68 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) Introduction Decades of intensive research, discoveries of new sites and an interdisciplinary approach in late Pleis- tocene and early Holocene archaeology are strongly linked with Gordon Childe’s ‘Neolithic Revolution’ concept. While the revolutionary aspect of the cru- cial transformation process is doubtlessly evident, fundamentals other than changes in the economy have been integrated into the discussion and opened significant, new horizons (Schmidt 2006). Cognitive and cultural changes have been defined as pivotal Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean Barbara Horejs Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, AT barbara.horejs@oeaw.ac.at ABSTRACT – This paper provides an overview of our current knowledge about the transformation towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and the Aegean, and offers a narrative for their interpre- tation. Within the longue durée perspective of the long revolution in the Near East, the first millen- nia of the Holocene of the Aegean and western Anatolia are contrasted with each other. Economic strategies, environmental conditions, technologies, raw material procurement and cultural practices in the Aegean Mesolithic and the Pre-Neolithic times in western Anatolia are analysed to classify potential similarities and differences. The evidence of new cultural and symbolic practices, eco- nomies, and technologies in the seventh millennium is discussed as the paradox of a short revolu- tion embedded in a long-term process of interaction, knowledge-transfer and adaptation, setting the scene for the Neolithic pioneers establishing a new social life. IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo pregled trenutnih podatkov o spremembah, ki so vodile k neoli- tiku na obmo≠ju zahodne Anatolije in Egejskega morja, ter ponujamo pripovedi za njihovo inter- pretacijo. V okviru perspektive dolgoro≠nih zgodovinskih procesov (fr. longue durée) na Bli∫njem Vzhodu, Prvo tiso≠letje v holocenu je v okviru perspektive dolgoro≠nih zgodovinskih procesov (fr. longue durée) na Bli∫njem Vzhodu potekalo razli≠no na obmo≠ju Egejskega morja in v zahodni Ana- toliji. Za ovrednotenje morebitnih podobnosti in razlik med mezolitikom na obmo≠ju Egejskega mor- ja in pred-neolitikom na obmo≠ju zahodne Anatolije smo ovrednotili gospodarske strategije, okoljske pogoje, tehnologije, oskrbo s surovinami in kulturne obi≠aje. V ≠lanku nadalje razpravljamo o novih kulturnih in simbolnih obi≠ajih, gospodarstvih in tehnologijah v sedmem tiso≠letju, ki predstavljajo paradoks kratke revolucije, ki je zakoreninjena v dolgoro≠nih procesih interakcije, prenosa znanj in prilagoditev, kar je omogo≠ilo neolitskim pionirjem vzpostavitev novega dru∫benega ∫ivljenja. KEY WORDS – Neolithic pioneers; social life; practices; technologies; western Anatolia KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitski pionirji; dru∫beno ∫ivljenje; obi≠aji; tehnologije; zahodna Anatolija Dolge in kratke revolucije k neolitiku v zahodni Anatoliji in v Egejskem morju Dedicated to Klaus Schmidt (†) who inspired Neolithic research far beyond Anatolia DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.5 Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 69 the 1950s’ by Demetrios Theocharis and Vladimir Miloj≠i≤ (Miloj≠i≤ 1950; Theocharis 1973), the im- pact of new information from the Near East on re- search in Greece has understandably been enor- mous. Not only the exchange of knowledge on a per- sonal level, but also the terminology and cultural concept of Neolithisation as defined in the Levant were integrated into interpretations of the early Neolithic of the Greek mainland, mainly in Thessaly, and in Knossos on Crete (Kotsakis 2008; Reingru- ber 2015). While discussions about the evidence and dating of the so-called Preceramic or Aceramic pha- ses in the early Neolithic rooted in these early days are still ongoing, the model of an Aegean Neolithic pathway that is different from the Levant is now widely accepted. Scholars working in western Anatolia have had dif- ferent conceptualizations of the long-term process of Neolithisation. The early excavations of James Mel- laart in Hacılar in the 1950s (Mellaart 1958; 1970; Brami, Heyd 2011), followed by Refik Duru’s inves- tigations in the Lake District (recently: Duru 2012) and Mehmet Özdogan’s early work in the Marmara region and in Turkish Thrace were strongly influ- enced by the results of research in the rest of Ana- tolia, and frequently contextualized with the various regions of the huge landmass (e.g., Özdogan et al. 2012). The additional establishment of a Turkish-in- ternational academic community, especially since the 1970s, has also led to an intensification of western Anatolian investigations regarding prehistory, again embedded in new discoveries in central and south- east Anatolia (e.g., Özdogan, Basgelen 1999; Lichter 2005). While field investigations of the early Holo- cene in western Turkey have increased considerably since then, with a few exceptions (e.g., Franchthi Cave, Knossos, Paliambela, Youra Cave, Maroulas) fieldwork in Greece stagnated. The archaeological community working in Greece focused instead more on detail, but crucial studies on a micro-level high- light the complex trajectories and adaptation pro- cess, particularly regarding early Holocene material, involving profound social, demographic, cultural and economic changes (e.g., Perlès 2001; 2003a; Séfé- riadès 2007; Kotsakis 2003; Souvatzi 2008; Tran- dalidou 2003; Galanidou 2011; Reingruber 2011). This brief overview explains the different chronolo- gical and cultural concepts as well as the diverse available data sets for the first millennia in the Ho- locene in Aegean Greece on the one hand, and in western Turkey on the other. The dialectic research tradition of both regions handicapped their compre- agents of change as well. Following Trevor Watkins (2005) concept, the “Neolithic Revolution can be understood as the discovery by humans of the po- tential of material culture for the storage and transmission of ideas and concepts, elements of symbolic reference”. This cultural and cognitive ap- proach additionally extended the timeline by push- ing the beginning of the revolution further back into the Epipaleolithic, when the transformation of new social life began in south-west Asia c. 23 000 years ago (Watkins 2010; 2018). The societies in the re- gions of western Anatolia and the Aegean faced these fundamental changes in a different way and later in time, but were related with the long revolution in many ways. The ‘farming frontier’ between central Anatolia in the 9 th millennium BC and the regions further west reflects the diverse pathways towards the Neolithic, where a lag of c. 2000 years is evident in the current data sets (Brami, Zanotti 2015; Bra- mi, Horejs in press). The mosaic-like pattern in west- ern Anatolia and the Aegean shows the diverse tra- jectories in the transformation process of the Neoli- thisation. There are nevertheless some similarities and differences in the communities’ ways of manag- ing cultural and social life, adopting new subsistence strategies, and integrating new technologies, that allow the incorporation of the regions into a broad- er narrative. Diversities in Aegean and Anatolian archaeology The early Holocene in the Aegean and western Ana- tolia (modern Greece and western Turkey) is now- adays embedded in a different narrative than the core zones of the Levant and Mesopotamia. Although situated in direct proximity of central Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean – both parts of the Neoli- thic core zones – the long-term transformation be- tween 10 000 and 6000 BC in these cores is dis- cussed differently and mostly separately. The acad- emic segregation of east from west in discussions of the Neolithisation process, especially in Aegean ar- chaeology, developed in the few last decades for se- veral reasons, including the influence of post-proces- sualist theories and the tendency towards national or regional specialization in archaeology. This de- coupling process might additionally lie in the strong influence of Near Eastern and Anatolian archaeology in the early days of the spectacular discoveries of Kathleen M. Kenyon, Robert J. Braidwood, James Mellaart and other pioneers, only very simply sum- marized here as the concept of ‘ex oriente lux’ (Kot- sakis 2008). Since the first excavations of the old- est Neolithic settlements on the Greek mainland in Barbara Horejs 70 hensive integration, especially with our longue durée perspective on the topic. Thanks to several new stu- dies that overcome this artificial segregation, we are now able to combine various results and new