UDK 903.2(4\5)"633\634">001.4 Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005) The concept of “Neolithic package” > considering its meaning and applicability Çiler Çilingirogˇlu Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archaeologie des Mittelalters, Tübingen, D cilerc@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr ABSTRACT – In this paper, one of the most frequently used terms in Neolithic studies, e.g. the so-called “Neolithic package”, will be discussed. Apart from providing a brief historical background of the term and how it was used since the 80’s, the text will concentrate on a plausible definition and the possible contents of the package which can be observed as a common set of objects in Southwest Asia, Anatolia and Southeast Europe. It will be argued that the use of this concept has both advantages and disadvantages. Although the term provides a macro level look to the large geography mentioned above, that was obviously closely interconnected in the course of 7th and 6th millenia BC, the term should be implemented cautiously at regions where the elements of the package do not seem to be fully integrated into the life of the groups. IZVLE.EK – V .lanku razpravljamo o enem izmed najbolj pogostih terminov v neolitskih .tudijah, tako imenovanem “neolitskem paketu”. Opisali bomo kratko zgodovinsko ozadje in uporabo izraza do 80-ih, skoncentrirali se bomo tudi na verjetno definicijo in mo.ne vsebine »paketa«, ki jih lahko opazujemo kot obi.ajen zbir predmetov v Jugozahodni Aziji, Anatoliji in Jugovzhodni Evropi. Dokazali bomo, da ima uporaba tega koncepta tako prednosti, kot pomanjkljivosti. .eprav termin na medregionalnem nivoju omogo.a pregled na .irokem geografskem obmo.ju, ki je bilo tesno medsebojno povezano v .asu sedmega in .estega tiso.letja pr.n..t., ga je potrebno previdno dopolniti na obmo. jih, kjer elementi »paketa« niso bili popolnoma vklju.eni v .ivljenje prebivalcev. KEY WORDS – Neolithic; terminology; Anatolia; Southeast Europe; Neolithic package INTRODUCTION The definition of the term “Neolithic” and the nature “what is important is not what is produced, so much of Neolithization are among the most debated issues as how it is produced” (Thomas 1991.11). Today among prehistorians who work in SW Asia and there is more recognition that the word “Neolithic” Europe1. The word “Neolithic”, first employed as a implies more than technological developments, the technological term, has become oriented towards appearance of domesticated plants and animals, or subsistence, which is considered by some scholars as sedentarism (Hodder 1990; Thomas 1991; Whittle inadequate, because these approaches undermined 1996; Zvelebil 1998; Özdogan 2001; Perles 2001). the assumption that the technological as well as eco-Now the term is generally accepted to encompass nomic developments that took place during the Neo-technological, economic, social and ideological as- lithic were socially constructed. As Thomas puts it, pects as a whole, thus “the Neolithic way of life”. 1 Throughout the paper, I have tried to omit the use of chronological terms like Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic. One reason for this is that it would make the text diffucult to read, due to different chronological systems that are implemented in the regions that are discussed in the text. Secondly, because these terms have hardly any definitions and are mostly arbitrary. However, when it was necessary, a footnote is included to make it clear to which chronology is referred. (text) © 2005 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI Çiler Çilingirogˇlu Parallel to the changing parameters of the “Neolithic”, Neolithization models also became less simplistic and reductionist. Among scholars, however, the impact of diffusionist and anti-diffusionist models are strongly felt, a viewpoint which, unfortunately, only limits our understanding of the period and the questions it raises. Within these discussions, a frequently mentioned concept is the so-called “Neolithic package”, which is used to refer the material culture of the period as a whole, since Neolithic assemblages from South-west Asia, Anatolia2 and South-east Europe yielded almost identical finds, and these objects tend to occur together repeatedly in this vast geographical region. Yet there is no consensus about what this term means and how it could be used. Moreover, the contents of this “package” are not clearly defined. The aim of this paper is to try to promote a common understanding of the term and discuss whether it has anything to offer for researchers working on the SW Asian, Anatolian and SE European Neolithic. Our own perception and interpretations are also included in the text with regards to the possible usages and implications of the term. THE USE OF THE TERM The tendency to group Neolithic assemblages as one entity in order to distinguish them from other periods can be observed since the late 19th century, and in more obvious form in the writings of Childe (Pluccienik 1998; Price 2000.4; see for example Childe 1929). However, the term “Neolithic package” sees its early use among British archaeologists in the early 70's, at a time when archaeology “lost its innocence” (Clarke 1973), but gained systemic approaches. The term was originally applied in order to oppose the idea that certain Neolithic features such as domesticated animals or monumental architecture arrived in prehistoric Britain as independent elements, emphasising their functional relatedness3. The concept was heavily criticised in the early 90s by Thomas in ‘Rethinking the Neolithic’ (Thomas 1991) on the ground that the term prevent obscures the diversity within the Neolithic4. Outside the discussion circles of the British Neolithic, the term has been used and/or criticised occasionaly since the 80’s (Whitehouse 1986; Zvelebil 1989; Chapman and Müller 1990) but primarily since the second half of the 90s (see for example Pluccienik 1998; Budja 1999; Price 2000; Tringham 2000; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000; Kotsakis 2001; Gehlen and Schön 2003). Despite its frequent usage (which is mainly verbal), there is no clear definition offered for this term, probably because it is