a pre-ceramic charac-ter to the site and thus could place it as a marginal pointin the spheres of PPNA and PPNB, which chiefly pertainto the areas of Upper Euphrates and Syro-Palestine.Cyprus, thus, enlarges the area geographically, and theAegean even more, even though the gap created by theabsence of analogous sites in western Anatolia has notbeen bridged so far.

Within this area, Youra offers a number of similaritiesto the nuclear zone (Upper Euphrates and Syro-Palestine),despite the geographical distance and the differencesbetween them regarding the complexity of symbolismin Asian sites and the periphery (Cyprus). Concerningthe nuclear zone, the presence of early domesticatedsuids at Youra shares common features with the con-temporary pig sites in the Upper Euphrates area in the

frontiers between Turkey and Syria, such as Hallan Çemi(Vigne and Buitenhuis 1999), where pigs – and notcaprines - are considered to be the first and oldest domes-ticated animal. On the other hand, the presence of recent-ly domesticated goats in Cyclops Cave during the Lowerand Upper Neolithic has equivalents in modern sites inthe northern Levant, where goat domestication had justbegun.

Additionally, the Cyclops Cave clearly shares com-mon characteristics with the Akrotiri phase of Cyprus,even though the latter is slightly earlier, at the border ofthe Epipalaeolithic period. The affinities between CyclopsCave and Aetokremnos (Simmons et al. 1999) are evi-dent as far as the type of the location (i.e., cave) and thecriteria of their selection in relation to the marine ecosys-tem (i.e., on steep seashores) are concerned, as well asthe contact with the ‘exterior’ aspect of the island (e.g.,view, maritime character of the location) and the ‘inte-rior’ (e.g., hunting areas, springs). But what is promi-nently common between the two sites is the tendencytowards the same survival means: namely, the inhabi-tants of both sites evidently employed efficient food-gathering and hunting techniques (Katsarou 2001). InYoura they specialized in fishing, while in Aetokremnosin the hunting of endemic pigmy mammals. Both groupsseem to make use of their sites as a central station thatprobably belonged to a larger network of locations, usedperiodically by hunters, who would move and stay moreor less permanently in each area according to its pecu-liarities. The expertise in hunting in both sites is alsoconfirmed by the strong localized idiosyncrasies, the ten-dency towards microlithic types, and the limited vari-ability in tools that are noted in the areas. Furthermore,hunting is considered to be a widespread common sur-vival method in the wider area of the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic and the PPNA. Finally, the domestication ofanimals, at a very early stage, is present in both sites –pigs are present also in Aetokremnos, but they representa lower rank source of food.

The site of Maroulas in Kythnos island in the Aegean(Sampson et al. 2002) comprises a settlement of roundhuts and burials that date from the same period as Youra(from 9th to 7th mill. cal BC) and presents early domes-tication of suids. Franchthi Cave in the eastern part ofGreek mainland (Perlès 1987) belongs to the same peri-od, but it does not offer signs of early domestication.The lithic industry of Maroulas provides evidence forthe site’s Mesolithic character, already known from thecase of Youra. The two sites seem to have more featuresin common, such as the coastal and dominating location,the marine character, and the hunting/food-gatheringeconomy that is chiefly attracted to sea resources.Maroulas, however, offers substantiation for the earlydomestication and new typological/cultural information,unparalleled in the Greek region, such as round or ellip-soid stone buildings, with pavements above burials.

14 Neo-Lithics 1/04

The new information from Kythnos gives rise to newcultural interrelations in the Aegean area, as was the casein Cyprus (Shillourokambos, Milouthkia) during the cor-responding phase. Of course, one cannot doubt the factthat during this period the settlements on Cyprus showeda clear preference for permanence and domestication ofanimals and plants with more complex forms of sym-bolism, and the Cypriot civilization clearly correspondsto the firmly established mainland PPNB. This does notoccur in the southern Aegean, where the economy is evi-dently not entirely Neolithic, but it seems likely that itwas influenced by the PPNB, which can be primarilyseen in the round forms of architecture as a Syro-Palestinian Epipalaeolithic remnant in Cyprus.

