76
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
The concept of the Neolithic has changed signifi-
cantly since first used by John Lubbock in the mid-
19th century. Based on the distinction between raw
materials and technology, the concept of ‘New Stone
Age’ was explained through diffusionist approaches,
and the equation of material assemblage and cul-
ture in the chronological tables specifically recom-
mended for Europe. This approach resulted in a clas-
sification based on subsistence strategies and sub-
sistence economy with the influence of Marxist ide-
ology in the 20th century. Accordingly, as the modes
of production change, there is a revolution in the so-
cial order to harmonize with them. In this context,
Vere Gordon Childe describes a concept of history
through an evolutionist and diffusionist approach
and proposes successive revolutions, like the Neoli-
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia>
Upper Tigris Basin
Necmi Karul
Department of Prehistory, Istanbul University, Istanbul, TR
nkarul@istanbul.edu.tr
ABSTRACT – New research in southeastern Anatolia at Early Neolithic sites has brought a fresh per-
spective on the emergence of the Neolithic way of life in southwest Asia. In addition to providing
more details on the transition to settled life, food production, and technological innovations, this
more recent work has increased our understanding of both the time span and geography of the last
hunter-gatherers and the earliest farmers in the wider region. Now the picture of the beginning of
the Neolithic is more complex and fragmented. This complexity necessitates a multifaceted approach
to the questions of the emergence of the Neolithic. In this regard, the data coming from Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A sites in southeastern Anatolia, particularly in the Upper Tigris Basin, is remarkable. In
this paper the transitional stage to the Neolithic in the region and new data from Gusir Höyük is dis-
cussed according to the architectural data.
IZVLE∞EK – Nove raziskave na zgodnje neolitskih najdi∏≠ih na jugovzhodu Anatolije prina∏ajo nove
poglede na pojav neolitskega na≠ina ∫ivljenja v jugozahodni Aziji. Poleg tega, da prina∏ajo ve≠ po-
drobnosti o prehodu na stalni na≠in ∫ivljenja, produkcijo hrane in tehnolo∏ke inovacije, lahko z ne-
davnimi raziskavami bolje razumemo tako ≠asovni razpon kot geografijo zadnjih lovcev in nabiral-
cev ter najzgodnej∏ih poljedelcev na ∏ir∏em obmo≠ju. Tako postaja podoba za≠etka neolitika bolj
kompleksna in tudi razdrobljena. Zaradi te kompleksnosti potrebujemo ve≠plasten pristop k vpra∏a-
njem o pojavu neolitika. V tem oziru so podatki, ki smo jih pridobili iz najdi∏≠ predkerami≠nega neo-
litika A v jugovzhodni Anatoliji, predvsem na obmo≠ju zgornjega pore≠ja Tigrisa, izjemni. V ≠lanku
razpravljamo o stopnji prehoda v neolitik na tem obmo≠ju ter o novih podatkih iz najdi∏≠a Gusir
Höyük, predvsem vezanih na podatke o arhitekturi.
KEY WORDS – PPNA; southeastern Anatolia; Upper Tigris Basin; Gusir Höyük; architecture
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – PPNA; jugovzhodna Anatolija; zgornje pore≠je Tigrisa; Gusir Höyük; arhitektura
Za;etek neolitika v jugovzhodni Anatoliji>
zgornje pore;je Tigrisa
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.5
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
77
key element of the subsistence economy, rather hunt-
ing mammals, small animals and birds as well as fi-
shing was the common activity; thus, hunting and
gathering was the major source for subsistence (Pe-
ters et al. 2014; Willcox, Savard 2007). Based on
this, the earliest settlers can be confidently defined
as hunter-gatherer communities. As it is widely ac-
cepted that the production of food should have been
the result, not the reason of the settled life and the
social change that sedentism have brought. This per-
spective brings new questions regarding the origins
of settled life and its interlinked social life patterns
to agriculture and animal husbandry together, with
their development during Neolithization fuelled new
debates (Zeder et al. 2006; Bar-Yosef, Price 2011;
Gepts, Famula 2012; Zeder 2011; Fuller et al. 2011;
Asouti, Fuller 2013; Peters et al. 2014; Arbuckle et
al. 2016).
After Çayönü, in the late 1970s and early 1980s sites
such as Cafer Höyük (Cauvin et al. 2011), Hayaz
(Roodenberg 1989) and Gritille (Voigt 1988), during
the late 1980s and early 1990s Nevali Çori (Haupt-
man 2011), Gürcütepe (Schmidt 1996) and Levzin
Höyük (Yener 1994), and during the late 1990s and
early 2000s Mezraa Teleilat (Özdogan 2011) and
Akarçay Tepe (Özbasaran, Duru 2011) were exca-
vated in the Euphrates Valley. Following on from a
static period of excavations in the Tigris Valley dur-
ing the 1970s and 1980s, in the 1990s Hallan Çemi
(Rosenberg, Davis 1992; Rosenberg 2011a) and De-
mirköy (Rosenberg, Pesnall 1998) were excavated
due to the construction of Batman Dam. In the 2000s
Körtik Tepe (Özkaya, Coskun 2011) Gusir Höyük
(Karul 2011), Hasankeyf Höyük (Miyake et al. 2012),
Boncuklu Tarla (Kodas 2018), and Sumaki Höyük
(Erim-Özdogan 2011b) have been excavated within
the Ilısu Dam Project. A more recent discovery in the
thic revolution and urban revolution (Childe 1942).
In the mid-20th century, the definition of the Neoli-
thic gained a more environmental and social dimen-
sion. Since then, reflecting shifts in the archaeolo-
gical concepts of cultures and occupation periods,
the term Neolithic has also been explained through
social dynamics alongside various technological and
economic concepts (Hodder 1990; Bar-Yosef, Mea-
dow 1995; Cauvin 2000; Kuijt 2000; Gebel 2004;
Kozłowski, Aurenche 2005; Asouti 2006; Zeder et
al. 2006; Watkins 2008; Zeder 2011; Fuller et al.
2011).
Research on the SE Anatolian Neolithic played a cru-
cial role for the definition of the concept of the Neo-
lithic. In the 1960s, the research at Çayönü located
in the Upper Tigris Basin provided the first empiri-
cal evidence for the existence of a Neolithic culture
in SE Anatolia (Braidwood et al. 1971). Actually, Ça-
yönü was specifically selected for excavation in order
to address the relationships between ecology and
socio-cultural aspects during neolithisation. The site
was excavated by a joint project of Istanbul and Chi-
cago Universities’ Prehistoric Research in SE Anato-
lia, focusing on the early settled life in the Eastern
Taurus (Çambel, Braidwood 1980). Especially dur-
ing the project’s early years, extensive surveys and
some small-scale excavations were also carried out
(ibid.). In this regard, Çayönü together with Jarmo
created the foundation for Robert Braidwood’s def-
inition of ‘Early Farming Societies’, which he used
instead of the term Neolithic, and established the
basis for his ‘Hilly Flanks’ theory in relation to the
origins of agriculture (Braidwood 1960).
After Çayönü, with the exception of Göbeklitepe,
which has been under excavation since 1995
(Schmidt 2011), all the excavations in the Euphra-
tes and Tigris valleys became a
part of salvage operations rather
than serving to explore a specific
archaeological problem. Though
it has to be noted that all the ex-
cavations that focused mostly on
the early phases of the Neolithic
helped to establish an under-
standing of early settled socie-
ties and the process of neolithisa-
tion at that so-far unknown re-
gion (see Özdogan et al. 2011a;
2011b).
Neolithic research in SE Anatolia
confirms that farming was not a Fig. 1. Map of PPN sites in the Euphrates and Upper Tigris Basins.
Necmi Karul
78
Tigris Basin is Çemka Höyük, which was discovered
during road construction for the Ilısu Dam (Kodas,
Genç 2019). Recent excavations and surveys as part
of the dam project, particularly at the Tigris River,
helped us to realize that settlements such as Çayö-
nü and Hallan Çemi, dated to the beginning of the
Neolithic period are not unique and/or marginal
northern sites. Now, many settlements that are dated
to the beginning of Neolithic, are known in the Up-
per Tigris Basin. In this regard, Southwest Asia, the
Levant, Southeast Anatolia, Northern Mesopotamia,
Central Anatolia, and the Zagros region must have
been experiencing a parallel development during
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Amongst all the common
parameters in the wider region, there are also dis-
tinct local differences. These local signatures are at
least visible at the settlement level in SE Anatolia.
The PPN sites in SE Anatolia are located in the foot-
hills and low-lying regions of mountainous zones,
as also suggested by Braidwood. However, there are
sites such as Boytepe, Çınaz and Cafer Höyük dated
to the PPNB that are located on the north facing
mountainous zones of Eastern Anatolia (Whallon
1979; Bahar 1989). On the southern terraces of the
Taurus, in the vicinity of Urfa, settlements such as
Göbeklitepe, Karahantepe, Sefer Tepe, Hamzan Tepe,
and so on (Çelik 2010; 2015) are located on hilltops
or higher ground rather than lowlands or valleys.