self-explanatory. But is it really? An exception appears at Whitehouse’s article (1986) where the term is defined to be “farming economy, village settlement, pottery, gorund stone and obsidian” whereas Zvelebil described it as “pottery, cultigens and domesticates” (Zvelebil 1989.380). An internet search revealed, apart from package tours to Turkey, that this term has been used of Beaker Culture, LBK settlements, Mediterranean Early Neolithic, Egyptian Neolithic, Irish Neolithic, Southeast European Early Neolithic, even for Southeast Asian Neolithic (apparently exported there by Western archaeologists), since certain common elements could be found in these areas. Despite all the critiques and changing perspectives in archaeological thought, the continuing use of this term indicates that there is actually a need for such a concept to enable prehistorians to evaluate and contextualise Neolithic assemblages as related components Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in text. 2 In this paper, “Anatolia” refers to Central, Western and Northwestern Anatolia, excluding Southeastern, Eastern and Northern parts. 3 I am grateful to Prof. A. Sherratt for explaining to me how and why the term came into use. 4 A discussion on “British Neolithic package” has been recently re-opened (see Schulting 2000 and Thomas 2003) . The concept of “Neolithic package”> considering its meaning and applicability without isolating or overemphasising some of the find groups. It would also promote a view that sees the Neolithic phenomena as a whole, in order not to let the strong tendency towards regionalization and specialization blur the “big picture”. However, as we will see, the use of the term entails some weaknesses which make us question if this set of traits was really a “package” in the strict sense of the word, or if we should consider a more flexible concept. THE “NEOLITHIC PACKAGES” OF SOUTHWEST ASIA, ANATOLIA AND SOUTHEAST EUROPE Although the concept of “Neolithic package” to most people implies only domesticates, in this paper we concentrate on artefacts, which are usually treated in the small finds sections. We argue that these objects constitute parts of a meaningful whole, e.g. the material culture of a certain period and geography, and for this reason, are found repeatedly in the same contexts. What elements repeatedly occur within Neolithic contexts? Although they are very well known, for clarity, they must be enumerated named here. Three categories are obtained if the objects are divided according to raw materials. Clay objects comprise steatopygous and cylindrical female figurines, male figurines, animal figurines, red slipped and/or painted pottery and “offering tables”. Objects made of various types of stone comprise M-shaped amulets, marble/stone bracelets, well-made beads, celts and well- made stone bowls, all of which are usually manufactured with a special sort of stone such as nephrite, serpentine or marble. Other stone objects are phalli, grooved stones and chipped discs. Among the bone objects there are polishers, “belt hooks” and spatulae. Pintaderas and sling missiles are either of stone or clay whereas “ear plugs” could be made from stone, bone or clay. Another classification of these objects would be according to their function. However, in most cases this is unclear. Even the function of sling missiles is open to debate (see Perles 2001.228–231), not to mention the pintaderas, “offering tables”, or figurines (see for example Makkay 1984; Sherratt 1997 [1991]; Talalay 1993). Nevertheless, these elements can be tentatively divided into several functional categories as technological, prestigious, prestigious/ technological, and symbolic items. For example, chipped discs or grooved stones could be used purely as tools, whereas celts or decorated bone spatulae would be used as tools which implicitly reflect social status within a group. Prestigious items would include marble bracelets and well-made beads, since their raw materials would have been brought from a certain distance and/or were made by a specialised craftsman. Pintaderas or M-shaped amulettes are also considered to reflect social status or group identity; however they could well have been used in rituals, or simply as decorative elements (Makkay 1984; Hansen 2003). Phallic symbols, figurines and “offering tables” are elements that can be associated with rituals, although contextual and ethnographic data present many contradictory cases (Talalay 1993; Schwarzberg 2003). It is important to mention here is that these elements are not all-inclusive. There is no ultimate list for the “Neolithic package”. Certain repeated architectural elements or chipped stones can be added, if they can be found in these regions. As Perles suggests, “selectivity” is also another issue that should be studied in detail in order to find certain routes of some objects, or choices that different groups made (Perles 2001). As to the so-called “agricultural package” – emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, hulled barley, lentil, chick pea, bitter vetch and flax, which have been labelled as “founder crops” should be added, since they too seem to occur together in this vast region (Zohary and Hopf 1993). These earliest domesticated plants are known from PPNA and Early PPNB sites from the Levantine Corridor and SE Anatolia, and were brought to Central Anatolia and Cyprus in their domesticated forms in PPN (Asouti and Fair- bairn 2002; Colledge et. al. 2004). As for animals, domesticated sheep and goats are good candidates for the “package”, which again seem to have been domesticated either in SE Anatolia or in Levantine Corridor (Martin et. al. 2002). However, it should be emphasised that the assumption that all these domesticates co-occurred is a very generalised statement. It is apparent that subsistence strategies are affected both by environmental conditions and group preferences, which led many settlements under discussion to reveal various combinations of subsistence strategies, not only in comparison to other sites, but also within the sequence of a site itself. Having named regularly occurring objects and mentioned the “agricultural package”, it seems now possible to define the term as “the sum of