Conclusion

The new finds in Cyprus justify the island’s PPNB char-acter, whereas the new discoveries in the Aegean backup the view that this area must also be included in thePPNA and PPNB areas of influence and categorizedunder a marginal zone. Cyclops Cave and Kythnos arein absolute accordance with PPNA and PPNB in termsof economy, of which domestication is a major part. Thepeople in the Aegean and the PPNA-PPNB sites inAnatolia and Cyprus continued to employ food-gather-ing and hunting techniques, and they used domestica-tion as a supplementary economical means. Even thoughlithic industry in the Aegean is strictly Mesolithic,achievements were attained in other fields, such as theearly domestication, the circular buildings and the sea-faring.

The bias that these early phases of the Neolithic arenot manifested in the Aegean islands has hinderedresearch so far, but since the discovery of similar newsites, finds of special interest are expected in the nearfuture. As a final point, research in the island of Rhodes,where Neolithic finds from 6th mill BC onwards havebeen unearthed (Sampson 1987), is imperative, as theisland most probably constituted a link in the moving ofideas with maritime means.

References

Guilaine J and Briois F.2001 Parekklisha Shillourokambos: An early Neolithic site in

Cyprus. In S. Swiny (ed.), The earliest prehistory ofCyprus: From colonization to exploitation: 37-53. Boston:American Schools of Oriental Research.

Katsarou S. 2001 Aegean and Cyprus in the Early Holocene: Brothers or

Distant Relatives? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeologyand Archaeometry 1: 43-55.

Peltenburg E.2003 The colonization and settlement of Cyprus: Investigations

at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996: 83-103. (LembaArchaeological Project, Cyprus III.1). Studies inMediterranean Archaeology 70:4. Sävedalen: PaulÅströms Förlag.

Perlès C. 1987 Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide,

Grèce). T. I: Présentation générale et industriespaléolithiques. Excavations at Franchthi cave, Greece,fasc 3. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Sampson A. 1987 The Neolithic period in the Dodecanese, Athens.

1998 The Neolithic and Mesolithic occupation of the cave ofCyclope, Youra, Alonnessos, Greece, BSA 94: 1-22.

Sampson A., Kozlowski J. and Kaczanowska M. 1998 Entre l’Anatolie et les Balkans: une sequence

mésolithique-néolithique de l’ile de Youra (Sporades duNord). In M. Otte (ed.), Préhistoire de l’Anatolie, Genèsede deux mondes, ERAUL: 125-141.

Sampson A., Kozlowski J., Kaczanowska M. and Giannouli V.2002 Mesolithic settlement at Maroulas, Kythnos. Journal of

Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2: 45

Simmons A. H. et al.1999 Faunal extinction in an island society: Pygmy hippo-

potamus hunters of Cyprus. New York/Boston: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

Trantalidou C. 2003 Faunal remains from the earliest strata of the Cave of

Cyclops. In C. Perlès and N. Galanidou (eds.), The GreekMesolithic: Problems and Perspectives. London.

Vigne J. and Buitenhuis H. 1999 Les premiers pas de la domestication animal à l’Ouest de

l’Euphrate: Chypre et l’Anatolie centrale. Paléorient 25:49-62.

Woodman P. 1990 The Mesolithic of Munster: A preliminary assessment. In

Bonsall C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 116-124.Edinburgh.

Yalcinkaya I. et al.1995 Les occupations Tardiglaciaires du site d’Öküzini (Sud-

ouest de la Turquie): Résultats préliminaires des dernièresrecherches. L’Anthropologie 99: 562-583.

Neo-Lithics 1/04 15

Eddie Peltenburg and I must be thinking a lot alike thesedays. We are, as the euphemism goes, in the same chap-ter, although not on the same page. Over the past 15years, research on the early prehistory of Cyprus has re-written our understanding of Early Holocene events inthe Near East, and Peltenburg’s paper is a provocativeexample of this. To understand the Neolithic better, therehave been recent attempts to look at broader issues,“macrothemes” if you will, that transcend site-specificor regional interpretations. In this context, “interactionspheres” appear to be all the rage in contemporary dis-cussion. In the context of the present discussion, Watkins(2003) perhaps more realistic modification of the peer-polity model and the existence of a possible “Medi-terranean Interaction Sphere” is even more appealing.