data (e.g., Lichter 2005; Özdogan 2010; Perlès et al. 2013; Guilaine 2013; Çilingiroglu, Çakırlar 2013; Weninger et al. 2014; Kotsakis 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Carter et al. 2016; Horejs 2016; 2017; Koz- łowski 2016; Çilingiroglu 2016; Reingruber 2017; Mili≤ 2018; Brami, Horejs in press). The Aegean coastal zones of modern Greece and Turkey are slow- ly coming together again as Mesolithic-Neolithic re- search re-evaluates both old and new concepts about the crucial early Holocene cultural developments. The Aegean Mesolithic: Time of foragers, fish- er(wo)men and seafarers The time between 9000 and 7000 BC in the Aegean is characterized by mobile and seasonally based for- agers (recently: Reingruber 2017). Our current know- ledge is based on about 20 known sites along the Aegean coasts and on the islands, including Crete and the southern coast of Turkey (Fig. 1). Thanks to studies and fieldwork by various scholars, the main cultural components of the Aegean Meso- lithic in the 9 th and 10 th millennia BC were slowly brought to light with respect to the economy, mobi- lity, exchange, resource management, technologies and other aspects, although many questions are still open and require more primary data (Galanidou, Perlès 2003; Galanidou 2011; Sampson 2010; 2014; Perlès et al. 1990; Kozłowski 2016; Reingruber 2011; 2017; Carter et al. 2016). In summarizing the main conclusions of Mesolithic research, we are faced with the remains of mobile groups who probably based themselves in seasonal camps. The Aegean is- lands appear to have been visited and used seaso- nally but intensively by foragers and fishermen, as attested at a few sites. A multi-seasonal or even year- round occupation of island sites is attested, such as on the islands of Youra, Naxos, Ikaria, Kythnos and Crete (Sampson et al. 2010; Strasser et al. 2010; Carter et al. 2014; 2016). We can assume the use of other islands and sites as well, which today lie below sea-level, as recognized for example at Youra (Efstratiou 2014.79). Currently, early island occupa- tion around the Pleistocene-Holocene transition is attested only in the northern Aegean, as at Ouriakos on Lemnos (Efstratiou et al. 2014). This picture may change, when more field data becomes available from the central and southern Aegean. The Mesoli- thic as currently known in the central and southern Aegean basin belongs mainly to the 9 th and 8 th mil- lennia BC, also defined as the ‘Aegean Mesolithic’ (Kozłowski 2016). A semi-sedentary lifestyle has been suggested for these societies based on the preserved architectural Fig. 1. The Aegean Meso- lithic and western Ana- tolia Pre-Neolithic sites dating between 10 000 and 7000 BC and the Neolithic pioneer sites starting around 6700 BC (after Horejs in press. Fig. 2 with modifica- tions). 1 Ag gaclı; 2 Asar- kaya; 3 Belbas sı; 4 Bel- dibi; 5 Çalca; 6 Cyclops Cave (Youra); 7 Domalı; 8 Gavdos; 9 Girmeler; 10 Gümüs sdere; 11 Kal- kanlı; 12 Karain; 13 Ke- çiçayırı; 14 Kerame; 15 Klissoura; 16 Koukou; 17 Livari; 18 Maroulas; 19 Mordog gan; 20 Muslu- çes sme, 21 Öküzini; 22 Ouriakos; 23 Plakias; 24 Sidari; 25 Theopetra; 26 Üçdutlar; 27 Ug gurlu; 28 Ulbrich; 29 Zaimis (map made by M. Börner, OREA). Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 71 remains. The best example is Maroulas on Kythnos, which is dated to the first half of the 9 th millennium BC. Circular and oval structures with stone pave- ments and enclosures, partially constructed with stone-tiles at the bottom, are reconstructed as huts with central posts and structured entrance areas (Sampson 2010.102, Figs. 98–101). About 27 of these dwellings represent at least a multi-seasonal occupation and are used for domestic activities (Sampson et al. 2010; Kozłowski 2016). Burials un- derneath the stone pavements of these huts and next to it represent a group of six children and 19 adults. The economy of the Aegean Mesolithic was based on a subsistence strategy in which foraging played an important role alongside fishing of coastal and sea- sonal off-shore fish, including tuna. The evidence of grinding stones at Maroulas indicates the intensive use of plant foods processed at the site. The pres- ence of pre-/semi-domesticated or domesticated pigs and caprines at Cyclopes Cave and Maroulas in Meso- lithic times, as suggested by Katerina Trantalidou (2003; 2010), is based on very scarce data and view- ed sceptically by various scholars (e.g., Kozłowski 2016). Neither species is local and both have to be brought to the islands by people (Trantalidou 2011). If the early evidence is affirmed by additional evi- dence and further analyses, the introduction of do- mesticates into the Aegean would have taken place at about the same date as their appearance in Cy- prus (Vigne et al. 2012; 2014). Whatever the situa- tion concerning the introduction of certain species, based mainly on results from Maroulas and the Cy- clopes Cave (Trandalidou 2011), the economy of the island populations is based mainly on marine fishing and foraging, hunting birds as well as gath- ering snails. Finally, the lithic industry of the Aegean Mesolithic seems to be its own technological com- plex, based on a flake industry, with retouched flakes, splintered pieces, backed blades and microliths (Ka- czanowska, Kozłowski 2008; Kozłowski 2016). Re- cent investigations on the Aegean coast of Turkey re- vealed the new open-air site of Mordogan on the Ka- raburun Peninsula near Izmir, which shows the same kind of industry (Çilingiroglu et al. 2016). Çiler Çi- lingiroglu has convincingly argued for an Aegean Mesolithic complex that includes the Anatolian coastal zone (Çilingiroglu 2016), and she now offers the first evidence of a Mesolithic population in the cen- tre of the Aegean coast of Turkey. The evidence for intensive Mesolithic seafaring in the Aegean Sea implies highly connected mobile groups, occupying sites on the islands and partially also the shores at least multi-seasonally, partially perhaps also round-year. A network of voyaging groups is in- dicated by the intensively used obsidian from sour- ces on Melos and Giali (Ammermann 2014) (Fig. 1). Although we have no information on their commu- nication systems, and are far from a detailed resolu- tion of the chronological situation of the Aegean Me- solithic, the agents of the obsidian exploration offer us a small indirect insight into these societies. The knowledge of both island sources had to be trans- mitted down the generations and between groups. This information had to be embedded in a whole package of nautical knowledge including the routes, navigation, winds and currents, seasonal weather conditions, landing options, available water sources, transport facilities and much more (Broodbank 2013; Cherry et al. 2017). It is therefore safe to assume that these maritime societies not only developed a distinct system of mobility in their marine environ- ment, but also established a package of nautical knowledge as a fundamental Mesolithic capability that was sustained over many generations. These Mesolithic Aegean networks seem to come in contact with the eastern Mediterranean, at least spo- radically (e.g., Horejs et al. 2015; Kozłowski 2016). These contacts are indicated by some elements adopted in the Mesolithic Aegean that most proba- bly came from Cyprus and the Levant, as recently argued by Kozłowski (2016). These are the circular dwellings with stone foundations and floors, burials underneath the floors and next to the dwellings, evidence of grinding stones and plant processing as well as a few stone vessel fragments. Another poten- tial side-effect of these contacts between the Aegean Mesolithic and Cyprus is seen in some aspects of the stone industry, which is interpreted as a potential western influence on Cyprus (Ammerman 2014; Kozłowski 2016). It has been suggested (Kacza- nowska, Kozłowski 2014) that the lithic assemblage of Nissi Beach, based on a pebble-flake industry and the production of certain tools such as arched-backed pieces, denticulates, and notches, may be evidence for close connections between Cyprus and the Ae- gean Mesolithic. The seafaring groups of the Aegean Mesolithic had certainly established maritime net- works in the 9 th millennium BC, which appears to coincide with the existence of the eastern Mediterra- nean maritime network. We are therefore faced with an Aegean Mesolithic society organized in mobile groups and based on a foraging, fishing and hunting economy, which stands in strong contrast to the contemporaneous Pre-Pot- Barbara Horejs 72 tery-Neolithic cultures of the Levant and central and southeast Anatolia. Aside from the few presumably adopted elements mentioned above, the economic, cultural and social characteristics of the PPN