traits that appear repeatedly in the Neolithic assemblages of SW Asia, Anatolia and SE Europe”. Çiler Çilingirogˇlu There is no need to say that the existence of repeating traits in these areas was not a coincidence. The East-West orientation of this geographical region, which offered similar climatic and environmental conditions, is probably one of the main factors that caused “Neolithic way of life” to occur more or less in the same form5. This is not to imply that SW Asia, Anatolia and SE Europe consisted of homogeneous cultures, but one should remember that outside this “world” elements of the “Neolithic package” are not seen at all, or are found sporadically. For this reason, the existence of pintaderas in the Iberian peninsula, or female figurines at LBK settlements, does not mean that this particular “package” was there. For instance, the Mediterranean Neolithic seems to consist of a different set of repeated features which point towards different conditions and ways in which the Neolithic way of life occurred and developed (Korfmann 1988; Budja 1999). The significant issue about each package that can be defined is that the contents belong to a certain period and space, as can be observed in the archaeological record. A detailed examination of the material remains with this viewpoint would offer new insights into problems related to Neolithization processes. However, there are three main factors which prevent schol ars from attempting to investigate this issue. Firstly, SW Asia, Anatolia and SE Europe cover such enormous areas that few scholars can fully master them. Secondly, in these regions archaeology as a discipline was constructed on considerably different understandings and objectives (Trigger 1989; Özdogan 1995; 1996). Cultural and chronological synchronizations between SW Asia and SE Europe especially are still in their beginnings because of limited communication between scholars. The low number of problem- oriented prehistoric investigations in Anatolia (particularly in Western Anatolia) is another significant factor that retards the opening of communications. Thus, in this part of the world, the “Neolithic package” and its broad distribution is either not recognised or considered oversimplified. It should also be noted that it is not the intention here to suggest that Neolithic was a package. Within the “Neolithic way of life”, “Neolithic package” should be perceived as a material reflection of the Neolithic mentality, rather than “the Neolithic” itself; something to begin with, not something to conclude on. In other words, the Neolithic package would be the medium with which one can approach the spirit of the period, depending on the assump- App. cal. Dates 10 000- 9000 9000-7500 7500-7000 7000-6500 6500-6000 Objects\ Period PPNA PPNB Late PPNB Early PN Late PN Female Figurines X Male Figurines X Marble\Stone Bracelets X Well-made beads X* Imported Shells X Well-made Stone Bowls X Bone “belt hooks” X* Bone Spatulae X Celts X* Grooved Stones X Pintaderas X(|) Animal Figurines X* Bone polishers X Chipped Discs X Phalli X “Offering Tables” X “Ear Plugs” X Sling Missiles X Red slipped\Painted Pottery X “M” Shaped Amulettes X(|) Tab. 1. Table showing the earliest occurrences of “Neolithic package” elements in SW Asia. [*] means that these elements appear in Central Anatolia also in the PPN period. It should be noted that the “offering tables” are not seen in SW Asia, but in Anatolia and SE Europe. 5 An inspiring chapter on the orientation of the continents and its consequences can be found in Diamond (1997). The concept of “Neolithic package”> considering its meaning and applicability tion that the mentality found its reflection in material culture. TRACING THE “PACKAGE” A brief survey of Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in SW Asia and Central Anatolia would reveal that most of the elements of the Neolithic package were present since PPNA and PPNB (see Tab. 1). 14 of the 21 elements enumerated above seem to have occurred already in PPN, a period of “intensive foragers” in SE Anatolia, rather than agro-pastoral societies (Sherratt 2004), whereas the rest occur firstly in the Pottery Neolithic (PN) period. Female figurines, male figurines, well-made beads, grooved stones, bone spatulae, celts, well-made stone bowls and bone “belt hooks” are among the elements that existed in PPNA levels of Çayönü, Hallan Çemi, Jericho and Mureybet III, which are dated around 10 000–9500 cal. BC (Özdogan A. 1999; Rosenberg 1999). These elements are also known from PPNB sites such as Göbeklitepe and Nevali Çori where, for example, hundreds of male and female figurines have been uncovered (Hauptmann 1999). Similarly, animal figurines, bone polishers, chipped discs, and phalli first appeared in the late PPNB period, as can be observed from sites at Çayönü, D’jade, Nemrik, Mezraa Teleilat, and Gritille (Özdogan A. 1999; Coqueugniot 2000; Kozłowski 1989; Karul et. al. 2000; Voigt 1988 respectively). These elements continue to be seen in the same area at PN settlements at Haci Firuz, Umm Dabaghiyah, Tell Sotto or Tell Sabi Abyad. A number of “Neolithic package” elements occurred in Central Anatolia also during the PPN, c. between 8500–7500 cal. BC, where the site of Asikli yielded animal figurines, well-made beads, bone “belt hooks” and celts (Esin and Harmankaya 1999). On the other hand, the earliest figurines from Central Anatolia are known from Çatalhöyük X, which is dated around 7000 cal. BC, whereas pintaderas, sling missiles and marble/stone bracelets occur only from level VI onwards, ca. 6600 cal. BC, at the same site (Mellaart, 1967; Ünlüsoy 2002). Bone spatulae, chipped discs, and bone polishers also appear in Central Anatolia with the PN period, and continue into the Early Chalcolithic, as evidenced from sites at Çatalhöyük, Kösk Höyük, Tepecik-Çiftlik, and Musular (Mellaart 1967; Öztan 2003; Biçakçi 2001; Özbasaran 2000). These indicate that NP elements occurred in Central Anatolia at least a thousand year after than they occurred in SW Asia. Outside these areas, e.g. Levant, Northern Syria, Northern Iraq, SE Anatolia and Central Anatolia, during the 10th, 9th and 8th millennia BC, as far as it is known there were scantily distributed