Given space restrictions, I would like to restrict mycomments to Peltenburg’s 10 summary points. Certainlythe issue is far more complex than these brief discus-sions can go into, but at least we are starting the dia-logue. I note that Peltenburg is currently co-editing aforthcoming conference volume on the Cypriot Neolithic,and therefore he has access to some previously unpub-lished data that help bolster his argument. We all areeagerly awaiting the publication of this important work.

1. Cyprus as another part of the PPNB interactionsphere. With the documentation of the Cypro-PPNB(hereafter CPPNB), it is now apparent that Neolithicoccupation in Cyprus was far earlier than previouslybelieved, and followed a different trajectory from themainland. As such, it is entirely reasonable to considerit as a distinct component of the PPNB interaction sphere.

2. Genesis. Peltenburg has changed his mind on theorigins of the CPPNB. He first believed the point of ori-gin to be the middle Euphrates (Peltenburg et al. 2000;2001a). This accord went well with Cauvin’s (2000) ideaof a Neolithic diffusion from this region to the rest ofthe Near East, but if there was any exodus, it likely wasone of ideas not people. Peltenburg now more realisticallyfeels that the Syro-Cilicia area constituted the origin.This may be the case, but presently the data are simplynot robust enough to confirm this. Based on the chrono-logical and chipped stone evidence, equally plausibleorigins can be made for other Levantine sources.

Let’s look at these two issues. Chronology is critical,and part of the problem is where the CPPNB dates inrelation to the mainland. This is further complicated bywhether one uses calibrated or uncalibrated figures. Table

1 summarizes relevant data. Peltenburg (2003:86) essen-tially equates the early CPPNB to the EPPNB on theLevantine mainland. Despite some discussion as to

whether or not the EPPNB actually exists (Kuijt andGoring-Morris 2002:382), when one looks at the stilllimited dates, many early CPPNB determinations actu-ally fall into the early MPPNB. Peltenburg notes that byc. 8000 cal BC, Cypriots “shared a wide range of cul-tural traits with northern Levantine mainlanders.” Thisis true, but it is equally true that these similarities arenot restricted solely to the northern Levant. The point isthat by the MPPNB, there were numerous settlementsthroughout the Levant and elsewhere in the Near Eastthat could have served as points of origin for the CPPNB.

Turning to chipped stone, Peltenburg cites general sim-ilarities in technology and typology for the CPPNB andmainland PPNB assemblages. This is largely reflectedby naviform core technology and projectile point typol-ogy. Carol McCartney’s (e.g., 2001; McCartney andGratuze 2003) excellent studies have shown some gen-eral similarities, something that previously had not beendemonstrated in Cyprus. We cannot, however, carry theseanalogies too far, and to contend that Byblos and Amuqprojectile points, present but rare in Cyprus, constitute“prestige” items seems only weakly supported at pres-ent. While general similarities now exist, CPPNB assem-blages, as presently published, still do not contain largeamounts of naviform blades or projectile points madeon them, based on currently published information, andthe latter are usually relatively crude. None of this is todeny mainland technotypological similarities for Cyprus,but we still require more data.

16 Neo-Lithics 1/04

Dialogue

The Mediterranean PPNB Interaction Sphere?

Alan H. SimmonsDepartment of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada

Period Cal. B.C. Uncal. B.P.

Early CPPNB ?-8,000 ?-9,000

Middle CPPNB 8,000-7,500 9,000-8,500

Levant EPPNB 8,500-8,100 9,500-9,300

Levant MPPNB 8,100-7,250 9,300-8,300

Table 1. Chronological Comparisons Between the Cypro-PPNB and the Levantine PPNB. Cyprus data fromPeltenburg et al. (2001b: 65, Table 3); Levantinedata from Kuijt and Goring-Morris (2002: 366, Tab. 1).