Based on recent work, PPNA sites were predominant-
ly concentrated in the Tigris Valley rather than the
Euphrates (Fig. 1), although –
with the exception of Çayönü
and Boncuklu Tarla – most of
them do not have continuous
occupation into the PPNB in
Tigris. Additionally, by the
PPNB a more solid and strong-
er core seems likely to be es-
tablished at the Euphrates Ba-
sin extending to the Keban
Basin. The similarity of Çayö-
nü with the settlements in the
Upper Euphrates Basin indi-
cates that Çayönü might also
be considered as part of the
core PPNB settlements. On
the other hand, PPNB layers
at Boncuklu Tarla and Late
PPNB occupation at Sumaki
Höyük indicate that our know-
ledge of the latter phases of
the PPN in the Tigris Valley
is still very limited. A special
structure with pillars and terrazzo floors at Boncu-
klu Tarla suggests that communal buildings known
from the Euphrates Basin during the PPNB were
also used in this area. In this case, it can be assumed
that the similarities between the two regions incre-
ased in the PPNB period.
Until recent years Göbeklitepe was seen only as an
excavated PPNA site in Euphrates Valley, one which
was discovered in 1963 – when Çayönü was also
discovered, as part of ‘The Joint Prehistoric Research
Project of Southeast Anatolia’ (Benedict 1980.137).
The greater significance of the site was revealed
when the excavations first began in 1995 (Schmidt
1995; 2001; 2011). Göbeklitepe is located at c. 800m
asl, on the hills of the Germus Mountains, one of the
highest spots in the Euphrates Basin, and can thus
be distinguished from its contemporaries in the Tig-
ris Basin. The site is located on mountains surround-
ing the broader Harran Valley, and situated in a
rocky area further away from water sources. Under
the direction of Klaus Schmidt, an uninterrupted pe-
riod of excavation was carried out until 2014, and
Göbeklitepe became the site which provided further
details on the social and symbolic characteristics of
the PPNA (Schmidt 2006). The recent excavations at
Harbetsuvan and Karahantepe also show that the
cultural characteristics known from Göbeklitepe can
be seen in other settlements on the high plateaus sur-
rounding the Harran plain. However, since the struc-
tures known from the Euphrates Basin, and espe-
Fig. 2. Gusir Höyük calibrated radiocarbon dates.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
79
cially those at Göbeklitepe, mainly consist of special
buildings, it would be more relevant to evaluate the
Tigris Basin on its own. Therefore, this paper aims
to present evidence from the Tigris Basin, and dis-
cuss the status of the region during the emergence
of settled life according to the architectural data. In
this context, our main purpose is to make some eva-
luations regarding the new data from Gusir Höyük.
Early sites in Upper Tigris Basin
The major part of our knowledge with regard to the
characteristics of the PPNA relies on data collected
from the Upper Tigris Basin, where the earliest set-
tlements date far back to the late 11th millennium
BC. Radiocarbon dates obtained from the settle-
ments of Hallan Çemi1 and Körtik Tepe – exclud-
ing the examples with much higher deviations –
show that the first settlements emerged between
the later part of the Younger Dryas and the early
Holocene (Benz et al. 2015). A similar early layer
is also mentioned for Çemka and Boncuklu Tarla
(Kodas 2018; Kodas, Genç 2019). Moreover, at Hal-
lan Çemi and Gusir Höyük the bedrock has not been
reached and in most of the settlements the exca-
vated phases have not been extensively dated yet.
Furthermore, sites that have a similar location but
have shifted place over short distances, as exempli-
fied with Gusir Höyük (Qermez Dere, and Nemrik 9
to the south), create difficulties in establishing a
well-defined site chronology (Karul 2011; Watkins
1992; Kozłowski, Kempisty 1990). Despite all these
problems, the excavated sites at SE Anatolia demon-
strate that communities that have started to settle
year-round or for most of the year start to emerge
at around the 10th millennium BC. As demonstrated
with limited examples like Çayönü and Gusir Hö-
yük, this phenomenon continued to the PPNB and
also after 8800 cal BC. The major point which needs
to be underlined here is about the first sedentary
communities, as these have yielded several artifacts
and a relatively more developed architecture, which
do not have any identified predecessor within the
region. Although there are layers in Körtik Tepe,
Boncuklu Tarla and Çemka Höyük going down to
the Epipaleolithic, it is not yet possible to discuss this
period in detail as a time period (Benz et al. 2017;
Kodas 2018; Kodas, Genç 2019).
Even though our knowledge of the early Neolithic
has improved in recent years, only three sites dated
to the PPNA had been excavated in the Upper Tigris
Valley until the 2000s. Among those sites, Çayönü
was located in the Ergani district of Diyarbakır, in
the Ergani Plain bordered by the Taurus Mountains
at the north. The settlement was situated 832m
above sea level, at the northern division of Bogaz-
çay, which is a branch of the Tigris River (Erim-Öz-
dogan 2011a.188). The Çayönü project started as
a collaborative project of the Istanbul University and
Chicago Oriental Institute in 1964. For a long time,
the site became an exemplary settlement not only
for SE Anatolia, but also for whole of the Southwest
Asia, where architectural changes of the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic period could be studied (Braidwood et al.
1981; Özdogan, Özdogan 1990). At Çayönü, the
transformation from PPNA to PPNB and the changes
during the PPNB were well noted, especially from an
architectural perspective. Çayönü is one of the excep-
tional sites in the region where improvements in
construction techniques can be clearly identified.
Hallan Çemi was located in Batman district, on the
western side of the Sasson Creek, which is a branch
of the Batman River that than adds to the Tigris Ri-
ver. The site is situated at an elevation of about
640m on the hillside of the Sasson Mountains that
are part of the Taurus Mountains (Rosenberg, Davis
1992; Rosenberg, Togul 1991.244; Peasnall 2000).
It was discovered in 1990s as a part Tigris-Euphra-
tes Archaeological Reconnaissance Project, which
aimed to identify archaeological settlements that
would stay under Batman Dam Lake. Excavations
conducted between 1990– 1994 yielded 4.3m occu-
pational debris dated to the early PPNA (Rosenberg
et al. 1998; Rosenberg, Davis 1992.1; Rosenberg
2011a). Demirköy was found in 1989 as a part of
1 There are ongoing discussions on the early dates of Hallan Çemi, since the dates are old and there is a large range. See 
https://www.exoriente.org/associated_projects/ppnd_sites.php
Fig. 3. Photo of Gusir Höyük, 2014 excavations
with a view of Gusir Lake. On the left upper hand
corner, the Tigris and Botan rivers can be seen.
Necmi Karul
80
the same project. The site was 540m above sea level
and located near the Batman River that than adds
to the Tigris (Rosenberg 2011b). It was among the
settlements with levels dated to the early PPN (Al-
gaze et al. 1991.181; Rosenberg, Peasnall 1998.
195). Demirköy and Hallan Çemi, which could have
been sharing similar environmental conditions, are
almost 40km apart.
Alongside Çayönü, Hallan Çemi and Demirköy; Kör-
tik Tepe, Hasankeyf Höyük, Gusir Höyük, Boncuklu
Tarla and Çemka are among the other settlements
with occupational phases dated to the early Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic in the Upper Tigris Basin. Most of these
sites were discovered at the end of 1980s and be-
ginning of the 1990s, within the scope of the Tigris-
Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project
(Algaze et al. 1991). However, excavations at these
sites only started in the early 2000s, partially prom-
pted by the Ilısu Dam Project. The excavations at
Körtik Tepe started in 2000. The settlement is lo-
cated at the intersection of the Tigris and Batman Ri-
vers (Algaze, Rosenberg 1990; Özkaya, Coskun
2011.90). It is located c. 530m above sea level and
covers an area of 100x150m with a 5.5m deep stra-
tigraphy. Gusir Höyük is located near the intersec-
tion of the Tigris River and Botan River, on the
southern shores of the Kavaközü Creek. The mound
is located beside Gusir Lake, which was a sinkhole
fed by the Kavaközü stream and groundwater (Ka-
rul 2011.1). The site extends to an area of 150m dia-
meter and contained c. 7–8m of occupational depo-
sit. The settlement is 535m asl and situated at the
Taurus piedmont, which is still an advantageous po-
sition regarding the rich forestry and water resour-
ces nearby. Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük were
also initiated as part of the Ilısu Dam Rescue Pro-
jects. The site is located near the town of Hasankeyf
on the northern sections of the Tigris River. The lo-
cation of the site was an old riverbed that has been
formed with erosions from the Raman Mountain
which later reunited with the Tigris. The mound, set
at 482m asl, extends 150x9m and contains an ar-
chaeological deposit of 9m (Miyake et al. 2012.3).
Boncuklu Tarla is a recently identified settlement,
detected during the 2008 Ilısu Dam Survey (Taskı-
ran, Kartal 2010). It is located about 2km west of
the Tigris River and south of Nevala Maherk stream
(Kodas 2018). Another recently discovered site is
Çemka Höyük located 900m southeast of Boncuklu
Tarla. The site sits 420m above sea level and is 65x
135m in size. The archaeological deposit at Çemka
Höyük is roughly 6–7m thick (Kodas, Genç 2019).