semi-sedentary or mobile hunter-gatherer groups with a completely different material culture. This leaves us with (at least) two regions in which the earliest NP elements are identified. These are the so-called “Fertile Crescent” on the one hand, and Central Anatolia on the other, both of which have been designated as “core regions” (Özdogan 1997) in which the Neolithic way of life and its mentality were structured. The Neolithic package occurs outside these areas c. from 7100 BC onwards (as can be observed in early levels of Bademagaci) in Western Anatolia and Thessaly, as well as in Bulgaria, at least from 6500 BC onwards and in Northwestern Anatolia probably from 6100 BC onwards or slightly earlier (Duru 2003; Özdogan 1998; Perlés 2001; Todorova 1995; Özdogan 1999; Roodenberg 1999 respectively). The increase in the number of settlements in West Anatolia and Southeastern Europe in the course of the 7th and 6th millennia BC can hardly be explained only by population increase, where few Mesolithic settlements were identified and fewer have uninterrupted sequences from the Mesolithic to Neolithic6. Newly founded sites between 6500– 6000 BC, like Tepecik-Çiftlik and Kösk Höyük in the Nigde area, Höyücek, Hacilar and Kuruçay in the Lake District, Ilipinar in the I˙znik area, Hoca Çesme and Asagipinar in Turkish Thrace are only a few instances where fully-developed villages with a Neolithic package are attested. The packages that occur in the Neolithic sites of Western Anatolia and Turkish Thrace are almost identical to those in SW Asia and Central Anatolia, suggesting that interaction mechanisms such as trade or exchanges of ideas are insufficient to cause this high degree of similarity. The fact that the some elements of the “package” (not all) appeared from the earliest levels of most of the settlements suggests that there were movements of people, rather than random movements of goods and ideas. 6 We are well aware of the fact that in several locations in Anatolia and Southeast Europe, including Thessaly, Mesolithic settlements have been identified. Although they prove existence of Mesolithic groups in these areas, they either lack the transitional phase between Mesolithic and Neolithic or these phases present no gradual development (Perlés 1986; Thissen 2000; Gkiasta et. al., 2003). Çiler Çilingirogˇlu THE SAME “PACKAGE” EVERYWHERE AND AT THE SAME TIME? On the other hand, it should be noted that the “package” cannot be (and should not be) identified everywhere intact and in the same form. Female figurines from SE Europe and Central Anatolia look unquestionably different. The motifs on the pintaderas of North Syria, Anatolia and Balkans differ (Makkay 1984); the so-called “offering tables” come in many regional variations, depending on their forms and decoration; moreover, they are absent from the “Fertile Crescent” (Schwarzberg 2005.255–273). M-shaped amulets are mainly seen in Western Anatolia, Thrace, Thesally and Western Bulgaria7, and never in the northern parts of the Balkans (Hansen 2003. 348). The bone spoons of the Star.evo-Cris-Körös cultures from sites at Donja Branjevina or Star.evo look different from the Anatolian specimens. The quality and quantity of pottery and their forms show certain differences between SE Asia, different parts of Anatolia and Southeast Europe, and so on. But do we actually need to find identical packages over such a large area in order to appreciate the existence of a cultural formation which had its roots in the SW Asian and Central Anatolian PPN? If we consider each and every group in these regions with a potential (perhaps a desire8), to transform their (material) culture, but without independence from their time and space, then it would be easier to view the re-formed elements as autochthonous developments on the one hand, and on the other as contributions of these units to the overall cultural formation at the macro level. This is very well illustrated with the earliest NP elements from core regions and the “package” seen during the PN period in West Anatolia and Southeast Europe. By the PN period the “package” is not only much more widespread, but also Sites\ cal. BC Çatalhöyük East Bademagˇaci Hacilar Hoca Çes¸me Ulucak Höyük Dates 5000 III I 5500 I II\ pintaderas, IIB\ pintaderas bone spatulae, “M” shaped ...BREAK... 6000 VI\ sling missiles, amulettes IV\figurines, I figurines pintaderas II 1 IX\ bone spatulae V\sling missiles, 3-2\ sling missiles, bone spatulae figurines,pintadera 6500 IV\ sling missiles ...Virgin Soil... VIB\ sling missiles, figurines, pintaderas 7000 9-8\ bone spatulae ...Virgin Soil.. . XII\ bone spatulae ...BREAK.. . “Aceramic” 7500 Tab. 2. Early appearances of “Neolithic package” elements within Anatolian sites. The dates are taken from Thissen (2002), Duru (2003) and Çilingiroglu et. al. (2004). 7 There is also a good possibility that many “M” shaped amulettes could not be identified in many excavations due to their tiny sizes. 8 Perlés mentions how the Neolithic in the Aegean islands is dissimilar to the ones that are known from mainlands, although they represent clear cases of colonization: “....as though the colonization of new regions by small groups led to a `founding effect`and a complete break and reorganization of tradition” (Perles 2001.58). The concept of “Neolithic package”> considering its meaning and applicability SW Central Western NW Greece Bulgaria BalkansAsia Anatolia Anatolia Anatolia 5000 LN Vin;a B MC MC Chal. LN\Vin;a 5500 Ubaid MN Vin;a A EC EC 6000 Halaf PN EN EN Star;evo proto-Star;evo Late PN LN Monochrome 6500 PPN(|) Mono-Phase PPN (|) chrome “EN” Mesolithic Phase Mesolithic 7000 Early PN PN Mesolithic Mesolithic 7500 Late PPNB 8000 PPN (|) | 8500 PPN 9000 PPNB | 9500 | 10000 PPNA Tab. 3. A simplified table showing the approximate dates of appearance of the “Neolithic package” in different regions, with regional chronologies. The dates are calibrated and taken from Thissen (2002), Özdogan (1999), Gallis (1996), Todorova (1995) and Schubert (1999). Thin lines indicate the early phases of the package; thicker lines represent the developed phase of the package. subject to changes in appearance (probably in some cases in function and meaning), and for this reason, it