So, what does this have to do with points of origin?Simply put, any number of mainland MPPNB sites couldhave provided populations for Cyprus, although coastalPPNB sites are relatively rare, especially in the north-ern and Cilician regions. It is not until the LPPNB andPPNC that substantial coastal communities, such as RasShamra or Atlit Yam, are documented, although newresearch suggests earlier settlements in the north (Stordeur2004). Again, we simply do not yet have enough data.Certainly Peltenburg’s statement that “Only they [Syro-Cilician peoples] had the local expertise for initial seago-ing enterprises, coupled with an awareness of the arablepotential of Cyprus...” seems premature. I suspect that bythis time, many Neolithic groups had these abilities.Ultimately, perhaps more interesting are not the originsof the CPPNB, but rather what these people did oncethey arrived in Cyprus.

3-9. Economy. Economy clearly is a complex issue,and Peltenburg’s thoughtful points here merit carefulattention. By the MPPNB, farming was well establishedthroughout the Near East, thus I cannot find support herefor a solely Syro-Cilician donor base. If, however, addi-tional dates can more firmly place the early CPPNB intothe EPPNB, a northern source may indeed be a reason-able conclusion. Whatever the case, it is clear that farm-ing and animal husbandry (presumably of domesticatedanimals) were quite early on Cyprus. At this point in ourunderstanding of the CPPNB, our economic data are stillraw. While it is apparent that they was farming, animalhusbandry may have been equally important, perhapseven more so. The presence of cattle at CPPNB sites cer-tainly complicates the picture considerably.

The distinction between what Peltenburg refers to asthe migration of both cultivators and farmers is in mymind a little unclear. He is, however, right on in indi-cating that Cyprus provides a unique example of high-ly organized and purposeful Neolithic dispersals. WhileI have never been a big fan of actual population migra-tions, as proposed by Cauvin’s (2000:135-211) sugges-tion of a great “exodus”, we clearly are dealing with a sit-uation in Cyprus of actual population movements. Whilefuture research may show a linkage between the island’sfirst occupants, as reflected at Akrotiri Aetokremnos(Simmons 1999) and the CPPNB, it is likely that actualpeople were responsible for the introduction of theNeolithic to Cyprus.

Peltenburg’s (2003:93-99) argument against domesti-cation being undertaken by indigenous hunter/gatherers,but rather by migrant farmers involved in a long processof colonization, is well taken. This seems to argue againstWatkin’s idea that sedentary hunter-gatherers may haveindependently invented agriculture in Cyprus, but wemust await the publication of the previously mentionedconference monograph in which this is presented to fullyexamine this intriguing idea.

Peltenburg’s other points related to economy are allreasonable. Most researchers now acknowledge multiplecore-centers for the agricultural transition that includeareas outside of the Levantine Corridor. Indeed, the ear-liest dates of true domesticates are from southeast Turkeyaround 9,200 BP (Nesbitt 2002:121-122). The Cypriotsubsistence economy, as Peltenburg points out, is quitedistinct from the mainland, and his call for regional his-tories of agriculture origins, and, perhaps more impor-tantly, subsequent developments, is well heeded. It seemsquite likely that there were multiple maritime journeysto Cyprus over a relatively long period of time that result-ed in the establishment of a permanent Neolithic presenceon the island. Perlès’ (2001:62) concept of multiple pio-neer colonizers seems especially appropriate here.

Finally, Peltenburg’s last point, that Cyprus graduallydropped out of the Levantine interaction sphere duringthe later, represents a fruitful avenue for future studies.Why did this happen, and why did Cyprus, from essen-tially the Khirokitia Culture onward, develop its uniquetrajectory? We cannot yet answer these questions, butgiven the exciting developments occurring in earlyCypriot prehistory, it is clear that the island’s Neolithiccan no longer be considered a footnote within the widerNeolithic world. Rather, it was part of the dynamicprocesses that were occurring over a huge geographicrange during this tumultuous time.

References

Cauvin J.2000 The birth of the gods and the origins of agriculture.

Translated by T. Watkins. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kuijt I. and Goring-Morris N.2002 Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the Pre-

Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: A review andsynthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 361-440.

McCartney C.2001 The chipped stone assemblage from Tenta (Cyprus):

Cultural and chronological implications. In I. Caneva, C.Lemorini, D. Zampetti, and P. Biagi (eds.), Beyond tools:Redefining the PPN lithic assemblages of the Levant: 427-436. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,Subsistence, and Environment 9. Berlin: ex oriente.