Architectural features of early sites
Rescue excavations conducted simultaneously in the
Upper Tigris Basin demonstrate at first sight – with-
out even detailed archaeological analyses – that the
settlements around the region must have been long-
term ones. At latest, from the beginning of PPNA
round or oval planned, semi-subterranean structures
were constructed. The earliest structures could have
been fulfilling more than a need for a short-term
Fig. 4. Gusir Höyük, view of the main excavation area.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
81
stay, as indicated from the archaeologically docu-
mented repair phases and maintenance. Even though
it is hard to correlate the architectural phases among
the settlements to establish a certain chronology, it
can be argued that there are temporal and spatial
differences between these settlements, which could
have been occupied at the same time period. These
differences are visible on the floors, stone types used
for walls, masonry styles and thicknesses, as well as
at the burials and construction elements. Çayönü,
which is located at the most northwestern zone of
the Tigris Basin, has two sub-phases at the end of
the PPNA period. The oldest phase, known as the
Round Building sub-phase, consisted completely of
structures with circular and oval plans. The later
phase directly above this, known as the Grill-plan
Building sub-phase (g 1–4), contained rectangular
structures in the place of the earlier circu-
lar structures (Bıçakçı 2001.13). In the
early phase structures, excavated as two
clusters at the eastern part of the mound,
deposits of this phase were detected above
virgin soil. Even though Grill-plan Buildings
were heavily disturbed during to this peri-
od, structures with different architectural
plans were unearthed in the same area
(Erim-Özdogan 2011.Figs. 6, 7). It is not
clear yet whether these structures resem-
ble different construction techniques of the
same period or different sub phases, and
thus whether these changes mark a signifi-
cant transformation.
The first settlement at Çayönü was com-
posed of huts with subterranean floors that
had been built into virgin soil. The huts had
circular plans with c. 2m diameter and co-
vered an area of 4–5m diameter (Özdogan
A. 1995.82). The upper parts of the huts
were made with the wattle-daub techni-
que. Later, the floors of the pits were shal-
lower and the huts built on stone subba-
sement. During this phase, the huts were
built larger and the floors were plastered
with clay. One particular hut, structure ‘RA’,
had a red-painted floor (Erim-Özdogan
2011a.195). Different from the other struc-
tures, this hut with evidence of three ren-
ovations had a stone sub-structure, with
stones facing on the sides of this shallow
pit (Özdogan, Özdogan 1990.68). In this
phase another structure ‘BN’, differentiated
form the other structures with its dimen-
sions and construction techniques, was in-
terpreted as a special structure. BN has a diameter
of 5m and an oval plan (Erim-Özdogan 2011a.195;
Özdogan, Özdogan 1990.68).
At the next occupational phase, the architecture
changed significantly (Özdogan A. 1995). The cir-
cular structures were replaced with rectangular and
ground-level buildings. The rectangular structures,
which are 10x3.5m in size, have interiors divided in
three sections. The first section in the middle with
the entrance had units at both sides, had a plastered
floor and interior ovens. In one of the edge parti-
tions there are roughly parallel, medium-sized ‘beam
like’ stone rows, which were used to elevate the liv-
ing floor. The carrying structure has been proposed
as made out of wattle and daub supported with wo-
oden beams situated outside of the floor construc-
Fig. 5. General plan of main sector of Gusir Höyük. Struc-
tures mentioned in the text indicated by Str. numbers.
Necmi Karul
82
tion (Erim-Özdogan 2011a.195; Schirmer 1990).
The settlement layout of this period is well defined
as well. Structures were constructed parallel and
close to each other, with entrances aligned to the
south-southeast where the river had flowed demon-
strating the pre-planning of the settlement (Özdo-
gan A. 1995.Fig. 8).
At Hallan Çemi, there are four layers, though as yet
there has been no chance to excavate in the 4th
phase (Rosenberg et al. 1998). In Phase 3, three
buildings were unearthed, which might have served
as houses. The walls were built with rough river
stones mixed with a limestone bearing mortar. The
structures were ~2m diameter and built directly on
soil. There was no pavement on the floors of these
‘C’ plan structures. In Phase 2, five structures could
be determined and four of these were excavated. Si-
milar to the former phase, the walls were built with
rough river stones mixed with a limestone bearing
mortar. With the exception of one building, the
floors were covered with sandstones. In of one of
the buildings, which had a 4m diameter, a clay basin
was unearthed. Unlike the other structures, the walls
of this building were constructed with sandstone
plaques. Among the Phase 2 buildings, two of them
had a diameter of 2.5m and were built on the ground
with ‘C’ or horseshoe shaped plan (Rosenberg 2011a.
62). The other two structures with 5–6m diameters
have been defined as public buildings (ibid.). Both
of these structures were exactly circular and almost
1m deep in the ground. The walls, which were pre-
served as high as 1.5m, were made of flat sandstone
slabs and creek pebbles. The post holes, with a dia-
meter of 10cm, were visible on the surface of the
walls. These must have been part of the wooden
poles supporting the roof (Rosenberg 1994.124).
On either side of the entrance there was a double
wall, and the area in between them might have been
used for storage (Peasnall 2000.148). Additionally,
in both structures a semi-circular platform is observ-
ed either on the right or left side of the entrances.
The floors of the structures had a sterile layer, which
was covered with a mixture of limestone, yellow
sand, and chalk. This was renewed several times.
Towards the centre of each structure there was a
sunken circular hearth. These large structures are
different from others not only for their construction
but also in terms of contexts; objects of daily use
(i.e. ground stones) are not found, but the excava-
tors draw attention to imported obsidian and cop-
per mineralization (Rosenberg 2011a.63). In one of
these structures, Structure A, an aurochs skull was
found that probably hung on the north wall across
the entrance.
During the occupation of the site, all of the struc-
tures at Hallan Çemi were positioned around a court-
yard with a diameter of 15m (Rosenberg 2011a.
61). Platforms with diameters of 2m and 10–40cm
thick floors, made out of stone, mud, and limestone
were found around these structures. These platforms
were interpreted as silos covered with wattle (Rosen-
berg et al. 1998.28; Rosenberg, Davis 1992). Apart
from some structures, which had interior firing pla-
ces, mostly exterior, clay-plastered platforms have
been uncovered. In the so-called courtyard, which
was stony, articulated animal remains, fire cracked
rock, as well as a deliberate arrangement of sheep
skulls have been recovered. Based on these findings,
this area was interpreted as one for daily activities
as well as being used for feasting (Rosenberg et al.
1998.30; Rosenberg, Davis 1992).
In the Upper Tigris Basin, another settlement dating
back to the Younger Dryas is Körtik Tepe. Six levels
were identified based on architectural remains, and
all structures had round plans, which can be divided
into three groups. One of the prominent features of
Körtik Tepe is the burials, of which there are more
than 800. The first buildings had a 2.3–4m diame-
ter, were semi-subterranean with packed earth floors
and single row walls that consisted of small stones
(Özkaya, Coskun 2011.91; Benz et al. 2015). The
interior faces of the walls were surfaced, which re-
sted on the wall of the pit. Round structures of 1.1–
2.1m in diameter form the second group, which had
pebble paved floors. These structures were common
to all building levels, and might have functioned as
storage units (Özkaya, Coskun 2011.91). The third
group consisted of larger (3.4–3.8m in diameter)
Fig. 6. Photo of the building with two phases of re-
pair and sunken floors from Gusir Höyük, seen on
the slopes facing the lake.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
83
structures that were fewer in number. These were
built with larger stones and plastered with clayey
plaster (Özkaya, Coskun 2011.92). Although no in-
terpretation was made concerning the settlement
plan, it is understood that the structures were built
closely to form a dense arrangement.
Hasankeyf Höyük is located directly right on the
banks of the Tigris River. The site contains 9m of
archaeological deposit, all of which dates to the
PPNA. The architecture of the two levels that are clos-
est to the surface was exposed in larger areas and
identified. Of these, the lower level has round struc-
tures of 3.5–4.5m in diameter and 1m deep floors.
One structure is larger than the other, which is 6m
in diameter. Often built with flat river cobbles, walls
have larger stones at the bottom and smaller ones
above. The interior faces of walls were plastered
with yellow-brownish clay. Except for a stone-paved
floor, identifying floors has not been possible. There
are no hearths or installations in the buildings. Only
one of these structures was repaired multiple times,
the others offered finds of animal bones, chipped
stones and unworked stones (Miyake et al. 2012.5).
Additionally, horns of wild sheep were found on the
floor of one structure. There were several sub-floor
burials, which included stone vessels with incised
decorations, bead and stone plates with decorations.
Structures in this layer form a dense cluster.