is naturally more diverse and differentiated. Another question is whether all of the elements of the package appeared together at the same time. The evidence from Anatolian sites shows that some of the elements indeed occurred later and were added to the material culture later in the sequence (see Tab. 2). At the site of Bademagaci, where so-called “Early Neolithic” levels have been identified as EN 9–1, sling missiles, figurines and pintaderas do not occur before EN 3–2, while bone spatulae are present from the EN 9–8 levels (Duru and Umurtak 2003.323). Bone spatulae were also present both at Hacilar and Kuruçay from the lowest level upwards (Mellaart 1970.162; Duru 1994), but at Hacilar before level VI there are neither female figurines (except two fragmentary figures from level IX) nor sling missiles. At Çatalhöyük the earliest sling missiles, steatopygous female figurines and pintaderas are found from VI B onwards (Mellaart 1967.217), whereas at Hacilar the earliest pintaderas are found in level II B (Mellaart 1970.164–166). This also holds true for the sites situated in Western Anatolia and Thessaly. In fact, at Hoca Çesme the earliest pintaderas, bone spatulae and M-shaped amulettes are known from Phase II, whereas female figurines, sling missiles and red-slip pottery are present from phase IV, which is dated between 6500–6200 BC (Özdogan 1998). As reported by Perles, the earliest Neolithic accumulations (the so-called “pre-pottery Neolithic” levels) in Greece at sites like Sesklo, Argissa or Achilleion, yielded bone spatulae, bone “belt hooks”, celts and “ear plugs” (Perles 2001), and in the following phase, e.g. in the EN, other elements such as female and male figurines, pintaderas, marble/stone bracelets, well-made stone bowls, celts etc. would either appear for the first time or in clearly increased quantities. A comparable case is known for the Çiler Çilingirogˇlu sling missiles which appeared in Southwest Asia only towards the end of PN period9 (Özdogan 2002. 438). It is worth noting that, as is mentioned above, at the early sites of Çatalhöyük and Bademagaci sling missiles were not found at the deepest levels which points towards their late occurence in these regions, and at later sites from Turkish Thrace, Bulgaria or Thessaly sling missiles are present from the earliest deposits upwards (Vutiropulos 1991). It is at this point that very word “package” is called into question. The examples above clearly illustrate that it was not the case that once the “package” was “packed”, it was carried along with all of its components. It would be better to choose a more flexible term to allow for a constantly developing and diversifying set of objects, since the “package” apparently continued to develop until it reached a “high point” in the late 7th– early 6th millennium BC, and with the end of this phase the strong ties seem somehow to loosen. By the second half of the 7th millennium, SW Asia and Central Anatolia had ceased to be the origins of new or changing elements. The core regions became part of an augmented cultural formation until the Middle Chalcolithic period, when Central and Western Anatolia cultures came increasingly the under influence of Southeast European cultures until the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, implied or denoted by a number of scholars as a “Balkano-Anatolian cultural zone” (Childe 1956; Gara.anin 1979; Todorova 1991; Esin 1993; Özdogan 1993). Meanwhile, on the Eastern side, after the phase of pre-Halaf painted wares, connections between Southeast Anatolia and rest of Anatolia seem to have loosened. Together with Northern Syria and Iraq, Southeast Anatolia, with a decreasing attachment to Central and Western Anatolian cultures, would become one of the key regions where Halaf, Ubaid and Uruk cultures are identified. This is to imply that the “Fertile Crescent” developed in another direction from that of Anatolia and the Balkans from the Middle Chalcolithic onwards, and was no longer a part of this “cultural zone”. Within these developments, what happens to the “Neolithic package”? It seems that it loses its homogeneity. The elements become increasingly diversified and regional boundaries are becoming more 9 In SW Asian terms. 10 In Anatolian terms. apparent. Despite these developments many elements” continue into the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages, both in Anatolia and in SE Europe, but as we have mentioned before, it can no longer be found as a single entity. One can probably speak of a “Chalcolithic package” for Anatolia and SE Europe, but with the current level of data on the Middle and Late Chalcolithic periods10 this does not seem feasible. LIMITS OF THE TERM: THE EXAMPLE OF FIKIRTEPE CULTURE The question remains, however: does the existence of a similar material culture mean that they were perceived in the same way by the people who used it? Until now, it has been pointed out that the existence of the “Neolithic package” reflects one macro- cultural zone with shared dynamics sustained by constant interaction. Nevertheless, it should once again be underlined that this zone consists of many smaller cultural units with varying cultural traditions and perceptions, even though the material culture (e.g. their common use of the Neolithic “package”) implies otherwise. In order to demonstrate this point and test the limits of the term, Fikirtepe culture is outlined below as an example. The Neolithic culture of Northwest Anatolia which is known as “Fikirtepe culture” is defined by its round, wattle and daub structures, dark, incised pottery, and microlithic tools from sites such as Fikirtepe, Pendik and Yarimburgaz Cave (Özdogan 1999). Moreover, the groups which inhabited these settlements relied primarily on fishing, mollusc collecting, and hunting and gathering, rather than on farming (Buitenhuis 1995). However, their material culture consists of Neolithic package elements such as bone spatulae, bone polishers, chipped disks, female figurines (although rare), “offering tables” and red-slip pottery. Since these objects did not exist in the area during the Mesolithic and PPN periods11, the sudden appearance of the Neolithic package in the PN period can only be explained by movements