McCartney C. and Gratuze B.2003 The chipped stone. In E. Peltenburg (ed.), The colonization

and settlement of Cyprus: Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996: 11-34. (Lemba ArchaeologicalProject, Cyprus III.1). Studies in MediterraneanArchaeology 70:4. Sävedalen: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Nesbitt M.2002 When and where did domesticated cereals first occur in

Southwest Asia? In R.T.J. Cappers and S. Bottema (eds.),The dawn of farming in the Near East: 113-132. Studies inEarly Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, andEnvironment 6. Berlin: ex oriente.

Neo-Lithics 1/04 17

Commentators on the opening paper collectively agreeon the importance of the recent striking evidence fromthe island of Cyprus for our understanding of the Neolithicin general and not simply the island’s prehistory. I amgrateful for the constructive way in which they supported,critiqued or sought to cast different perspectives on pro-posals tentatively offered in an effort to widen the debateon the implications of these discoveries. From those valu-able comments, it strikes me that we are acutely awareof the enormous deficiencies of information that con-strain discussion of significant developments amongstalien cultures, and so an over-riding issue is how weshould approach the archaeological record of the peri-od. But first let me turn to more discrete issues.

One of these concerns misapprehensions about myposition on the vexed question of origins of farmers onthe island. Simmons, for example, suggests that I ini-tially believed the point of origin to be the middleEuphrates and he mentions two publications where onemight find the argument. But, in Peltenburg et al. 2000:851, we stated in regard to the blank map between theEuphrates and the Mediterranean coast: “While jumpdispersal from the Levantine Corridor could account for

this gap, we feel it is unlikely that such farmers wouldhave had the necessary boat technology, maritime trav-el expertise and knowledge of their target to establishpermanent bases on Cyprus.” We were still contendingwith the problem in 2001: “There is in any case littleevidence to support jump dispersal or wave of advancemodels from the Levantine Corridor to the island” …“some groups probably came from the Syrian coastalplatform.” It was in the pages of Neo-Lithics 1/00 thatCarole McCartney and I gave reasons for rejecting aEuphrates origin and, while pointing out how intractablewas the problem at this stage of research, we suggestedmultiple, coastal links. Thus, I find Özdoğan’s encour-agement to look for a “coastal or maritime Neolithic”very appealing, however daunting the task might be,given the loss of sizable stretches of the relevant palaeo-coastlines.

Özdoğan is concerned that I am too fixed on the Syro-Cilician coast as a point of origin. Even though one hasto acknowledge the reality of a long history of maritimetravel in the Aegean, as pointed out by Sampson andKatsarou, and Özdoğan, my reason is practical. Contactrequires knowledge, and knowledge in this context is

Peltenburg E.2003 Conclusions: Mylouthkia 1 and the early colonists of

Cyprus. In E. Peltenburg (ed.), The colonization and settle-ment of Cyprus: Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia,1976-1996: 83-103. (Lemba Archaeological Project,Cyprus III.1). Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 70:4.Sävedalen: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Peltenburg E., Colledge S., Croft P., Jackson A., McCartney C.,and Murray M.

2000 Agro-pastoralist colonization of Cyprus in the 10th millen-nium BP: Initial assessments. Antiquity 74, 844-853.

Peltenburg E., Colledge S., Croft P., Jackson A., McCartney C.,and Murray M.

2001a Neolithic dispersals from the Levantine Corridor: AMediterranean perspective. Levant 33, 35-64.

Peltenburg E., Croft P., Jackson A., McCartney C., and MurrayM.A.

2001b Well-established colonists: Mylouthkia 1 and the Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. In S. Swiny (ed.), The earliestprehistory of Cyprus: From colonization to exploitation:61-93. American Schools of Oriental Research,Archaeological Reports No. 5, CAARI Monograph SeriesV. 2. Boston: A.S.O.R.

Perlès C. 2001 The early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge World

Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simmons A. and Associates1999 Faunal extinctions in an island society: Pygmy hippopota-

mus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus. New York:Plenum/Kluwer Academic Press.

Stordeur D.2004 Personal communication. BANEA 2004 Conference,

University of Reading, United Kingdom, March, 2004.

Watkins T.2003 Developing socio-cultural networks. Neo-Lithics 2/03: 36-

37.