socie- ties are not evident in the Aegean Mesolithic (Fig. 2). Although the mobile or semi-mobile populations of the Aegean islands and the littorals came into con- tact with the PPN societies of Cyprus and the Le- vant, the direct transfer of the classic Neolithic vil- lage society and farming economy is not recogniz- able in the 9 th and 8 th millennia BC. Neither the complex early PPN symbolism nor the practice of farming, herding and sedentary settlements is to be found in the Aegean Mesolithic. Indeed, one may wonder why and how a population with an estab- lished economic niche system founded on a mari- time mobility, resource system and subsistence stra- tegy should integrate and adopt the new Neolithic strategies into their way of life. The island environ- mental conditions offer the ideal world system for the Aegean Mesolithic maritime societies, and are not at all suitable for farming, herding or permanent set- tlement. It is therefore not surprising that the first year-round Neolithic farmers on the islands (as dis- tinct from the mainland coasts) are a quite late phe- nomenon, not arriving before 6 th or even 5 th millen- nia BC. Even after the establishment of the Neolithic in the surrounding coastal zones of the Aegean in the early 7 th millennia BC, the new economic system did not reach the islands immediately. Crete, as the larg- est Aegean island, is the only exception, where an early Neolithic economy is attested at Knossos in the early 7 th millennium BC (Douka et al. 2017). How- ever, the Knossos pioneer phase did not lead to a dispersal of farming and herding communities in Crete, and it appears to have lasted for only a short time at Knossos. The Neolithic at Knossos succeeded only after a hiatus of about 1000 years, probably again related to the incoming of new people, as re- cently suggested by Katerina Douka et al. (2017). If an interaction existed between the mobile mari- time foragers and the Neolithic farmers in the 7 th millennium BC, how it may have operated, and how long both systems might have existed in parallel, is unfortunately unknown. At least in the 9 th and 8 th millennia BC we are confronted with two different cultural world systems, an Aegean Mesolithic on the one hand, and a Neolithic in the ‘core zones’ of Southwest Asia on the other hand, with well-estab- lished and long-term seaborne contacts preparing the foundations for the later Neolithic dispersal (Brood- bank 2013; Simmons 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Dou- ka et al. 2017). Western Anatolia in Pre-Neolithic times Thanks to new investigations in northern, central and southern areas of western Anatolia, the scat- tered data of the Pre-Neolithic is slowly coming to- gether, although many questions remain un-answer- ed. Based on current data, around 15 sites probably dating between 10 000 BC and the beginning of the Neolithic at around 6700 BC are spatially clustered on the coast of western Anatolia. This clustering pro- bably reflects the regional distribution of surveys and field investigations. The higher sea level and the related geographical and climatological settings in the Younger Dryas and early Holocene revealed a closer proximity between the northeast Aegean is- lands of Gökçeada, Bozcaada, Lesbos, Lemnos and Samothrace, as well as to the Gallipoli Peninsula. While they were presumably still connected with the mainland in the Older Dryas about 16 000 years ago, the Pleistocene sea level rise led to the islands’ setting and the increasing distance between them and the mainland (Özbek, Erdogu 2014). The lithic assemblages – though still based on a few sites – show that the landscape of the Bosporus northern shore as well as the Marmara coastal zones in the south and the Gallipoli Peninsula including the is- land Lemnos were used in Epi-Palaeolithic and Meso- lithic times (Gatsov, Özdogan 1994; Efstratiou et al. 2014). Moreover, a clear chronological distinction based on survey materials is currently not possible (Mili≤ 2018); the so-called Agaçlı Group in north- west Anatolia might represent the remains of mobile pre-Neolithic societies, while the other surveyed sites in Çanakkale and Balıkesir provinces may attest the initial movements of so-called ‘forerunners’ of the Neolithisation taking place in the region (Özdogan 2008; 2011). The flake-based lithic industry of Üçdüt- lar might give us a first indicator for potential con- nections to the Aegean Mesolithic (see above), al- though they do not appear comparable based on the current state of knowledge, as summarized by the experts (Özbek, Erdogu 2014). The southwest Anatolian coastal littoral and its wider hinterland provide new evidence of semi-mobile or even permanent foragers and hunter communities in the Girmeler Cave (Takaoglu et al. 2014). Their remains of plastered floors and dwellings with hearths and pits suggest the continuous use of a site where domestic activities took place. Though based on a complete hunting and foraging economy, plant processing is indicated by grinding stones, as also known from the contemporaneous Aegean Mesoli- thic. The late 9 th and 8 th millennia BC site might Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 73 represent only the tip of the iceberg of terrestrial hunter-foragers in the region. The 8 th millennium BC sequences of plastered floors have been related to inner Anatolian PPN traditions, such as those best presented in Asıklı (Takaoglu et al. 2014). As recent- ly suggested by Çilingiroglu (2016), the hunter-ga- therers of Öküzini Cave probably reflect early for- ager-farmer interaction related to the pioneers who founded the first Neolithic farming sites in the Aegean in the period between 7000 and 6600 BC. So far, there is no evidence for the earlier adoption of do- mesticated crops and herded animals. As in the Aegean Mesolithic, we might imagine terrestrial hun- ter-foragers with probable contacts to central Anato- lia on the one hand, and to the Aegean Mesolithic groups on the other hand. The southern coast of Anatolia should play a particularly crucial role in our understanding of the Neolithic dispersal, but till now early farmers and herders have not been de- tected, although in my view they can be expected to exist and are still awaiting discovery. The more in- land sites around the Lake District (like Bademagacı and Höyücek) are not directly connected to the coast, and most probably date a few generations later than the pioneer groups coming along the southern Ana- tolian coast (Clare, Weninger 2014.11). The recent- ly detected site with a Mesolithic flake-based lithic industry in Mordogan on the Karaburun Peninsula mentioned above provides the first evidence for hunter-foragers on the central Aegean coast of Tur- key. The first studies of the surface materials pin- point the strong relations to the Aegean Mesolithic in a raw material and techno-typological sense (Çi- lingiroglu et al. 2016). Although we await future ana- lyses of the site’s chronology and economic data, evidence of hunter-foragers (and probably also fisher- men) can be expected for the Izmir region as well. How these early Holocene hunter-foragers of western Anatolia were culturally connected to the PPN far- mers and herders of the ‘core zone’ further east re- mains an open question. So far, we can recognize some influences in cultural practices, such as the plastered floors in the southwest mentioned above, also interpreted as an indicator of a sedentary life- style. But the most essential economic foundation for sedentism – farming and herding – was not adopted by these communities for a long time. The western Anatolian hunter-foragers between 10 000 and 7000 BC apparently lack any transformation or experi- mental phases in their economy. The adopted social- cultural techniques, such as (wild) plant processing and the erection of dwellings, might reflect occa- sional contacts with the Neolithic in the east, and highlight a potential long-term connectivity in these millennia that prepares the ground for the arrival of the new social and economic strategies of the Neoli- thic a little after 7000 cal BC. Similarities and differences in the early Holo- cene Overall, the Aegean Mesolithic and the Pre-Neolithic western Anatolia offer a heterogeneous picture in the early Holocene, with lots of unknown aspects re- garding their populations in these millennia. Never- theless, the currently available data allows us to note some similarities and differences, which I will try to summarize without over-simplifying a complex story covering about three millennia. The main common feature is to be seen in their economic strategies, which remain connected to mobility and differ in re- lation to distinct environmental conditions. Together with foraging, hunting