into the area, as suggested by Özdogan (1999) which is also evident from the site of Ilipinar where, from the earliest level upwards, “a farming community” has been identified (Roodenberg 1999). However, with 11 The evidence from these periods comes from extensive surveys that were carried out in the region during the 80´s – early 90´s and were identified as Agaçli and Çalca Groups. For details see, Gatsov and Özdogan (1994), Özdogan and Gatsov (1998). The concept of “Neolithic package”> considering its meaning and applicability a mixed economy, microlithic tools and round huts, Fikirtepe culture is not representative of “typical” Neolithic culture, but is more like a peripheral development. Unfortunately, the emergence of Fikirtepe culture and its relation to local cultures is not well- understood. Nevertheless, it seems highly likely that in addition to the newcomers, local groups in the area adopted the “Neolithic package” while retaining their traditional architecture, subsistence strategy and tools, which makes the Neolithic of Northwest Anatolia very peculiar and unlike those known from Central or Western Anatolia12. As an answer to the question above, the evidence from the Fikirtepe sites helps demonstrate that the existence of NP elements at a given site or region does not necessarily point towards identical cultural formations. For this reason, in the case of Fikirtepe culture, where the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities, or where the Neolithic package is not fully integrated into the group’s life, the term loses its applicability. A comparison of Fikirtepe culture with other Neolithic cultures only depending on the Neolithic package would be, needless to say, misleading and inadequate. However it must be also said that Fikirtepe culture, as a peripheral Neolithic culture with its own peculiarities, still belongs to the cultural formation mentioned above. It cannot be evaluated or studied without comprehending the Neolithic cultures of SW Asia, Anatolia, and SE Europe. THE EXISTENCE OF “NEOLITHIC PACKAGE” IN WESTERN ANATOLIA Western Anatolia, on the other hand, shows different characteristics. The Mesolithic background of the area is virtually unknown. The massive alluvial silting and rise of the coastline prevent archaeologists from locating prehistoric sites, although surveys have identified over 30 Neolithic sites (French 1965; Seeher 1990; Meriç 1993; Efe 1995; Lichter 2002). The Neolithic settlements in the area are identified by means of red-slip pottery that appears usually with “S” profiles and vertical tubular lugs. The sites that are investigated have mainly red-slip pottery and the rest of the “Neolithic Package” that occurs with them. Pre-red-slip pottery sites are either absent from Western Anatolia or have not been discovered. Early cultural deposits at sites such as Ulucak Höyük near I˙zmir and others must be exposed, at least in order to approach the problem of the initial Neolithic in the area13. The latest information from Ulucak levels V and IV, dated around 6100–5900 cal. BC, point to a fully developed village layout with wattle and daub architecture followed by mud- brick architecture in the upper level. Level IV at the site has Neolithic package elements such as red-slip pottery, sling missiles, celts, pintaderas, female and male figurines, animal figurines, stone/marble bracelets, and well-made stone bowls (Çilingiroglu et. al. 2004). One of the pintaderas with concentric circles from the site is almost identical to those found at Bademagaci and Nea Nikomedeia14. Although it is too early to draw conclusions, Western Anatolia seems to have been a region where demic diffusion can be suggested for the appearance of communities with the “Neolithic package”. The fact that the source of obsidian was Central Anatolia (Çilingiroglu et. al. 2004.52), not Melos, for the tools uncovered at Ulucak might also be an indication with regards to the Anatolian origin of this group. Whether a Mesolithic or PPN population existed in the area and whether they had any contacts with the newcomers remain to be investigated. It can be stated, although with reservations, that the West Anatolian Neolithic, unlike the NW Anatolian, contains no elements that can be traced back to the Mesolithic. CONCLUDING REMARKS As mentioned in the introduction, there is neither a clear definition for the concept of the “Neolithic package”, nor an explicit use of it. As is the case with many undefined but frequently used terms in archaeological literature, lack of definition causes only confusion. For this reason, it seemed to be useful to discuss this term and its implications in the hope that this would promote common understanding and grounds for discussion. It was not the intention here to discuss the Neolithization of Anatolia or Southeast Europe; however, since the term is embedded within these discussions, it was impossible to avoid references to these issues. Another critical point is that the finds mentioned are admittedly largely decontextualised and not discussed in depth. 12 Besides, the rarity of female figurines in the Fikirtepe culture might also point out to a reluctancy in adopting a belief system by the local people (if the female figurines are to be associated with a belief system). 13 According to paleogeographical analyses that were carried out at the site by Prof. Kayan and his team, the cultural deposits continue as deep as 3 meters below the present plain level of Nif Çayi (for details see Çilingiroglu et. al. 2004). 14 With the current information from the region, it is not possible to suggest a development sequence for Neolithic package. Çiler Çilingirogˇlu There is no doubt that such a study would provide valuable information. However, the main interest was to evaluate the term’s applicability and see whether it can offer anything new. By doing so, we have attempted to trace the origins of some elements from the “Neolithic package” back to the PPN period, and in relation to that, tried to present how the package became widespread and diversified during the PN period. It was also the aim here to point to a “greater” Neolithic world within which numerous cultural regions are defined and studied as isolated entities. I have also tried to discuss the term’s limits within the framework of Fikirtepe culture. It is definitely not a “magical” term that guarantees an explanation of everything, but it does have important methodological implications for future research in terms of integrating all the find groups in order to achieve a synthetic approach. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper presents a part of my master thesis which was completed in June 2004 at Istanbul University. I am most grateful to Mehmet Özdogan who opened up numerous perspectives to me with his knowledge, experience and analytical thinking. I would also like to thank the academic staff and doctoral candidates at Istanbul University Prehistory Department. Earlier drafts of this paper have been read by Mehmet Özdogan, Andrew Sherratt, Manfred O. Korfmann, Ulf Schoop, Altan Çilingiroglu, Sinan Ünlüsoy and Özlem Çevik to whom I am grateful for their critiques and suggestions. Last but not least, I would like to thank Mihael Budja for giving me the chance to present this paper to a wider audience. . REFERENCES ASLAN R., BLUM S., KASTL G., SCHWEIZER F., THUMM D. (eds.) 2002. Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, Remshalden-Grunbach, Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner. ASOUTI E. and FAIRBAIRN A. 2002. Subsistence economy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: 181–192. BIÇAKÇI E. 2001. Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyügü (Nigde) Kazisi Isiginda Orta Anadolu Tarihöncesi Kültürleri ile ˙Ilgili Yeni bir Degerlendirme. TÜBA–AR, IV: 25–41. BOGUCKI P. 2001. Recent Research on Early Farming in Central Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 28: 85–97. BUDJA M. 1999. The transition to farming in Mediterrenean Europe – an indigineous respond. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 26: 119–142. BUITENHUIS H. 1995. The Faunal Remains. In J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilipinar Excavations I: 151– 156. CHAPMAN J., MÜLLER J. 1990. Early Farmers in the Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian evidence. Antiquity 64: 127–134. CHILDE V. G. 1929. Danube in the Prehistory. Oxford, Clarendon. 1956. Anatolia and Thrace. Some Bronze Age Relations. Anatolian Studies 6: 45–48. CLARKE D. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47: 6–18. COLLEDGE S., CONOLLY J. and SHENNAN S. 2004. Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45: 35–58. COQUEUGI˙NOT E. 2000. Dja’de (Syrie), Un Village A la Veille de la Domestication (Seconde Moitié du IXe Millénaire Av. J.-C.). In J. Guilaine (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde, Naissance des agricultures: 55–71. ÇI˙LI˙NGI˙ROGLU A., DERI˙N Z., ABAY E., SAGLAMTI˙MUR H., KAYANI˙. 2004. Ulucak Höyük: Excavations Conducted Between 1995 and 2002. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 15, Louvain, Peeters. DIAMOND J. 1997. Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies. London, Cape. The concept of “Neolithic package”> considering its meaning and applicability DURU R. 1994. Kuruçay Höyük I. 1978–1988 Kazilarinin Sonuçlari, Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Çag Yerlesmeleri. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. 2003. Bademagaci Kazilari 2000 ve 2001 Yillari Çalisma Raporu. Belleten LXVI: 549–594. DURU R., UMURTAK G. 2003. Bademagaci Kazilari 2001. 24. Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi, Ankara, Kültür Bakanlisi Yayinlari: 319–328. EFE T. 1995. I˙ç Bati Anadolu’da I˙ki Neolitik Yerlesme: Findik Kayabasi ve Akmakça. In I˙. Metin Akyurt- Bahattin Devam Ani Kitabi, A. Erkanal et. al. (eds.), ˙Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari: 105–114. ESI˙N U. 1993. Gelveri–Ein Beispiel für die kulturellen Beziehungen zwischen Zentralanatolien und Südosteuropa während des Chalkolithikums. Anatolica XIX: 47–57. ESI˙N U., HARMANKAYA S. 1999. Asikli. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 115–132. FRENCH D. 1965. Early Pottery Sites from Western Anatolia. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 5: 15–24. GALLIS K. 1996 Thessaly – The Northern Sporades. In G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece: 120–123. GARA.ANIN M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II: 79–212. GATSOV I., ÖZDOGAN M. 1994. Some Epi-Paleolithic Sites from Northwestern Turkey: Agaçli, Domali and Gümüsdere. Anatolica XX: 97–120. GEHLEN B., SCHÖN W. 2003. Das “Spätmesolithikum” und das initiale Neolithikum in Griechenland- Implikationen für die Neolithizierung der alpinen und circumalpinen Gebiete. Archäologische Informationen 26/2: 255–273. GKI˙ASTA, RUSSELL T., SHENNAN S., STEELE J. 2003. Neolithic Transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record revisited. Antiquity 295: 45–62. HANSEN S. 2003. Anhänger-Amulette-Siegel: Zu Einer Neolithischen Fundgruppe. In M. Özdogan, H. Hauptmann, N. Basgelen (eds.), From Villages to Towns: 343–360. HAUPTMANN H. 1999. Urfa Region. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 65–87. HODDER I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell: Oxford. KARUL N., AYHAN A., ÖZDOGAN M. 2002. 2000 Yili Mezraa-Teleilat Kazisi. In N. Tuna et.al. (eds.), Ankara Ilisu ve Karkamis Baraj Gölleri Altinda Kalacak Arkeolojik Kültür Varliklarini Kurtama Projesi, 2000 Yili Çalismalari, TAÇDAM: 101–141. KORFMANN M. 1988. East-West Connections Throughout the Mediterranean in the Early Neolithic Period. Berytus 36: 9–25. KOTSAKIS K. 2001. Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece: Continuity, discontunity or change of course? In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 28: 63–73. KOZŁOWSKI S. K. 1989. Nemrik 9, A PPN Neolithic Site in Northern Iraq. Paléorient 15/1: 25–31. LICHTER C. 2002. Central Western Anatolia – a key region in the neolithization of Europe. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: 161–170. MAKKAY J. 1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado. MARTIN L., RUSSELL N. and CARRUTHERS D. 2002. Animal Remains from the Central Anatolian Neolithic. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: 193–216. MELLAART J. 1967. Çatalhöyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson. London. 