18 Neo-Lithics 1/04

Dialogue

Response to Commentators

Edgar PeltenburgUniversity of Edinburgh

not provided by island-hopping Aegeans, but primarilyby local inter-visibility between SW Asia and Cyprus.The Klidhes Straits is where the relevant landmasses aremost visible to each other. It is the shortest maritimeroute between the continent and the island, even allow-ing for winds and currents that might make it easier tojourney in one direction from further away. The shortestfeasible crossing for return voyages is a key to identify-ing successful routes since water and other victuals fortransported livestock and people would have been in lim-ited supply. Interaction, I argue, was recurrent, highlypurposeful and organised, not fortuitous, as might be thecase if coast-hugging boats from the southern Levantchanced upon the island in a northerly voyage. (The trou-ble with this is their unpreparedness for crossing to theisland and the difficulties of returning which requireroutes that take them out of sight of land. As an aside, Ishould add that I have not argued for connections withthe southern Levant pace Kuijt). In support of the Syro-Cilician/Cyprus route as the main, if not sole, contactnexus, is the occurrence of prodigious quantities ofCentral Anatolian obsidian at Akanthou on the northcoast of the island, opposite the western terminal ofCilicia.

Gary Rollefson also tackles the origins issue. He makesthe important related, but quite distinct point when heasks if “the direction of Neolithization was necessarilyinstigated by sailing groups leaving the mainland for theisland” or by “sailors from Cyprus picking and choosingwhat they wanted to bring back with them?” I have arguedfor an integrationist model and so suggest both. This alsoaddresses his concern with the reactions of islanders toboatloads of PPN colonists since I imagine contacts aspart of a continuum between groups who were familiarwith each other, even if this included major influxes.Dynamics probably varied in what was a long-termprocess, not a single episode. I visualise interactions ashistorically constituted. Even if there were specialisedseafarers, that is ferrymen/fisherfolk who ferried differ-ent groups back and forth, island communities probablyhad their own links with kin, allies and trading partnerson the mainland, recalling links between colonists andhome countries somewhat in the manner of relationsbetween Greek Iron Age colonies and their parent groups.This does not preclude down-the-line exchanges, say,for obsidian around the island. Contacts, in other words,were synchronically and diachronically diverse, andwhile the bi-directional arrows of Fig. 2 (cf. p. 6) areintended to portray the existence of two-way traffic, theycannot do justice to the real complexities of the inter-actions.

In continuing to address the problem of origins,Simmons raises the question of chronology. Since someof the earliest dates for the Cypriot Neolithic are con-temporary with the mainland MPPNB, he argues that weshould look beyond Syro-Cilicia as the exclusive donor

area. Because farmers were widely established then “anynumber of mainland MPPNB sites could have providedpopulations for Cyprus”. He does allow that earlier dateswould strengthen the case for a north Levantine con-nection. I believe we have these dates. They compriseall the dates from well 116 at Mylouthkia Period 1A(Peltenburg et al. 2003: 83). This is a high integrity,coherent set of three AMS determinations from domes-tic seeds. They come from a closed context, and are notsubject to charred wood dating uncertainties like re-use,and the need for stratigraphic associations with evidencefor farming. At 2-sigma, the dates of these seeds fallentirely within Simmons’ Levant EPPNB timeframe,that is before 8,100 cal BC. While there is debate aboutthe chronological limits of the EPPNB (see Kuijt 2000for earlier dates), of greater interest is their domestic sta-tus at a time when one is hard put to find a similar assem-blage in N. Syria-SE Anatolia, an area frequently regard-ed as a core zone for the inception of farming. Thisrepresents a major interpretive challenge.

Another recurrent issue in the commentaries is thenature of relations between the mainlanders and islanders.I agree with Rollefson that there is no PPN hegemonyimposed on the latter, but clearly I feel the evidence war-rants closer cultural ties than he and perhaps Kuijt allow.There are a number of difficulties here, not least becauseproximate mainland partners are archaeologically invis-ible and there is still a very meagre dataset to work from.But I believe items like the Shillourokambos stone sculp-ture of a feline head and others mentioned above pointto strong connections. These symbolic creations, withtheir close mainland analogies, attest to the operation oflinked cultural systems rather than entirely independentexpressions. What is now required is an exploration ofthe processes whereby such closely related features cameinto existence in both regions.