of small animals on the Ae- gean islands and of large mammals on the mainland in Greece and Turkey forms the economic backbone. The important role of fishing for the island econo- mies is also attested for coastal communities, as in the fishing at Franchthi or shell collecting in Üçdüt- lar (Rose 1995; Perlès 2003b; 2019; Stiner, Munro 2011; Özbek, Erdogu 2014). The processing of wild plants is another common economic aspect, indi- rectly evident by the use of grinding implements. The erection of huts and dwellings with floor-se- quences indicating potential permanent or at least repeated use is known from a few sites in the vast area. Although contacts with the Neolithic econo- mies in the eastern Mediterranean and inland Ana- tolia are indicated, their farming subsistence sys- tems were not adopted either in western Anatolia or the Aegean before about 6700/6600 BC. The Aegean and western Anatolian hunter-foragers appear to have continued their long-established subsistence practices without any evidence of transformation, experimentation or adaptation to farming or herd- ing. Finally, the almost complete lack of symbolism remains astonishing in relation to the complex sym- bolic systems of the neighbouring PPNs world (Fig. 2). However, the absence of any symbolic material does not imply communities without a multifaceted sys- tem of beliefs. Rather, the lack of evidence confronts us with the problematic visibility of these aspects in early Holocene hunter-forager-fishing societies. The differences between the regions can be recog- nized in the lithic technologies, raw material procu- rement (local versus non-local) and some cultural Barbara Horejs 74 practices (e.g., plastered floors, burials), which are expected to increase in respect of the number and types of differences with more data in the future. Finally, the concept of the Mesolithic as a culturally and chronologically defined period is widely ac- cepted in the Aegean and on the Greek mainland, related to continental European research history (e.g., Perlès 2019). The western Anatolian sites are strongly connected with the Near Eastern tradition, where the Epipaleolithic before the early PPN period is a well-established cultural concept (Watkins 2018). The merging of both research traditions in western Turkey reflects the complexity of late Pleistocene/ early Holocene archaeology in the region. Both con- cepts – Epipaleolithic in the Near Eastern and Meso- lithic in the Aegean case – are currently applied to western Anatolian sites. Future studies will hopeful- ly show the expected high number of regional dif- ferences and how potential cultural varieties can be interpreted to gain a deeper insight into the popula- tions before the fundamental change into the Neoli- thic way of life took place. The abrupt arrival of the Neolithic The Neolithic way of life appears to start abruptly in the Aegean and in western Anatolia, already fully de- veloped in all main aspects, such as farming, herd- ing and sedentary life (Fig. 2). A few sites around the Aegean Sea and in inland western Anatolia rep- resent the first Neolithic farming communities, re- cently defined as pioneers (Horejs et al. 2015): Bar- cın Höyük, Ulucak, Çukuriçi, Ugurlu, Knossos, Fran- chthi and perhaps Paliambela (Fig. 1). They all date within the timeframe of 7000 to 6600 cal BC; unfortunately a more precise date cannot be achieved due to a plateau in the current radiocarbon cali- bration curves. Site-based mo- delling revealed the most pro- bable date for most of these sites is around 6700 cal BC (Weninger et al. 2014; Perlès et al. 2013; Horejs et al. 2015; Brami, Zanotti 2015; Mania- tis 2014; Douka et al. 2017; for a different modelling see Guilbeau et al. 2019). How- ever, we are currently aware of only a few early Neolithic sites founded before 6600 cal BC, whereas the majority of Neolithic farming sites devel- oped after this. The first ap- pearance of these early farm- ers in diverse landscapes and environments, such as the Ae- gean littorals, the Gökçeada Island and the Marmara Sea in western Anatolia, as well as diverse cultural contexts, sug- gests different trajectories. Although we have to take in- to account the likelihood of di- verse processes, the abrupt ap- pearance of farming and herd- ing societies suggests a gener- al pattern of Neolithic expan- sion, as stated often and by se- Fig. 2. Archaeological evidence of the PPN Core Zones, Mesolithic Aegean/ Pre-Neolithic western Anatolia, Neolithic Pioneers and the Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group (table made by F. Ostmann, OREA after Özdogan 2010.Tabs. 1–2). Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 75 veral scholars (e.g., Perlès 2003a; Özdogan 2011; 2014; Guilaine 2013; Weninger et al. 2014; Brami, Zanotti 2015; Brami, Horejs in press). The pioneer sites around the Aegean Sea were most probably founded by newcomers and brought the new Neoli- thic subsistence strategies (as well as the animals and plants) together with other social and cultural elements (Fig. 2). This pioneer phenomenon, also described as the ‘maritime colonization model’ (Ho- rejs et al. 2015), may over-simplify the initiation of a complex process beginning immediately after the arrival of new groups, involving interactions be- tween the newcomers and indigenous groups, and adaptation to local environmental conditions (recent- ly Guilbeau et al. 2019). Further, the process of groups from different origins searching for new land over a period of several centuries can hardly be summarized as a singular event. This is apparent in inland Anatolia, as well as for Crete and Cyprus, where several waves of moving groups are evident (Özdogan 2008; Vigne et al. 2012; Douka et al. 2017). The Aegean pioneer sites show crucial economic and social aspects in common that clearly belong to the earliest Neolithic lifestyle in our region, and stand in strong contrast to the earlier Aegean Mesolithic. These new Neolithic aspects are four-tier husbandry, the planting of domestic cereals and pulses, perma- nent habitation in house architecture and new mate- rial-related technologies (Fig. 2; e.g., Çilingiroglu 2016). The whole bundle of innovations – the ‘Neo- lithic package’ – is related to a broader package of skills and knowledge affecting all crucial aspects of individual and community life. To start with, there was a new way of life in rectangular mud-built hou- ses, as at Çukuriçi XIII, Ulucak VI and probably also in Knossos X. As Çilingiroglu (2016) has recently pointed out, the technology of lime-plastered floors is limited to Anatolian mainland sites (continuing through the later stages of the Neolithic), as seen at Çukuriçi, Ulucak, Bademagaçı and Hacılar, and is not found on the Greek mainland or on Crete. This re- gionally distinct phenomenon may indicate different origins; the evidence of plaster in floor-sequences at the Pre-Neolithic Girmeler Cave in southwest Ana- tolia (Takaoglu et al. 2014) points to the probable route along the Anatolian coast and the incorpora- tion of the 9 th and 8 th millennia BC foragers into both inland Anatolian and maritime networks. Red plaster appears to be restricted to the foundation horizons of the pioneer sites, as attested in Ulucak VI and Çukuriçi XIII. The deposition of red lumps in- side the Çukuriçi XIII house additionally supports the practice of using this pigmenting technology by the early settlers. As Çilingiroglu convincingly argues, the use of red plaster found no place among the Epi- palaeolithic hunter-gatherers of Southwest Asia, but is characteristic of later Pre-Pottery Neolithic settle- ments. The houses of the early pioneers were the centres for domestic activities, evident in food pro- cessing, storage and fire installations such as hearths. This new kind of architecture included sequences of floors, which indicate permanent occupation and pe- riodic renewal; the material evidence shows us that these were house-based societies representing a new form of social life. The restricted extent of the exca- vated area of the earliest levels at almost all the pio- neer sites is a limiting factor preventing any kind of population estimate; we cannot definitely describe them as early ‘villages’. The concept of Neolithic vil- lages is currently not attested before 6600–6500 BC (Fig. 2). Rather, we are probably dealing with small groups of pioneers, living together in house-related communities. While this general pattern is attested at the western Anatolian sites (Ulucak VI, Çukuriçi XIII) and probably also in early Knossos, the pio- neers of the same period in the northern Aegean, evident in Paliambela, initially practiced a different settlement strategy based mainly on pit structures (Maniatis 2014; Katsanis et al. 2008). The excava- tion analyses by Kostas Kotsakis and his team will show if these pit complexes represent local adapta- tions of the new social life, or served as the initial stages of a semi-mobile or permanent habitation stra- tegy, representing another trajectory within the wi- der dispersal. Subsistence strategies mark the new Neolithic economy The pioneers’ subsistence was based on a fully deve- loped farming and herding economy with many essential details in common. It has frequently been pointed out that the four domesticates – sheep, goat, cattle and pigs – are evident in most of the pioneer sites, as for example at Franchthi, Knossos, Çukuri- çi and Ulucak, and represent a series of complimen- tary sets of developed herding strategies (e.g., Ar- buckle et al. 