On the layer above, a structure was found with a cir-
cular floor and semi-rectangular plan with 9m long
sides (Miyake et al. 2012.3). Besides its dimensions,
a flat 1.5m high pillar indicated a special function
of the construction. The sequential plastering on the
floor indicated at least three renewals. At least 30
burials, either in normal or fixed position, were re-
covered below the floor and around the structure
together with burial goods similar to the earlier pha-
ses. Additionally, pigments were detected on some
of the bones (Miyake 2013.44, Fig. 2).
Boncuklu Tarla and Çemka Höyük are the southern
sites in this group. There are layers that are describ-
ed as Epipaleolithic at Boncuklu Tarla, although these
phases have not been published in detail yet. Still,
there are layers dated to the PPNA and transition to
the PPNB. A round structure with a diameter of 5m
and two silos with a diameter of 1.5–2m were found
in the PPNA layer. The walls of the building are
thick, similar to those depicted in the upper layers
at Gusir Höyük, and have a relatively shallow floor
level. This layer dates to about early to mid-11th mil-
lennium BC. In the transition layer there is a pub-
lic building with curved corners, measuring 8–10 x
2–5m, and a clay-marl-earth-ash mixture was used
for the flooring (Kodas 2018). Çemka Höyük has
not been excavated yet, the perimeter of the de-
struction that occurred during the road construction
was cleaned and walls belonging to 2m high struc-
tures were found in the sections. Medium sized sto-
nes were used on the walls of these subterranean
dwellings (Kodas, Genç 2019). The Late Epipaleoli-
thic phase is also relevant for this site, but no pub-
lished dating has been made to clarify the timing
of occupation.
Fig. 7. Photo of building with intertwined walls, pil-
lars placed into walls and sunken floors from Gu-
sir Höyük.
Fig. 8. Photo of semi-subterranean structure with
roughly carved 1.5m tall pillar in the centre from
Gusir Höyük.
Necmi Karul
84
Gusir Höyük
Similar to other rescue excavations, Gusir Höyük
was also excavated for a brief period of time. As the
radiocarbon dates (Fig. 2) and preliminary reports
on chipped stone (Altınbilek-Algül 2013) show, there
is coherence picture with the contemporaries, though
with some differences. The site is near Gusir Lake,
which is an impressive landscape, and it also fac-
tored in the excavation strategy. Making use of the
eroded hill near the lake, a large sector of approx.
1750m2 was excavated (Figs. 3, 4). The second sec-
tor was 50m due northwest and covered approx.
800m2. Trenches on the slope that overlooked the
lake revealed remains from different phases (Fig. 5).
However, the fact that most structures had subter-
ranean floors and there are fewer radiocarbon dates
available at present make it difficult to compare
structures stratigraphically. Additionally, correlating
the two sectors will only be possible when the ma-
terials are analysed completely, as the architectural
remains and building materials are different in each
building.
Even though the stratigraphic sequence of the mound
is not clear yet, the location, elevation, and construc-
tion style of the structures allow us to make some
inferences. In Gusir Höyük, a transition from the sub-
terranean simple round buildings into a ground
level-based quadrangle can be observed. The pit-
based round structures in the lower layers have be-
come shallower over time, and the corners have be-
come more evident. In the earlier building the walls
consisted of small stones that were irregularly laid
to cover the interior of the pit, up to a height of 2m
(Figs. 6; 5.Str.1). These walls show two phases of re-
newal. The interiors of walls that had a thickness of
50cm were clay-plastered. When the floor was made
for the first time, it was approx. 2m below the
ground-level, but this was raised during the second
re-building. Numerous grinding stones were found
on both floors. Each floor layer has sub-floor burials.
The great majority of burials were located near the
walls, all were in a flexed position, and some had
burial goods included. The other structure is situ-
ated 4m south of the first and they are possibly con-
temporaneous (Figs. 7; 5.Str. 2). A similar wall con-
struction was observed in the second structure, which
also had similar dimensions. However, the wall of
this structure was thicker as several rows of stone
were found. Due to re-building activities, the interi-
or space of the structure was greatly reduced over
time. Although it is hard to identify whether these
walls were built at once, or at intervals, the chalk
floor appears to continue under the walls, which sug-
gests that the floor was contemporary with the outer
wall. One to 1.5m tall stone blocks were used with-
in the walls, their flat surfaces facing towards the
Fig. 9. Photo of sub-rectangular, circular building
with sunken floors from Gusir Höyük. On the side
of the building a platform is visible, constructed at
the same time as the wall, and with a wild sheep
bucranium placed on the platform.
Fig. 10. Photo of an expertly shaped pillar placed
into a 50cm deep clay foundation placed near the
centre of the structure.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
85
inside of the structure. Internally, there was an area
with erected flat stones and a stone basin. The con-
centric walls, erected stones, and renewed plaster
floors suggest a special function for this building ra-
ther than a habitation unit. No other structure has
been dated to this phase of the settlement, which
makes its interpretation more difficult.
The next phase is represented only by a semi-sub-
terranean structure, which is 6m in diameter (Figs.
8; 5.Str. 3). The wall consists of two rows of small
stones, there were post holes at equal intervals
along the wall which might have carried the super-
structure, as the walls were not bearing any load.
Near the centre, a 1.5m tall and roughly worked, flat
stone was erected. This pillar was surrounded by an
installation of numerous wild sheep horn cores, most
of these horns were bihorns. The fill inside the struc-
ture contained relatively thin layers, suggesting that
the in-filling of the building occurred gradually over
time, which might have been the result of intentio-
nal filling.
In the following phase, round structures with floors
1.5m below the ground-level were found (Figs. 9;
5.Str. 4). These structures are larger than the previ-
ous ones, with around 9m diameter. The average
wall thickness is c. 1m. Oblong river stones were
used in the construction, which differentiates the
structures of this phase from the rest. In one of the
structures, a stone-built platform is found. On top of
the platform there is a podium elevated by stones
and a wild sheep horn was found on it. In the other
structure (Fig. 5.Str. 5), a specially carved erected
stone pillar was found. This rectangular stone block
with flattened surfaces had holes on the wide and
narrow edges (Fig. 10). The lower part of the pillar
was set into a platform or a clay fill of at least 50cm
thick. The fill inside the structure consisted of suc-
cessive clayey and ashy layers, which indicates a
pattern of conscious and repeated filling or frequent
abandonment and re-occupation of the structure.
The phase above, where the pit of the structure be-
came shallower, was represented with a single struc-
ture. The structure is almost 60–70cm deep with a
4m diameter. The side of the pit had been lined with
flat stones. Flat stones were used to pave the floors,
and a piece of concave stone plate and the pillar
were characteristic of this structure. The pillar with
rounded edges and a smoothed surface was 1m high,
and it had probably been placed in a cavity on a
stone plate.
The next phase unearthed at the site has a structure
(Fig. 5.Str. 7) with a unique construction technique
and installations when compared to the earlier
phases (Figs. 11, 12). In fact, the remains described
Fig. 11. Photo of the special building complex from Gusir Höyük. The central sub-rectangular building
with rounded corners and rectangular plan buildings added onto it.
Necmi Karul
86
here constitute a complex of the main unit and ad-
ditional rooms. The structure is 9m in diameter, has
a rectangular plan with rounded edges, and the 1m
thick walls of the main unit were built with stones
of medium size. The sunken floor of the structure is
shallower – c. 1m below the surface – compared to
the earlier structures. The platform, which runs along
the wall, was built of earth in the eastern half, and
in its western half a mixture of earth and stone was
used. The platform is about 50–60m tall and has a
similar width. The side built with stones might have
been plastered with clay and a wild sheep horn was
left on top of it. Inside the structure, symmetrically
aligned pillars were intended to form the four points
of a square, but only three of them were preserved.
Two of them were carved roughly and the third was
carved in oval form with three rings engraved on
it, and the fourth one is absent. On the east side of
this central structure, facing the lake, three separate
units of approximately 8 x 4–5m were added in a
radial pattern (Fig. 5.Str. 8–10). These rectangular
structures were on the same level and built of walls
with one row of stones. Near the walls, small stones
encircle postholes. These are reminiscent of the Ça-
yönü Grill-plan Building sub-phase structures, which
had wattle and daub construction with beams (Schir-
mer 1988.144). The floors of structures were cov-
ered with small river stones, and in one of these
structures, along the wall, sub-floor burials were
found. At points where additional units intersect the
central room, passageway like openings were left
between the walls of these attached structures. One
of these passages is well-defined and was sloping
down into the structure.
At Gusir Höyük there is also evidence that shows the
use of rectangular plan buildings with subterranean
floor structures. The walls that were found imme-
diately below the topsoil cut through structures (Fig.
5.Str.6) of earlier phases, and it is hard to determine
its exact place in the stratigraphic sequence at the
site. The structure (Fig. 5.Str. 11) in question is sub-
square – without well-defined corners – and the
floor is at least 1m below the surface (Fig. 13). The
wall consisted of two rows of small river stones and
showed phases of repair. In the corners, stones were
not overlapping and instead they were piled to form
corners. The interior of the structure was divided
into rectangular units; one of these units had been
plastered specially and had a pillar at one corner.
There was another pillar and the nearby forehead
with horns suggests the continuation of the tradi-
tion from circular structures at the site.