1970. Excavations at Hacilar 1–2. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. MERI˙Ç M. 1993. Pre-Bronze Age Settlements of West- Central Anatolia. Anatolica XIX: 143–150. ÖZBASARAN M. 1999. Musular: A General Assessment on a New Neolithic Site in Central Anatolia. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 147–163. ÖZDOGAN A. 1999. Çayönü. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 35–65. Çiler Çilingirogˇlu ÖZDOGAN M. 1993. Vinça and Anatolia: A new look at a very old problem. Anatolica XIX: 173–193. 1995. Neolithic in Turkey: The Status of Research. The Readings in Prehistory, Studies presented to Halet Çambel: 41–59. 1996. Neolithization of Europe: A view from Anatolia. Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22: 25 –61. 1997. The Beginning of Neolithic Economies in Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian Perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5.2: 1–33. 1998. Hoca Çesme: An Early Neolithic Anatolian Colony in the Balkans? In P. Anreiter et. al. (eds.), Man and the Animal World. In Memoriam Sandor Bökönyi: 435–451. 1999. Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 203–224. 2001. Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia: A Critical Overview. In R. T. J. Cappers, S. Bottema (eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 6: 155–161. 2002. On Arrows and Sling Missiles: What Happened to the Arrows. In R. Aslan et. al. (eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann: 437– 444. ÖZDOGAN M., GATSOV I. 1998. The Aceramic Neolithic Period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica XXIV: 209–232. ÖZTAN A. 2003. A Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlement in Anatolia: Kösk Höyük. Colloquium Anatolicum II: 69–86. PERLES C. 1986. New Ways with an Old Problem: Chipped stone assemblages as an index of cultural discontinuity in early Greek prehistory. In E. B. French, K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory: 477–488. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. PLUCCIENIK M. 1998. Deconstructing “the Neolithic” in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition. In M. Edmonds, C. Richards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe: 61–83. PRICE T. D. 2000. Europe’s First Farmers: an introduction. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers: 1–18. ROODENBERG J. 1993. Ilipinar X to VI: Links and Chronology. Anatolica XIX: 251–267. 1999. Ilipinar, An Early Farming Village in the I˙znik Lake Basin. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 193– 202. ROSENBERG M. 1999. Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 25–34. SCHWARZBERG H. 2003. On Problems in Identifying Ritual Pottery: The Example of the so-called “Cult Tables”. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe, BAR International Series 1139: 79–84. 2005. Prismatic polypod vessels and their way to Europe. In C. Lichter and R. Meriç (eds.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal. BC. BYZASZ. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Istanbul: 255–273. SCHUBERT H. 1999. Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf. SCHULTING R. 2000. New AMS dates from the Lam- bourn long barrow and the question of the earliest Neolithic in southern England: repacking the Neolithic package? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19: 25–35. SEEHER J. 1990. Coskuntepe, Anatolisches Neolithikum am Nordostufer der Aegaeis. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 40: 9–15. SHERRATT A. 1997 [1991]. Sacred and Profane Substances: The Ritual Use of Narcotics in Later Neolithic Europe. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: 403–430. The concept of “Neolithic package”> considering its meaning and applicability 2004. Fractal Farmers: Patterns of Neolithic Origin and Dispersal. In J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan (eds.), Explaining the social change: studies in honour of Colin Renfrew: 53–63. TALALAY L. 1993. Deities, Dolls and Devices: Neolithic Figurines from Franchti Cave, Greece. Indiana, Indiana University Press. THISSEN L. 2000. Thessaly, Franchti and Western Turkey: Clues to the Neolitihisation of Greece? In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXVII: 141– 153. 2002. Appendix I. The CANeW 14C databases. Anatolia, 10 000–5000 cal BC. In F. Gérard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: 299–338. THOMAS J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2003. Thoughts on the ‘Repacked’ Neolithic Revolution. Antiquity 295: 67–74. TODOROVA H. 1991. Kulturblöcke und Kulturkomplexe im Neolithikum und in der Kupferzeit auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Symposium Illyro-Thrace. Sarajevo: 153–162. 1995. The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian Prehistory. In D. Baird and I. Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology: 79–88. TRIGGER B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the Transition to Agriculture. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers: 19–56. ÜNLÜSOY S. 2002. Neolithische und chalkolithische Steinarmringe: Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Verbreitung von Steinarmringen im Nahenosten und in der Aegeis. In R. Aslan et. al. (eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann: 541–566. VOIGT M. 1988. The Excavations at Neolithic Gritille. Anatolica XV: 215–232. VUTI˙ROPULOS N. 1991. Fernwaffen in Südosteuropa Neolithikum bis frühe Bronzezeit. Buch am Ehrlbach, Verlag Marie Leidorf. WHITEHOUSE R. 1986. Siticulosa Apulia revisited. Antiquity 60: 36–44. WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge, Cambridge World Archaeology. ZOHARY D. and HOPF M. 1993. Domestication of plants in the Old World. Clarendon Press. Oxford. ZVELEBIL M. 1989. On the Transition to farming in Europe, or what was spreading with the Neolithic: a reply to Ammerman (1989). Antiquity 63: 379–383. 1998. What’s in a name: The Mesolithic, the Neolithic and Social Change at the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of Northwestern Europe: 1–37. ZVELEBIL M., LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to Agriculture in Eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers: 57–92.