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Munro, Sti- ner 2015; Çilingiroglu 2016). The evidence of a comparable economy at Bademagacı and Ugurlu V dates slightly later, and is probably not related to the earliest introduction (Clare, Weninger 2014; Atıcı et al. 2017). Although the wild ancestors of domesticates are evident at least as far west as the Aegean coast of Anatolia and the island of Gökçea- da, the stock-keeping economy is complete and pre- Barbara Horejs 76 sent from the beginning, with no experimental or transformation phases (Çakırlar 2012; Galik, Ho- rejs 2011; Horejs et al. 2015; Galik in press). Ben- jamin S. Arbuckle et al. (2014) have argued convin- cingly for the dispersal of the four-part herding eco- nomy along the Mediterranean coasts, bypassing central Anatolia (where cattle and pigs are not evi- dent). The lack of domesticated pigs at the pioneer site of Barcın Höyük in northwest Anatolia and in the later dated Ugurlu V gives additional support to this model; instead, in the earliest phase of Barcın Höyük wild boar were hunted (Arbuckle et al. 2014; Gerritsen, Özbal 2016; Atıcı et al. 2017). New zoo- archaeological and stable isotope data from Ugurlu V in the northeast Aegean are suggesting a founder population of the sheep and goat stock from the mainland, or at least from more arid zones than the western Anatolian coast (Pilaar Birch et al. 2019). The Çukuriçi sample highlights an additional econo- mic aspect of the stock-keeping and farming commu- nity related to maritime sources. From the founding of the site onwards fishing and diving for shells played an important role in providing nutrition (Ho- rejs 2012; Horejs et al. 2015; Galik, Horejs 2011; Galik in press). Inshore fish, such as sea bream, sea bass, groupers and bluefish, as well as pelagic fish like tuna and chondrichthyes (stingray), are evident (Fig. 3). A variety of bivalves, like lagoon cockles, corneus wedge clams, venus shells, carpet shells, noble pen- shells, ark clams, bearded ark clams, mussels, oys- ters, spondylus, date shells and paddocks as well as a wide variety of marine gastropods are attested in the assemblage. These indicate different practices of collecting, diving and fishing with distinct equip- ment, experience and knowledge of seasonal condi- tions. The role of fishing in the former Aegean Me- solithic economies has been discussed above and is evident in fish remains (e.g., Franchthi) as well as in fishing equipment, like hooks (e.g., Youra). The maritime exploi- tation skills might indicate a knowledge transfer from or even an adaptation process of local Aegean economies by the Neolithic newcomers. They may have brought fishing ex- pertise with them, bearing in mind the evidence in Neoli- thic Cyprus (Vigne et al. 2014). Overall, hunting was practiced only in small amounts and herding dominates the economy in the Neolithic pio- neer sites. Cultivation of crops is evident at the pio- neer sites, but published data is still rather scarce and it is difficult to form a clear picture (Çilingirog- lu et al. 2012; Perlès et al. 2013; Horejs et al. 2015). The botanical analyses of Ulucak, Franchthi and Çu- kuriçi reveal heterogeneous data of einkorn and em- mer wheat, barley, free-threshing wheat and pulses. New technologies and exotic items A package of new lithic technologies and distinctive tools is attested at some of the Neolithic pioneer sites (Mili≤ 2018; Mili≤, Horejs 2017; Guilbeau et al. 2019). Most important is the use of pressure-flaking technology in producing chipped stone tools, mainly blades and bladelets, which is absent before 6700 BC. The flake-based industry of the Mesolithic Aegean, as well as the diverse technological industries in Pre- Neolithic western Anatolia, appear to continue, but are first supplemented and soon afterwards domi- nated by pressure blade making (recently Guilbeau et al. 2019). Together with the adoption of a new production technique, some atypical tool types like lunates and foliate points (not known in the Mesoli- thic Aegean) appear in the founding phase of the pioneer site Çukuriçi Höyük XIII. The whole lithic package indicates an origin in the east Mediterra- nean, the Levant and north Mesopotamia, and prob- ably represents the arrival of lithic industries from outside the region (Perlès 2001; Horejs et al. 2015; Mili≤ 2018). A few other objects in the material as- semblages of the newcomers’ sites around the Aegean Sea seem to incorporate narratives, materials and technologies that cannot be related to the local tra- ditions of the Mesolithic Aegean (for earlier orna- ments see Perlès 2019). As recently recognized by Çilingiroglu (2016.36), the very few symbolic items and special objects in the early Neolithic are all por- Fig. 3. Neolithic fish bones from Çukuriçi Höyük representing the vari- ety of species hunted regularly. 1–2 tuna; 3 gilthead seabream; 4 striped seabream; 5–6 grouper; 7 bluefish (classification and photos by A. Galik, figure design by F. Ostmann/OREA). Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 77 table. The well-made stone bracelets (Çukuriçi and Knossos), a malachite bead (Çukuriçi), and pierced circular beads (Ulucak and Çukuriçi) are rare finds; they appear exotic in the Aegean and may have ar- rived with the newcomers, or via extensive exchange networks (Horejs in press). The evidence of ceramic vessel production in the pioneers’ founding phases is either very rare or com- pletely lacking, as pointed out several times (Perlès 2001.83; Reingruber 2015; Horejs et al. 2015; Çi- lingiroglu 2016; Douka et al. 2017). Pottery produc- tion does not play any role at the beginning of this process, especially in the coastal sites of the Aegean Sea, where it is totally lacking in Ulucak VI and evi- dent only as small fragments potentially represent- ing later intrusions in Çukuriçi XIII. The impact of ceramics appears different in Barcın Höyük, a pio- neer site at the southern Marmara Sea, where pot- tery containers are evident from the beginning (Ger- ritsen et al. 2013; Gerritsen, Özbal 2016; de Groot et al. 2017). The early practice of pottery-making perhaps points to the Marmara Sea pioneers’ relation to central Anatolia, where the presence of a much longer ceramic tradition has recently been argued (Fletcher et al. 2017). An overview of all the archaeological data regarding settlement and architecture, subsistence, imported raw materials, ground-stone tools, status objects, li- thic technology, special crafts and symbolic represen- tations illustrates the abrupt arrival represented by the pioneer sites of Ulucak VI and Çukuriçi XIII (Fig. 2). The integration of Mesolithic Aegean and Pre-Neo- lithic western Anatolian evidence into this overview clearly demonstrates that only very few aspects of the new Neolithic social life can be attested in our region before the arrival of the newcomers. The long and short revolutions The paradox of a short revolution within the long- term process of the Neolithisation can probably be related to the distinct cultural conditions in the Ae- gean Mesolithic and the Pre-Neolithic western Anato- lian world(s), where the idea of a long revolution is hardly tenable on present evidence. The long-estab- lished hunter-forager-fisher communities of the early millennia of the Holocene seem to encounter the contemporary farmers and herders in inland Anato- lia, as well as via maritime networks. A few cultural practices (e.g., plastered floors, stone vessels) indi- cate potential forager-farmer interactions within ter- restrial Anatolia, such as between Cappadocia and the coastal zones of southwest Turkey (Fig. 2). The implementation of (wild) plant processing with grind- ing stones within the subsistence strategy of those Pre-Neolithic societies probably reflects knowledge- transfer and adaptation based on these contacts via terrestrial and maritime routes. The impact of this interaction on the hunter-forager-fishers presumably included other social-cultural