The structures exposed in the second sector at the
southern part of the mound are similar to those do-
cumented at Nemrik 9 (Kozłowski, Kempisty 1990.
Fig. 6) and these structures illustrate another type
of architecture. These had rectangular plans with
rounded edges (Fig. 14). The walls were built of
small river stones in two rows, at a width of 50cm.
In one structure, roughly carved pillars were irreg-
ularly placed at corners inside the walls or just in
front of the walls. Around the structures there were
stone platforms that are also found at Hasankeyf
Höyük and Körtik Tepe. These platforms that were
built of small river stones or broken rocks covered
an area of 1–1.5m in diameter and possibly had
the function of silos with a wattle and daub super-
structure.
On the uppermost part of the settlement, in the
main sector there were different types of structures
surrounded with courtyards. The common aspect of
these structures in this layer is an oval plan with
one end remaining open to provide access. In a well-
preserved structure amongst these, the majority of
the floor was covered with aligned, flat stones, and
near the entrance the floor was made by tamped
clay. The boundary of the structure was defined by
a single row of stones. The superstructure is not
known, but based on the presence of a narrow and
shallow canal that encircled the structure and the re-
mains of organic material it is possible to suggest
that it was covered with a tent-like element. Al-
though this layer has not been dated yet, it indica-
tes the end of the settlement, and possibly the cessa-
tion of long-term occupation at the site. There is li-
mited information concerning the PPNB occupation.
This phase is mixed with topsoil and has been main-
ly defined by simple pit graves.
Fig. 12. Special building from Gusir Höyük, with
pillar, platform and stone basins.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
87
Discussions
The settlements in SE Anatolia reveal the technolo-
gical, functional, and symbolic transformation of the
architectural developments in stages (see the fol-
lowing for further discussions on the development
of the architecture in SW Asia: Watkins 1990; 2004;
Özdogan, Özdogan 1998; Bıçakçı 1998, 2003; Ban-
ning 1998; Özdogan 2009; 2010). Although the
transformation from shelters to dwellings and the
emergence of special – cultic – buildings cannot be
understood only by studying the architecture of SE
Anatolia with a generalized approach, as the trans-
formation could follow a continuous process of near-
ly 900 years in the area. In this context the Upper
Tigris Basin plays crucial role in understanding the
early settled societies at the beginning of Neolithic,
due to density of contemporary sites located close to
each other.
In terms of construction, semi-subterranean struc-
tures became increasingly frequent and led to ground
level structures. However, at sites like Hallan Çemi
the settlement started with ground level structures
or at Gusir Höyük the semi-subterranean building
tradition continued even after the replacement of
circular plans by rectilinear plans. Within that pe-
riod, another noticeable transformation in architec-
ture is the transition from round to rectangular
plans. The Grill-plan Building sub-phase at Çayönü
signifies the sudden transformation from round to
rectangular plans, which also contains rectangular,
elevated floors with pavements, which are major ar-
chitectural solutions. However, these advancements
do not mean that the issue of building corners is
resolved or achieving a wall construction that car-
ried its own weight. At this stage, the rectangular
plan is used only for floors whereas the superstruc-
ture is wattle and daub supported by beams. Other
examples of rectangular interiors allow for more ef-
fective use of space, such as Çayönü, Mureybet and
Jerf el Ahmar (Erim-Özdogan 2011a; Stordeur et al.
2001; 2008). At Gusir Höyük, semi-subterranean but
rectangular floors and interior partitions provide
evidence of a wide range of experiments at the tran-
sition to rectangular structures. Although tall stone
walls exist, real intersections have not been built.
Without doubt, the replacement of circular with rec-
tangular plans brought efficient interior partitioning
of space as well as expanding the space. It has been
observed that all improvements concerning rectan-
gular structures and issues related to the load-bear-
ing walls or roofs are resolved with the transition
into PPNB as illustrated at Çayönü. In addition, the
recent data from Gusir Höyük has revealed in detail
the technological improvements in architecture that
occurred within the PPNA.
It is possible to say that selective use of construction
material starts to emerge among the earliest settle-
ments in the Upper Tigris Basin. For example, in the
earliest phases of Gusir Höyük, Hallan Çemi, Hasan-
keyf Höyük and Körtik Tepe medium and rounded
river stones are used, whereas in later phases larger,
flat and more suitable stones are preferred. This sug-
gests that rather than randomly using resources
around settlements, selective use is more likely. Clay
plaster has been used on flat surfaces with the ear-
liest examples of construction.
In terms of preparing the floors, there are concur-
rent, temporal changes. At Hallan Çemi first sand-
stone slabs, then a yellow clay and chalk mixture;
chalky plaster was also used in Gusir, at Hasankeyf
and Gusir stone paved floors, at Demirköy, Gusir and
Çayönü clay floors are observed, with evidence of
the use of red pigment in one building at Çayönü.
During the later phases of the PPNA, similar to wall
construction, floors also show complex examples. In
a way, as the floors become less sunken, the effort to
work the floors increases; stone-paved or elevated
floors possibly with wooden beams emerged in the
Çayönü Grill-plan Building sub-phase. Another point
that needs to be emphasized regarding the floors is
the variation related to the functions of structures.
At Gusir Höyük, Körtik Tepe, and Hasankeyf Höyük
small units that are identified as silos may have been
also paved for insulation.
Fig. 13. A late building with a rectangular plan cut-
ting an earlier building from Gusir Höyük.
Necmi Karul
88
Ovens, which have been considered as key to under-
standing the function of the building, have been re-
covered at Körtik Tepe, Hallan Çemi and Çayönü in
the region. At Çayönü, during the Grill-plan Building
sub-phase, where interior ovens have been recov-
ered, they could be considered as an element of
transformation from shelter to dwelling. Therefore,
it can be argued that at the beginning of the Neoli-
thic firing and cooking activities were conducted in
external areas; later on, the internal areas of the
houses must have been added to this transformative
process. Installations such as silos and ovens, which
were moved into the building interiors over time,
would count as evidence of the emergence of the
household concept.
In SE Anatolia, the process of architectural transfor-
mation during the PPNA became more pronounced
during the PPNB, especially regarding the special
function structures. If we exclude Göbeklitepe, it is
difficult to designate the special buildings in SE Ana-
tolia clearly during the PPNA. However, our observa-
tions from Gusir Höyük in particular show that this
kind of building has certain features. The majority of
special structures are larger than domestic buildings
at a given site, benches along walls, pillars embed-
ded in walls or situated at the centre of units are
characteristic. Apart from such technical characteris-
tics, floors were generally built with greater care and
there are stone basins or clay platforms inside struc-
tures and animal horns were left around.
In special buildings at Hallan Çemi, Gusir Höyük,
Hasankeyf Höyük, and Çayönü, all these character-
istics are found either all together or individually.
Pillars are only found at Gusir and Hasankeyf Hö-
yük, and emerged later at Çayönü and Boncuklu Tar-
la. The pillars at Gusir are found at different levels
and from various contexts. Here, they are known
from the earliest phase onwards, but only a few pil-
lars are known from structures that are known to
be contemporaneous. In general, roughly carved pil-
lars at an average height of 1–1.5m are located in
central locations of structures or symmetrically
placed in pairs of four in a complex, with the excep-
tion of one example that is embedded in a wall. Such
features are also known from Nemrik and Qermez
Dere (Watkins 1992). The existence of pillars is re-
miniscent of the Euphrates Valley, but it is clear that
neither structures nor pillars are monumental like at
the Euphrates sites (Peters, Schmidt 2004).
In special structures, platforms along walls are only
known from Hallan Çemi and Gusir Höyük (Rosen-
berg 2011a.63; Karul 2011). Another feature that
is common to both of these sites are horns. At Hal-
lan Çemi, in a structure that is thought to be commu-
nal, a complete aurochs bucranium and horns in a
row were found in a courtyard. At Gusir Höyük, three
structures with special functions revealed wild sheep
and goat horns around a pillar and two platforms.
Such horns are also found in the large structure that
has been defined as a special building at Hasankeyf
Höyük.
The similarities and differences among settlements
are not limited to architecture only, as there are nu-
merous symbolic elements that make societies in a
given region more similar or different. For example,
all sites show intramural burials, but they were ob-
served only at certain phases at Gusir Höyük, in all
levels at Demirköy, Körtik Tepe, Hasankeyf, and Ça-
yönü, but not known from Hallan Çemi at all. At Ça-
yönü, during the Round Building sub-phase burials
took place under the huts or in pit graves outside,
whereas during the Grill-plan Building sub-phase
primary burials were placed under courtyards or in
between the parallel grill walls (Özdogan A. 1995.
84). At Gusir Höyük, burials are in domestic structu-
res and not associated with special installations (Fig.
15). However, the floors of special structures at the
site have not been excavated yet, and therefore it is
not possible to make a definitive statement. At Ha-
sankeyf Höyük, a structure that was suspected to
have special functions due to the presence of seve-
ral special installations that were not found in do-
Fig. 14. Semi-subterranean, sub-rectangular build-
ing with rounded corners from Gusir Höyük.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
89
mestic structures, revealed 30 individuals in graves
(Miyake et al. 2012.3). Burials that are common in
communal buildings were first identified in the Skull
Building of Çayönü, which gained a special function
starting from the Channelled Building phase.