Kuijt notes the importance of my arguments concern-ing similarities of spatial organisation between settle-ments, but contends that they are not dealt with ade-quately in this paper. He is correct. In brutallysummarising a lengthy discussion about the possible der-ivation of social space and curvilinear architecture in theCypro-PPNB from N. Syria-SE Anatolia, I omitted manyof the supporting arguments including linking data thathelps to overcome the chronological gaps between anal-ogous expressions, and some implications, especially ofthe diverging trajectories of settlement organisation.Space does not permit their rehearsal here, and readersare referred to Peltenburg 2004 for the discussion.

The final point I wish to comment on is one that implic-itly or explicitly recurs throughout these commentaries.Kuijt expresses it cogently when he asks “How, then,are we to discuss and label the similarities and differ-ences between Cyprus and neighboring areas?” The issue,then, is one of constructing clear archaeological narra-tives, and re-evaluating or even rejecting terms like

Neo-Lithics 1/04 19

Levantine interaction sphere and PPNB. Labels condi-tion thinking, so the matter is serious, one worth treat-ing in terms of the evolution of our studies. In commonwith early stages in the developmental trajectory of manydisciplines, evaluation of the Near Eastern Neolithic hasreached a stage where the study has outgrown many ofthe terminologies that once, in an age of innocence, suf-ficed. The angst that pervaded deliberations at the4ICAANE Neolithic Workshop recently in Berlin issymptomatic of a recognition that mere refinements andmodifications to older paradigms may be too little, toolate. Similar concerns, I believe, prompt Özdoğan toadvocate that we eliminate use of the term “LevantineNeolithic”, Rollefson to emphasize sub-regional differ-ences within the Levant and Kuijt to re-assess the PPNBinteraction sphere. Yet no new chronological, culture orother classificatory system that embraces this era ofmomentous changes in human development emerged inBerlin. There was some consensus for the application ofconcepts or approaches whereby developments withinthe Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic might be usefullyexplored. But that leaves us still needing a frameworkin which to incorporate existing and, as in the case ofCyprus, new information.

The debate lies beyond the remit of this dialogue note,yet it has to be confronted if only because of the strongNear Eastern links of the emerging early Neolithic recordof the island which needs to be contextualised mean-ingfully. In opting for a dual region + period term, Cypro-PPNB, I sought to capture both the local and supra-regional characteristics of the record. That is not to denythe very real heterogeneous qualities of the PPNB. Whatelse might we have called it? Membership of “objec-tive” Maison de l’Orient numerical stages is one possi-bility, although their usefulness may be questioned if thesystem is not regularly adhered to (cf. Cauvin 2000 who

more often reverts to conventional nomenclature). Theydo not have wide currency. An “aceramic” (as inPeltenburg et al. 2003: 87, Table 11.3) or “Neolithic”sequential nomenclature also has advantages, but it failsto disclose many of the distinctive characteristics of theperiod. There will, no doubt, be further debate about theappropriateness of terms, but more important is Kuijt’scall to revisit the nature of the (greater) Levantine PPNBinteraction sphere. Cyprus should continue to furnish uswith fresh insights into these local and supra-regionalinteractions, and hence should figure prominently onfundamental re-evaluations of this seminal period ofhuman history.

Additional Bibliography

Kuijt I. (ed.) 2000 Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social

Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

McCartney C. and Peltenburg E. 2000 The Colonization of Cyprus: Questions of Origins and

Isolation. Neo-Lithics 1/00, 8-11.

Peltenburg E. 2004 Social space in early sedentary communities of Southwest

Asia and Cyprus. In E. Peltenburg and A. Wasse (eds.),Neolithic Revolution: New perspectives on southwest Asiain light of recent discoveries on Cyprus. LevantSupplementary Series 1. Oxford: Oxbow.

Peltenburg E., Colledge S., Croft P., Jackson A., McCartney C.,and Murray M.

2000 Agro-pastoralist colonization of Cyprus in the 10th millen-nium BP: Initial assessments. Antiquity 74, 844-853.

Peltenburg E., Colledge S.