aspects as well, which are not visible in the archaeological record. The evi- dence of semi-sedentary habitation with dwellings of multi-seasonal or even permanent use might reflect a crucial shift in the cohabitation of the communities. The evidence of such dwellings and floor-sequences are usually seen as Neolithic influences (Sampson 2010; Takaoglu et al. 2014; Kozłowski 2016). Fur- ther analyses and new field data will perhaps indi- cate whether the adoption of a semi-sedentary life- style did in fact lead on to house-based communities before 7000 BC. The lack of evidence for this is not surprising in the context of the economic background, in which mobility played a crucial part, at least for the maritime communities of the Aegean. The dis- tinctive Aegean Mesolithic system of seasonally mo- bile groups, using their environmental conditions in a highly specialized and sustainable way, appears unsuited to the adoption of farming and herding strategies. The economic system of Pre-Neolithic western Ana- tolia differed in many aspects and could therefore more easily integrate new subsistence strategies. The founding of the first farming and herding commu- nities on the mainland of Greece and western Turkey took place in areas well suited to agriculture, in areas generally different from the formerly used penin- sulas or caves (with the exception of the Franchthi Cave, where an initial Neolithic is evident). The coa- stal zones of southwest Anatolia, which have been only sketchily investigated thus far, are likely to of- fer new data on pioneers in the future, and possibly for older occupations than those presently known. The interactions via overland and maritime routes may indicate a long-term process of communication between hunter-foragers and farmers, involving the adoption of a few cultural and subsistence practices and some related ideas, technologies and perhaps also worldviews. The suggested exploration phase by sea and land may form a crucial first stage in a longue durée process (Özdogan 2010; Broodbank 2013; Horejs et al. 2015; Çilingiroglu 2016). The archaeologically invisible seafaring and travelling groups searching for new land and new options are hardly a singular event in time. We can envision a continuous and ongoing process of small-scale mi- Barbara Horejs 78 gration, which is observable at Knossos (Douka et al. 2017). It is in this short revolutionary perspective that the first farming and herding communities ap- pear after 7000 BC. This sudden appearance of more or less contemporaneous settlements is on the one hand an abrupt event occurring between 7000 and 6600 BC, which on the other hand marks the end of a long-term process of exploration, communication, knowledge-transfer and adaptation. The paradox of this ‘sudden event’ within the long revolution pro- cess has been argued as resulting from maritime and terrestrial colonization by Neolithic pioneers (Brood- bank 2013; Horejs et al. 2015; Douka et al. 2017). Recent genetic studies additionally support this colo- nization model (Hofmanová et al. 2016) by demon- strating close relations between the agricultural com- munities in Anatolia, Greece and continental Europe with common ancestors (recently Lazaridis et al. 2016; Mathieson et al. 2018). These new genetic data convincingly demonstrate the movement of people from Anatolia into Europe during the intensification phase of the Neolithic (Mathieson et al. 2018), al- though timespan, frequency, and not at least poten- tial ‘origins’ are still matter of debate. The origins within the core zone may be several and various, differing between the regions of inland western Ana- tolia and the Aegean littoral. More detailed studies of the material relations of Franchthi (Perlès 2005) and Çukuriçi (Horejs et al. 2015; Mili≤ 2018) indi- cate a starting point in the eastern Mediterranean (including the Levant and north Mesopotamia), at least for those two pioneer sites. Movement of peo- ple is therefore the current best-fitting model for the Neolithisation of the Aegean and western Anatolia according to both the archaeolo- gical and DNA data in my view (for a diffe- rent view s. Guilbeau et al. 2019). The trig- ger for these developments remains an open question and our model requires further re- search (Brami, Horejs in press). Since the first farmers and herders arrived in the region after 7000 BC, the dispersal within the Greek mainland, the Aegean litto- rals and within western Anatolia took place within a few generations (with the excep- tion of Crete). The next generation of far- mers extended their activity zones, cultivat- ed various new micro-regions and were li- ving in house-based communities embed- ded in village-based systems. From 6500 BC onwards, an increase in settlements seems to reflect a demographic boom (see Shen- nan et al. 2013 for the phenomenon in continental Europe). Regional groups emerged with their own identities, as the Anatolian Aegean coastal group de- monstrates (Horejs 2016). Various settlements in this micro-region over some 500–700 years shared economic strategies, means of raw material procure- ment and distribution, socio-cultural practices, the style and technology of pottery production and sev- eral other material technologies. These Neolithic communities continued some traditional aspects of subsistence and sourcing, such as fishing and shell- fishing and obsidian exchange, both of which origi- nate in the Mesolithic period (Fig. 2). The established Aegean obsidian networks seem to form the basis for the succeeding raw material exchange systems of the Neolithic village-based communities. Targeted sea- faring based on well-established nautical knowledge and skills was integrated into the Neolithic system, as has been recently shown for the procurement of jadeite from the island of Syros (Fig. 4), with distri- bution reaching Çukuriçi in the 7 th millennium BC (Sørensen et al. 2017; Schwall et al. in press). We do not know how long the hunting-foraging-fish- ing seafaring societies in the Aegean Sea continued to exist alongside the farming-herding communities. The newcomers may not have immediately affected their environmental conditions and related econo- mic and social systems. While the new Neolithic life of the Greek mainland and western Anatolia increas- ed rapidly among the succeeding generations of far- mers and herders, for at least another millennium most of the Aegean islands remained untouched by these crucial cultural, economic and social changes. Fig. 4. Late Neolithic jadeite axe from Çukuriçi Höyük phase IX, Object no. 13/1722/3/2 (photos by N. Gail, graphics by M. Röcklinger/OREA). Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 79 The paper was originally written in 2016 as chapter for a book about “The Long Revolution” initiated by Klaus Schmidt and Trevor Watkins years before, which could unfortunately not be realized. My sincere thanks go to all my colleagues involved in this project and especially to Trevor Watkins for his tremendous editing work, in- spiring feedback during the meetings and his support to create a broader narrative. I would like to thank Bog- dana Mili≤ and Alfred Galik for crucial discussions and the whole Çukuriçi team for the engagement in our field work and ongoing data analyses. Many thanks are addressed to Felix Ostmann and Maria Röcklinger for the creation of the figures and to Mario Börner for designing the map. I am very thankful to the funding of our re- search by the European Research Council (ERC project 263339), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF projects Y528 and P25825) and the OREA institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Finally, I thank Roderick Salisbury, Trevor Watkins and Clare Burke for English corrections at different stages of this manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS References ∴ ∴ Ammerman A. J. 2014. Setting our sights on the distant horizon. Eurasian Prehistory 11 (1–2): 203–236. Arbuckle B. S. and 22 co-authors. 2014. Data sharing re- veals complexity in the westward spread of domestic ani- mals across Neolithic Turkey. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107824. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/jou rnal.pone.0099845. Atıcı L., Pilaar Birch S. E., and Erdogu B. 2017. Spread of domestic animals across Neolithic western Anatolia: New zooarchaeological evidence from Ugurlu Höyük, the island of Gökçeada, Turkey. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186519 Brami M., Heyd V. 2011. The Origins of Europe’s First Far- mers: The Role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, Fifty Years on. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86: 165–201. https://doi.org/10.1515/pz.2011.011 Brami M., Horejs B. (eds.) in press. The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier. Proceedings of the Neolithic Workshop held at 10 th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016. Ori- ental and European Archaeology 13. Austrian Academy Science Press. Vienna. Brami M., Zanotti, A. 2015. Modelling the initial expansion of the Neolithic out of Anatolia. Documenta Praehisto- rica 42: 103–116. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.6 Broodbank C. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea: A Hi- story of the Mediterranean from the beginning to the emergence of the Classical world. Thames and Hudson. London. Çakırlar C. 2012. The evolution of animal husbandry in Neolithic Central-West Anatolia, the archaeozoological re- cord from Ulucak Höyük (ca. 7040–5660 cal. BC, Izmir, Turkey). Anatolian Studies 62(1): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0066154612000014 Carter T., Contreras D. A., Doyle S., Mihailovi≤ D. D., Mou- tsiou T., and Skarpelis N. 2014. The Stelida Naxos Archa- eological Project: New data on the Mesolithic and Middle Palaeolithic Cyclades. Antiquity 88(341). Project Gallery. http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/carter341 Carter T., Mihailovi≤ D. D., Papadatos Y., and Sofianou C. 2016. The Cretan Mesolithic in context: New data from Li- vari Skiadi (SE Crete). Documenta Praehistorica 43: 87– 101. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.43.3 Cherry J., Leppard F., and Thomas P. 2017. Patterning and Its Causation in the Pre-Neolithic Colonization of the Medi- terranean Islands (Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene). The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 13(2): 191– 205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2016.1276489 Clare L., Weninger B. 2014. The Dispersal of Neolithic Life- ways: Absolute Chronology and Rapid Climate Change. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neo- lithic in Turkey 6. 10 500–5200 BC: Environment settle- ment, flora, fauna, dating, symbols of belief, with views from north, south, east, and west. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 1–65. Çilingiroglu A., Çevik Ö., and Çilingiroglu Ç. 2012. Ulucak Höyük. Towards understanding the early farming commu- nities of Middle West Anatolia: the contribution of Ulucak. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.) The Neolithic in Turkey 4. New Excavations & New Research. Western Turkey. Archaeology and Arts Publications. Istan- bul: 139–175. Çilingiroglu Ç. 2016. The Aegean Before and After 7000 BC Dispersal: Defining Patterning and Variability. Neo-Li- thics 2016(1): 32–41. Çilingiroglu Ç., Çakırlar C. 2013. Towards Configuring the Neolithisation of Aegean Turkey. Documenta Praehisto- rica 40: 21–29. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.40.3 Barbara Horejs 80 Çilingiroglu Ç., Dinçer B., Uhri A., Gürbıyık C., Baykara I., and Çakırlar C. 2016. New Paleolithic and Mesolithic Sites in the Eastern Aegean: Karaburun Archaeologial Survey Project. Antiquity 90(353): 1–6. Project Gallery. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.168 Douka K., Efstratiou N., Hald M. M., Henriksen P. S., and Ka- retsou A. 2017. Dating Knossos and the arrival of the ear- liest Neolithic in the southern Aegean. Antiquity 91(356): 304–321. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.29 Duru R. 2012. The Neolithic of the Lakes Region. Hacılar – Kuruçay Höyük – Höyücek – Bademagacı Höyük. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neoli- thic in Turkey 4. New Excavations & New Research. West- ern Turkey. Archaeology & Arts Publications. Istanbul: 1–65. Efstratiou N. 2014. The final Palaeolithic hunting camp of Ouriakos on the island of Lemnos. Eurasian Prehistory 11(1–2): 75–96. Efstratiou N., Biagi P., and Starnini E. 2014. The Epipalaeo- lithic site of Ouriakos on the island of Lemnos and its place in the Late Pleistocene peopling of the East Mediterranean region. Adalya XVII: 1–23. Fletcher A., Baird D., Spataro M., and Fairbairn A. 2017. Early Ceramics in Anatolia: Implications for the produc- tion and use of the earliest pottery. The evidence from Bon- cuklu Höyük. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(2): 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000767 Galanidou N. 2011. Mesolithic Cave Use in Greece and the Mosaic of Human Communities. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 24(2): 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v24i2.219 Galanidou N., Perlès C. 2003. The Greek Mesolithic: Prob- lems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Studies 10. British School at Athens. London. Galik A., Horejs B. 2011. Çukuriçi Höyük – Different As- pects of its Earliest Settlement Phase. In R. Krauss (ed.), Beginnings. New Approaches in Researching the Ap- pearing of the Neolithic between Northwestern Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Workshop held at Istanbul Department of the German Archaeological Institute, April 8 th –9 th 2009. Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen. Studien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologi- schen Instituts 1. VML Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rahden/West- falen: 83–94. Galik, A. in press. Çukuriçi Höyük – Animal exploitation from early Ceramic Neolithic settling to early Bronze Age proto-urban life at the western coast of Anatolia. Docu- menta Archaeobiologiae 15. Gatsov I., Özdogan, M. 1994. Some Epipaleolithic sites from NW Turkey. Agaçlı, Domalı and Gümüsdere. Anato- lica XX: 97–120. Gerritsen F. A., Özbal R., and Thissen L. C. 2013. The ear- liest Neolithic levels and Barcın Höyük, Northwestern Turkey. Anatolica XXXIX: 53–92. Gerritsen F. A., Özbal R. 2016. Barcın Höyük and the pre- Fikirtepe Neolithisation of the Eastern Marmara Region. In Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal VII: Anatolia and neighbours 10.000 years ago. Volume in honour of Meh- met Özdogan. Blömeke Druck SRS GmbH. Herne: 199– 208. de Groot B., Thissen L., Özbal R., and Gerritsen F. 2017. Clay preparation and function of the first ceramics in north-west Anatolia: A case study from Neolithic Barcın Höyük. Journal of Archaeological Sciences: Reports 16: 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.028 Guilaine J. 2013. The Neolithic transition in Europe: Some comments on gaps, contacts, arrhythmic model, genetics. In E. Starnini (ed.), Unconformist archaeology. Papers in honour of Paolo Biagi. British Archaeological Reports IS 2528. Archaeopress. Oxford: 55–64. Guilbeau D., Kayacan N., Altınbilek-Algül Ç., Erdogu B., and Çevik Ö. 2019. A comparative study of the Initial Neo- lithic chipped-stone assemblages of Ulucak and Ugurlu. Anatolian Studies 69: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154619000024 Hofmanová Z. and 38 co-authors. 2016. Early Farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Ae- geans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 6886–6891. https://doi.org/10.1101/032763 Horejs B. 2012. Çukuriçi Höyük. A Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement in the Region of Ephesos. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey 4. New Excavations & New Research. Western Turkey. Archaeology and Arts Publications. Istanbul: 117– 131. 2016. Aspects of Connectivity on the Centre of the Ana- tolian Aegean Coast in 7 th Millennium BC. In B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseus and Oddities. Sheffield Stu- dies in Aegean Archaeology. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 143– 167. 2017. Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7 th to the 3 rd Millennium BC. Oriental and European Archaeology 5. Austrian Academy Science Press. Vienna. Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 81 Horejs B., Mili≤ B., Ostmann F., Thanheiser U., Weninger B., and Galik A. 2015. The Aegean in the Early 7 th Millen- nium BC: Maritime Networks and Colonization. Journal of World Prehistory 28(4): 289–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9090-8 Horejs B. in press. Migrating and Creating Social Memo- ries. About the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia. In Brami M., Horejs B. (eds.), The Cen- tral/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier. Proceedings of the Neolithic Workshop held at 10 th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016. Oriental and European Archaeology 13. Au- strian Academy Science Press. Vienna: 157–178. Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K. 2008. Chipped Stone Artefacts. In A. Sampson (ed.), The Cave of the Cyclops: Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Ae- gean, Greece I. Intra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution. Prehistory Monographs 21. IN- STAP Academic Press. Philadelphia: 169–178. 