The practice of burial goods is common but also va-
ried. At Körtik Tepe, all burials are in flexed position
and some of them had stone axes, beads, mortars,
shell, bone, obsidian and flint tools, etc. as burial
goods. Most of the burials, along with goods, were
covered with plaster or after being left for decom-
position, coated with ochre pigment and plaster (Öz-
kaya et al. 2010.514). Also, there are many exam-
ples from this site where skulls were decorated with
complete turtle shell or animal skulls or horns (Erdal
2015.6). Similar applications are also known from
Hasankeyf Höyük. Here, sub-floor flexed burials are
found in addition to rich gifts such as stone vessels,
beads as well as black bands on long bones (Miyake
et al. 2012.3). At Demirköy, applications are similar
with these previous settlements. Although there are
fewer flexed burials, goods and painted bones are
found. Also, the lack of skulls in some skeletons sug-
gests one of the earliest examples of a skull cult (Ro-
senberg 2011b.83). At Çayönü burial goods were
not found in circular plan structures, but traces of
red ochre were found. During the Grill-plan Building
sub-phase graves, goods, and pieces of ochre were
all observed (Özdogan A. 1995.84).
The finds from PPNA sites in the region do not show
diversity compared to finds from following periods,
and their production required defined and sophisti-
cated craftsmanship. One of the most common finds
are stone vessels carved out of chlorite (Fig. 16).
Amongst all the settlements mentioned here, regard-
less of whole- or fragmentary finds, Körtik Tepe of-
fers the largest collection of such vessels (Özkaya,
Coskun 2011.Figs. 13–23; Rosenberg 2011a.Figs.
9–11). Globular or straight-sided forms seem to be
more common among these expertly shaped vessels.
Shallow incisions of geometric patterns either co-
ver the whole surface or make up panels that frame
a main figure. In some cases, different figures are
also seen on stone vessels. Horned animals like wild
sheep and goats, which are among the first domesti-
cated species (Rosenberg 2011a.Fig. 11), and snakes
take precedence. Centipedes, a kind of arthropod,
are also frequently used motifs. Figures of humans
are rare during the early phases of Neolithic, but at
Körtik Tepe some stone vessels display highly styl-
ized abstract human images (see Benz, Bauer 2013).
At Gusir, a vessel that is carved out of a kind of mar-
ble has stylized human drawings. Two pendants
carved out of bone also need to be mentioned among
anthropomorphic figures. Another object that may
be interpreted similarly are figures of human-animal
combination carved on stone plaques (Özkaya, Cos-
kun 2011.Figs. 31–32). Although these representa-
tions can be questioned as to whether or not they
are realistic, in SE Anatolia – in the Upper Tigris Ba-
sin – these representations have strong meanings
for PPNA settlements. These finds, like stone vessels,
are mainly from Körtik Tepe, but there are some
examples known from Hasankeyf and Gusir Höyük.
Figural representations on stone plaques do not look
alike, but their representations share some common
aspects; they are all seated, and generally depicted
in profile. Almost all had prominent horns, and, on
their backs there are additional elements such as
wings or shells (Fig. 17). Some stones that look like
plaques also have snake or spiral representations.
Fig. 15. A view of the burials from Gusir Höyük,
showing the sub-floor burials aligned with the wall
foundations, placement in the flexed position and
grave goods included in the burials.
Necmi Karul
90
With the exception of Çayönü, all settlements have
bone plaques (Özkaya, Coskun 2011.Figs. 36–37;
Rosenberg 2011a.Fig. 16; Miyake 2013.45, Fig. 3).
These are in the form of plaques or spatula. They
have representations of horned animals such as wild
sheep and goats, or arthropods like spiders and scor-
pions. The most common representations for bone
plaques are snake representations (Fig. 18a). Al-
though beads and ornaments in PPNA are not as ela-
borately worked as during the PPNB, they were
made of various materials and of different types (see
Özdogan E. 2016). It is worth emphasizing that the
number of beads known from Körtik Tepe is much
higher than from any other SW Asian settlements
(Özkaya, Coskun 2011).
Animal representations are more numerous than
anthropomorphic ones, and the former can also be
found on various other finds. Some of them are high-
ly functional objects. Stone pestles and batons that
have the shape of a bird or horned animal on the
top are among the frequent finds in the region from
Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe and Gusir Höyük (Rosen-
berg 2011a.Figs. 12–14; Özkaya, Coskun 2011.Fig.
24–25; Karul 2011.Fig. 17) (Fig. 18b). At Nemrik 9
the pestle with the figure that has a head similar to
a vulture is among the closest parallel to these finds
(Kozłowski 1989.Figs. 8–9). Elements such as horns
are generally highly schematized. There are also
baked clay objects that probably symbolize animal
heads or horns, which are commonly found at settle-
ments in the region (Özkaya, Coskun 2011.Fig. 30;
Rosenberg 2011a.Fig. 15; Rosenberg 2011b.Fig. 1).
Polished stone shaft straighteners also have abstract
representations. Some of them are decorated with
deeply incised line and chevron patterns (Rosenberg
2011b.81; Özdogan A. 1995.Pls. 3–4; Özkaya, Cos-
kun 2011.Figs. 26–27).
Symbols appear on non-utilitarian items or objects
which are strongly related with rituals and spiritual
life, such as decorated stone vessels found in graves,
stone or bone plaques, etc., with utilitarian objects
also showing that such symbolism merged with daily
life. Accordingly, we can assume that it has a signi-
ficant place in the society at the beginning of settled
life.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of archaeological research in
SW Asia, the number of projects that focus on the
Neolithic period has increased. There has been a
growing body of evidence which makes clearer the
beginning of the period in both chronological and
regional terms. In SE Anatolia, especially in the
northern parts of the Tigris Basin, research that
takes place at nearby Neolithic settlements empha-
sizes once again that any local dynamics did not lead
the regional culture, but quite the opposite: the com-
mon dynamics formed cultures together in the whole
of SW Asia with the local differences. The chronolo-
gical differences between regions such as the south-
ern Levant, Euphrates or Tigris Valley may be inter-
preted as the result of the intensity and focus of on-
going research. These chronological differences
among regions do not provide support for the argu-
ment that regions with earlier dates dominated those
with later dates. On the contrary, the complex chro-
nological, technological, and social aspects of the
common Neolithic might have provided the basis for
dynamics that brought transformations.
One of the most striking elements of the Upper Tig-
ris Basin is the development of the architectural tech-
niques. The replacement of subterranean buildings
by those built on the ground level and the change
from round to rectangular plans have clearly been
Fig. 16. Stone vessel fragments from Gusir Höyük
made of chlorite, similar to those found in the Up-
per Tigris and central Euphrates Basin settlements.
Fig. 17. Decorated stone vessel fragments from Gu-
sir Höyük, typical of the PPNA.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
91
identified in the region, especially in Gusir Höyük
and Çayönü. This change is not only technological
but also conceptual, so the transformation from shel-
ters to dwellings also refers to changes in space use
and social life. In this context, architectural transfor-
mation in the PPNA can reflect the adaptations of
humans to settled life.
Continuous change and transformation in social and
technological elements is observed in the PPNA in
SE Anatolia. When the process in this region is as-
sessed as a whole – including the periods which pre-
cede and follow it – the Tigris Basin in particular
allows us to trace the development of construction
techniques. The first structures in the region have
completed their experimental stages. Like architec-
ture, chipped and ground stone industries, as well
as bone tool industry, have a similar accumulation
of knowledge and knowhow. One can identify tool
kits that were expertly crafted, designed for specific
use, and presenting a relatively wide array of choi-
ces. In particular the prominence of symbolism, its
diversity and the elements used reveal similar as-
pects. High quality craftsmanship and sophisticated
decoration of symbols on these objects make us
think that there is long history behind these sym-
bols and the way they are executed.
Additionally, in the Upper Tigris Valley the absence
or relative scarcity of wild male animals in aggres-
sive, masculine and phallic depictions is noteworthy.
More commonly, a minimal zoomorphic depiction as
part of the symbolic repertoire can be seen, which
results in a greater divergence from the symbolism
of the Euphrates Basin settlements. Monumentality
is another feature that we cannot see in the Tigris
area. Again, unlike the Euphrates Basin, in the Tig-
ris region burials are an important part of the settle-
ment, the pillars inside buildings are smaller and
more roughly carved, and they may not always be
placed inside special structures. Differences between
the two regions underline the fact that there were
different cultural formations in adjacent regions even
though they can be predicted to have been in close
contact.
Currently, there is no sufficient evidence to create a
solid picture for the early stages of hunter-gatherers
in the Euphrates or Tigris Basins, which would sig-
nify the transition into sedentary life through per-
manent structures. Consequently, the cultural base
that formed the basis of PPNA in SE Anatolia is not
clearly known, probably due to lack of research.
However, settlements which have Epipaleolithic la-
yers in the region are the precursors of previous pe-
riods. Even though we do not know as much about
the periods predating the PPNA, it is possible to
observe how these cultures evolved into the PPNB.
The developments in rectangular building technolo-
gies, the concept of a house, well-defined special
buildings and designed settlements constitute the
main elements of this new period. Besides this, the
domestication process that is about to end, the new
technologies that continue to evolve and continued
elements in symbolism indicate a strong continuity
and more homogeneous cultural environment in
whole region. In addition to these elements during
the PPNA, less developed human representations be-
come more prominent in the PPNB, which may be
connected to changes in the worldviews of PPNB
people. It can be assumed that the humans of PPNB
societies who were part of the wild world gradually
became the centre of life.
Fig. 18. Schematic snake motif decorated bone (a)
and decorated baton (b) found in the PPNA depo-
sits at Gusir Höyük.
The paper was originally written for a book about
“The Long Revolution” initiated by Klaus Schmidt
and Trevor Watkins, which could not be realized. My
sincere thanks especially go to Trevor Watkins for his
efforts. I would like to thank Haluk Saglamtimur for
his support and encouragement for the work done in
Gusir Höyük. I am very thankful to the funding of
our research by the Scientific Research Projects of Is-
tanbul University (Project ID 36859). I also thankful
to Gonca Dardeniz Arıkan and Cerren Kabukçu for
the English translation and corrections.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Necmi Karul
Algaze G., Rosenberg M. 1990. The Tigris Archaeological
Reconnaissance Project, 1989. Arastırma Sonuçları Top-
lantısı VII: 137–162.
Algaze G., Breuninger R., Lightfoot C., and Rosenberg M.
1991. The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance
Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1989–1990 Seasons.
Anatolica 17: 175–240.
Altınbilek-Algül Ç. 2013. The lithic assemblages of Gusir
Höyük (Turkey): the preliminary results. In F. Borrell, J.
J. Ibanez, and M. Molist (eds.), Stone Tools in Transition:
From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near
East (7th Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone
Industries of the Fertile Crescent). Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona. Barcelona: 289–297.
Arbuckle B. S., Price M. D., Hongo H., and Öksüz B. 2016.
Documenting the initial appearance of domestic cattle in
the Eastern Fertile Crescent (Northern Iraq and western
Iran). Journal of Archaeological Science 72: 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.05.008
Asouti E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B inter-
action sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 87–126.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-007-9008-1
Asouti E., Fuller D. Q. 2013. A Contextual Approach to the
Emergence of Agriculture in Southwest Asia Reconstru-
cting Early Neolithic Plant-Food Production. Current An-
thropology 54: 299–345. https://doi.org/10.1086/670679
Bahar H. 1989. Elazıg-Bingöl ve Tunceli İllerinde Prehi-
storik Arastırmalar, 1987. Arastırma Sonuçları Toplan-
tısı VI: 501–528.
Banning E. B. 2003. Housing Neolithic farmers. Near
Eastern Archaeology 66: 4–21.
Bar-Yosef O., Meadow R. H. 1995. The origins of agricul-
ture in the Near East. In T. Douglas Price, A. B. Gebauer
(eds.), Last hunters, first farmers: new per- spectives on
the prehistoric transition to agriculture. School of Ame-
rican Research Press. Santa Fe NM: 39–94.
Bar-Yosef O., Price T. D. 2011. The origins of agriculture:
new data, new ideas. Current Anthropology 52(4): 163–
174. https://doi.org/10.1086/659964
Benedict P. 1980. Güneydogu Anadolu Yüzey Arastırma-
sı. In H. Çambel, R. J. Braidwood (eds.), The Joint Project
of Istanbul and Chicago University – Prehistoric Re-
search in Southeast Anatolia/Istanbul ve Chicago Üni-
versiteleri Karma Projesi – Güneydogu Anadolu Tari-
höncesi Arastırmaları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fa-
kültesi Yayınları. İstanbul: 107–149.
Benz M., Bauer J. 2013. Symbols of Power – Symbols of
Crisis? A Psycho-Social Approach to Early Neolithic Sym-
bol Systems. Neo-Lithics 2(13): 11–24. https://www.exori
ente.org/repository/NEO-LITHICS/NEO-LITHICS_2013_
2.pdf
Benz M., Deckers K., Rössner C., Alexandrovskiy A., Pu-
stovoytov K., Scheeres M., Fecher M., Coskun A., Riehl S.,
Alt K. W., and Özkaya V. 2015. Prelude to Village Life. En-
vironmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeo-
lithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, Southeast Turkey. Palé-
orient 41(2): 9–30. https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_01
53-9345_2015_num_41_2_5673
Benz M., Willmy A., Dogan F., Sahin F. S., and Özkaya V.
2017. A Burnt Pit House, Large Scale Roasting, and Enig-
matic Epipaleolithic Structures at Körtik Tepe, Southeast-
ern Turkey. Neo-Lithics 1(17): 3–12.
https://www.exoriente.org/docs/00084.pdf
Bıçakçı E. 1998. An Essay on the Chronology of the Pre-
pottery Neolithic Settlements of the East-Taurus Region
(Turkey), with the building remains and the 14C dates. In
G. Arsebük, M. J. Mellink, and W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on
Top of the Black Hill, Studies presented to Halet Çam-
bel/Karatepe’deki Isık, Halet Çambel’e Sunulan Yazı-
lar. Ege Yayınları. İstanbul: 137–150.
2003. Observations on the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Architecture in the Near East: 1. New Building Mate-
rials and Construction Techniques. In M. Özdogan, H.
Hauptmann, and N. Basgelen (eds.), From Primary Vil-
lages to Cities (Essays in Honour of Ufuk Esin). Arkeo-
loji ve Sanat Yayınları. İstanbul: 385–413.
Braidwood R. J. 1960. The Agricultural Revolution. Scien-
tific American 203: 130–141.
Braidwood R. J., Çambel H., and Schirmer W. 1981. Be-
ginnings of Village-Farming Communities in Southeastern
Turkey: Çayönü Tepesi, 1978 and 1979. Journal of Field
Archaeology 8(3): 249–258.
https://doi.org/10.1179/009346981791504950
Braidwood R. J., Çambel H., Redman C. L., and Watson P.
J. 1971. Beginnings of Village-Farming Communities in
Southeastern Turkey. Proceedings of the National Aca-
demy of Sciences of the United States of America 68(6):
1236–1240. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.68.6.1236
Cauvin J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins
of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Cauvin J., Aurenche O., Cauvin M. C., and Balkan-Atlı N.
2011. The Pre-Pottery Site of Cafer Höyük. In M. Özdogan,
N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Tur-
References
92
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
93
key: New Excavations and New Research. The Euph-
rates Basin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul:
1–40.
Childe V. G. 1942. What Happened in History. Penguin.
Baltimore.
Çambel H., Braidwood R. J. 1980. The Joint Project of
Istanbul and Chicago Universities – Prehistoric Re-
search in Southeast Anatolia/Istanbul ve Chicago Üni-
versiteleri Karma Projesi – Güneydogu Anadolu Tari-
höncesi Arastırmaları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fa-
kültesi Yayınları. İstanbul.
Çelik B. 2010. Hamzan Tepe in the light of new finds. Do-
cumenta Praehistorica 37: 257–268.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.37.22
2015. New Neolithic cult centres and domestic settle-
ments in the light of Urfa Region Surveys. Documenta
Praehistorica 42: 353–364.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.25
Erdal Y. S. 2015. Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-De-
positional Treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Ana-
tolia, PPNA Period). European Journal of Archaeology
18(1): 4–32.
https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000072
Erim-Özdogan A. 2011a. Çayönü. In M. Özdogan, N. Bas-
gelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey,
New Excavations and New Research. The Tigris Basin.
Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 185–269.
2011b. Sumaki Höyük. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen,
and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New
Excavations and New Research. The Tigris Basin. Ar-
chaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 19–60.
Fuller D. Q., Willcox G., and Allaby R. G. 2011. Cultivation
and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against
the core area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in
the Near East. World Archaeology 43(4): 628–652.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011.624747
Gebel H. G. 2004. There was no centre: the polycentric
evolution of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Neo-Lithics 1(4):
28–32.
Gepts P., Famula T. 2012. Biodiversity in Agriculture:
Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Hauptmann H. 2011. The Urfa Region. In M. Özdogan, N.
Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Tur-
key: New Excavations and New Research. The Euphra-
tes Basin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul:
85–138.
Hodder I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe: Struc-
ture and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell.
Oxford and Cambridge.
Karul N. 2011. Gusir Höyük. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen,
and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New
Excavations and New Research. The Tigris Basin. Ar-
chaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 1–17.
Kodas E. 2018. Yukarı Dicle’de Yeni Bir Çanak Çömlek-
siz Neolitik Yerleim Yeri: Boncuklu Tarla Kazıları ve İlk
Gözlemler. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 157–158: VII–XX.
Kodas E., Genç B. 2019. Çemka Höyük: Yukarı Dicle
Havzası’nda Bulunan Yeni Bir PPNA ve Geç Epipaleolitik
Dönem Yerlesim Yeri. Anadolu/Anatolia 45: 211–221.
Kozłowski S. K. 1989. Nermik 9 A PPN Neolithic Site in
Northern Iraq. Paléorient 15(1): 25–31.
Kozłowski S. K., Kempisty A. 1990. Architecture of the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq. World
Archaeology. Architectural Innovation 21(3): 348–362.
Kozłowski S. K., Aurenche O. 2005. Territories, Boun-
daries and Cultures in the Near East. British Archaeolo-
gical Reports IS 1362. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Kuijt I. (ed.) 2000. Life in Neolithic Farming Commu-
nities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentia-
tion. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York.
Miyake Y. 2013. Hasankeyf Höyük. ArkeoAtlas 8: 40–47.
Miyake Y., Maeda O., Tanno K., Hongo H., and Gündem
C. Y. 2012. New Excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th
millennium cal. BC site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast
Anatolia. Neo-Lithics 12(1): 3–7.
Özbasaran M., Duru G. 2011. Akarçay Tepe, A PPNB and
PN Settlement in Middle Euphrates- Urfa. In M. Özdogan,
N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in
Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. The Eu-
phrates Basin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istan-
bul: 261–265.
Özdogan A. 1995. Life at Çayönü During the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic Period (according to the artifactual assemblage).
Readings in Prehistory. Studies presented to Halet Çam-
bel. Graphis Publications. Istanbul: 79–100.
Özdogan E. 2016. Neolithic Beads of Anatolia: An Over-
view. In Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal VII. Grafisches
Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG. Bochum. Bonn: 135–151.
Özdogan M. 2009. The Contribution of Anatolian Archi-
tecture to World Architecture in the Light of New Data.
In. F. Yurttas (ed.), From the Past to the Future: Mate-
Necmi Karul
94
rials and Architecture in Anatolia. UCTEA Chamber of
Architects of Turkey Istanbul Metropolital Branch. İstan-
bul: 155–172.
2011. Mezraa Teleilat. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and
P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Ex-
cavations and New Research. The Euphrates Basin.
Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 203–260.
2010. The Transition from Round-Plan to Rectangular.
In D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Neolithic and Chalcolithic Ar-
chitecture in Eurasia. Techniques and Spatial Organi-
sation. British Archaeological Reports IS 2097. Archaeo-
press. Oxford: 29–34.
Özdogan M., Özdogan A. 1990. Çayönü. A Conspectus of
Recent Work. In O. Aurenche, M. C. Cauvin (eds.), Préhi-
stoire du Levant II. Maison de l’Orient. Lyon: 65–74.
1998. Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings. In
G. Arsebük, M. Mellink, and W. Schirmer (eds.), Light
on Top of the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet
Çambel Ege Yayınları. İstanbul: 581–601.
Özdogan M., Basgelen N., and Kuniholm P. 2011a. The
Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Re-
search. The Euphrates Basin. Archaeology and Art Publi-
cations. Istanbul.
2011b. The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and
New Research. The Tigris Basin. Archaeology and Art
Publications. Istanbul.
Özkaya V., Coskun A., San O., Sahin F. S., Barın G., Kartal
M., and Erdal Y. S. 2010. Körtik Tepe 2008 Yılı Kazısı. 31.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 511–535.
Özkaya V., Coskun A. 2011. Körtik Tepe. In M. Özdogan,
N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Tur-
key: New Excavations and New Research. The Tigris Ba-
sin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 89–127.
Peasnall B. L. 2000. The Round House Horizon along
the Taurus-Zagros Arc. A Synthesis of Recent Excava-
tions of Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Aceramic Sites in
Southeastern Anatolia and Northern Iraq. Unpublished
PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.
Peters J., Schmidt K. 2004. Animals in the Symbolic World
of Pre-pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Tur-
key: A Preliminary Assessment. Anthropozoologica 39:
179–218.
Peters J., Arbuckle B. S., and Pöllath N. 2014. Subsistence
and beyond: Animals in Neolithic Anatolia. In M. Özdo-
gan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic
in Turkey, Vol. 6: 10500–5200 BC: Environment, settle-
ment, flora, fauna, dating, symbols of belief, with views
from North, South, East and West. Archaeology and Art
Publications. Istanbul: 135–203.
Roodenberg J. J. 1989. Hayaz Höyük and the Final PPNB
in the Taurus Foothills. Paléorient 15(1): 91–101.
Rosenberg M. 1994. Hallan Çemi: Some Further Observa-
tions Concerning Stratigraphy and Material Culture. Ana-
tolica 20: 121–140.
2011a. Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P.
Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Exca-
vations and New Research. The Tigris Basin. Archaeo-
logy and Art Publications. Istanbul: 61–78.
2011b. Demirköy. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P.
Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Exca-
vations and New Research. The Tigris Basin. Archaeo-
logy and Art Publications. Istanbul: 79–87.
Rosenberg M., Togul H. 1991. The Batman River Archaeo-
logical Site Survey, 1990. Anatolica 17: 241–254.
Rosenberg M., Davis M. 1992. Hallan Çemi Tepesi, an
Early Aceramic Neolithic Site in Eastern Anatolia: Some
preliminary observations concerning material culture.
Anatolica XVIII: 1–18.
Rosenberg M., Nesbit R., Redding R. W., and Peasnall B. L.
1998. Hallan Çemi, Pig Husbandry, and Post-Pleistocene
Adaptations Along the Taurus-Zagros Ach (Turkey). Palé-
orient 24(1): 25–41.
Rosenberg M., Peasnall B. L. 1998. A Report on Sound-
ings at Demirköy Höyük: an Aceramic Neolithic Site in
Eastern Anatolia. Anatolica XXIV: 195–207.
Schirmer W. 1988. Zu den Bauten des Çayönü Tepesi.
Anatolica 15: 139–159.
1990. Some Aspects of Building at the ‘Aceramic-Neo-
lithic’ Settlement of Çayönü Tepesi. World Archaeology
21(3): 363–387. https://www.jstor.org/stable/124836
Schmidt K. 1995. Investigation in the Upper Mesopota-
mian Early Neolithic: Göbekli Tepe and Gürcütepe. Neo-
Lithics 2(95): 9–10.
1996. The Urfa Project 1996. Neo-Lithics 2(96): 2–3.
2001. Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A Prelimi-
nary Report on the 1995–1999 Excavations. Paléorient
26(1): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2000.4697
2006. Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte
Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Verlag C. H. Beck. Münc-
hen.
The beginning of the Neolithic in southeast Anatolia> Upper Tigris Basin
95
2011. Göbekli Tepe. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and
P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Ex-
cavations and New Research. The Euphrates Basin.
Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 41–83.
Stordeur D., Brenet M., Der Aprahamian G., and Roux J.-C.
2001. Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et
Mureybet horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paléorient 26(1): 29–
44. https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2000_
num_26_1_4696
Stordeur D., Ibáñez J. J. 2008. Stratigraphie et répartition
des architectures de Mureybet. In In J. J. Ibáñez (ed.), Le
site Néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du Nord): en
hommage à Jacques Cauvin. British Archaeological Re-
ports IS 1843. Archaeopress. Oxford: 33–94.
Taskıran H., Kartal M. 2010. 2008 Yılı Ilısu Baraj Gövde-
si Alanı 2008 Yüzey Arastırması. 27. Arastırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı III: 233–244.
Voigt M. M. 1988. Excavations at Neolithic Gritille. Ana-
tolica 15: 215–232.
Watkins T. 1990. The origins of house and home? World
Archaeology. Architectural Innovation 21(3): 336–347.
1992. Pushing Back the Frontiers of Mesopotamian Pre-
history. The Biblical Archaeologist 55(4): 176–181.
2008. Supra-Regional Networks in the Neolithic of
Southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 21(2):
139–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-008-9013-z
Whallon R. 1979. An Archaeological Survey of the Ke-
ban Reservoir Area of East-Central Turkey. University
of Michigan Anthropology Museum. Ann Arbor.
Willcox G., Savard M. 2007. Güneydogu Anadolu Tarımın
Benimsenmesine iliskin Botanik Veriler. In M. Özdogan,
N. Basgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Arkeoloji
ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 427–440.
Yener M. A. 1994. Levzin Höyük Kurtarma Kazısı, 1991.
In III. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri-1993. T. C. Kül-
tür Bakanlıgı Yayınları. Efes: 285–296.
Zeder M. A., Bradley D. G., Emshwiller E., and Smith B.
D. 2006. Documenting Domestication Bringing Together
Plants, Animals, Archaeology, and Genetics. In M. A. Ze-
der, D. G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, and B. D. Smith (eds.),
Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeo-
logical Paradigms. University of California Press. Berke-
ley, Los Angeles, London: 1–12.
Zeder M. A. 2011. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near
East. Current Anthropology – The Origins of Agriculture:
New Data, New Ideas 52(S4): 221–235.
https://doi.org/10.1086/659307