2014. The Aegean Mesolithic: Material Culture, Chrono- logy, Networks of Contacts. Eurasian Prehistory 11 (1–2): 31–62. Katsanis M., Tsipidis S., Kotsakis K., and Kousoulakou A. 2008. A 3D digital workflow for archaeological intra-site research using GIS. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 655–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.06.002 Kotsakis K. 2003. From the Neolithic side: the Mesolithic/ Neolithic interface in Greece. In: N. Galanidou, C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Studies 10. British School at Athens. London: 217–221. 2008. A Sea of Agency: Crete in the Context of the Ear- liest Neolithic in Greece. In V. Isaakidou, P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 52–75. 2014. Domesticating the periphery. New Research into the Neolithic of Greece. Pharos 20(1): 41–73. Kozłowski J. K. 2016. The Mesolithic of the Aegean Basin: Cultural Variability, Subsistence Economy, Interregional Links and Seafaring. In R. Krauss and H. Floss (eds.), Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Re- search Centres SFB 1070 “RessourcenKulturen”, Schloss Hohentübingen, 9 th of May 2014. RessourcenKulturen 1. Pro Business Digital Printing Deutschland GmbH. Tübin- gen: 41–64. Lazaridis I. and 51 co-authors. 2016. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature 536: 419–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19310 Lichter C. 2005. Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of research. In C. Lichter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anato- lian-European relations from the second half of the 7 th through the first half of the 6 th millennium cal BC. BY- ZAS 2. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul: 59–74. Mathieson I. and 116 co-authors. 2018. The Genomic Hi- story Of Southeastern Europe. Nature 555: 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25778 Maniatis Y. 2014. Radiocarbon dating of the major cultu- ral phases in prehistoric Macedonia: Recent developments. In E. Stefani, N. Merousis, and A. Dimoula (eds.), Proce- edings of the international conference on “100 years re- search in prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012”, Archaeo- logical Museum of Thessaloniki. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki: 205–222. Mellaart J. 1958. Excavations at Hacılar: First Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 8: 127–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/3642417 1970. Excavations at Hacılar. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. Mili≤ B. 2018. Lithics and Neolithisation – Çukuriçi Hö- yük in Anatolia and the Aegean. Unpublished PhD the- sis. University of Tübingen. Tübingen. Mili≤ B., Horejs B. 2017. The Onset of Pressure Blade Making in Western Anatolia in the 7 th Millennium BC: A Case Study from Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük. In B. Horejs (ed,), Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7 th to the 3 rd Millennium BC. Oriental and European Archaeology 5. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. Vien- na: 27–52. Miloj≠i≤ V. 1950. Zur Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Griechenlands. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 65–66: 1–90. Munro N. D., Stiner M. C. 2015. Zooarchaeological Evi- dence for Early Neolithic Colonization at Franchthi Cave (Peloponessos, Greece). Current Anthropology 56(4): 596–603. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/682326 Özbek O., Erdogu B. 2014. Initial occupation of the Geli- bolu Peninsula and the Gökçeada (Imbroz) island in the pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic. Eurasian Prehistory 11 (1–2): 97–128. Özdogan M. 2008. An alternative approach in tracing chan- ges in demographic composition. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic demographic tran- sition and its consequences. Springer. Dordrecht: 139–178. Barbara Horejs 82 2010. Westward Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Life: Sorting the Neolithic Package into Distinct Packages. In P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, and N. Marchett (eds.), Proceedings of the 6 th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East May, 5 th –10 th 2008, Sapienza Università di Roma. Harrassowitz Ver- lag. Wiesbaden: 883–897. 2011. Archaeological Evidence on the Westward Expan- sion of Farming Communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthropology 52 (4): 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1086/658895 2014. The quest for new criteria in defining the emer- gence and the dispersal of Neolithic way of life. In C. Ma- nen, T. Perrin, and J. Guilaine (eds.), La transition néo- lithique en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque Transitions en Méditerranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs, Toulouse. Éditions Errance. Arles: 77–89. Özdogan M., Basgelen N. 1999. Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sa- nat Yayınları. Istanbul. Özdogan M., Basgelen N., and Kuniholm P. 2012. The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations & New Research. Volume 4. Western Turkey, Istanbul. Perlès C., Vaughan P. C., Renfrew C., and Aspinall A. 1990. Les industries lithiques taillees de Franchthi (Argolide, Grece) 2, Fascicle 5. Les industries du Mesolithique et du Neolithique Initial. Indiana University Press. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Perlès C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 2003a. An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neoli- thisation in Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 99– 113. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.30.5 2003b. The Mesolithic at Franchthi: An Overview of the Data and Problems. In N. Galanidou and C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Studies 10. British School at Athens. London: 79–87. 2005. From the Near East to Greece: Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn't transfer. In C. Lich- ter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian- European relations from the second half of the 7 th through the first half of the 6 th millennium cal BC. BYZAS 2. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul: 275–290. 2019. Special Issue: Personal Ornaments in Early Pre- history – Cultural Implications of Uniformity in Orna- ment Assemblages: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Orna- ments From Franchthi Cave, Greece. PaleoAnthropo- logy 2019: 196–207. http://www.paleoanthro.org/me dia/journal/content/PA20190196.pdf Perlès C., Quiles A., and Valladas H. 2013. Early seventh- millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece). Antiquity 87: 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00049826 Pilaar Birch S. E., Atıcı L., and Erdogu B. 2019. Spread of domestic animals across Neolithic western Anatolia: New stable isotope evidence from Ugurlu Höyük, the island of Gökçeada, Turkey. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0222319. https:// journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.po ne.0222319 Reingruber A. 2011. Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean. Documenta Prae- historica 38: 291–305. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.23 2015. Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The Ra- diocarbon Dated Beginning of the Neolithic in the Ae- gean. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 147–158. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.9 2017. Foragers, Fishers and Farmers in the Aegean (12,000–6000 cal BC). In M. Ma ˘r g a ˘rit and A. Boroneant (eds.), From hunter-gatherers to farmers: Human ada- ptations at the end of the Pleistocene and the first part of the Holocene. Papers in Honour of Clive Bon- sall. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgoviste: 203–215. Rose M. 1995. Fishing at Franchthi Cave, Greece: Changing environments and patterns of exploitation. Old World Ar- chaeology Newsletter 18: 21–26. Sampson A. 2010. Mesolithic Greece: 9000–6500 BC. Palaeoenvironment, Palaeoeconomy, Technology. Ion. Athens. 2014. The Aegean Mesolithic: environment, economy and seafaring. Eurasian Prehistory 11(1–2): 63–74. Sampson A., Kaczanowska M., and Kozłowski J. K. 2010. The prehistory of the island of Kythnos and the Mesoli- thic settlement at Maroulas. Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences – University of the Aegean. Krakow. Schmidt K. 2006. Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rät- selhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger. Die archäologis- che Entdeckung am Göbekli Tepe. C. H. Beck. München. Schwall Ch., Brandl M., Gluhak T. M., Mili≤ B., Betina L., Sørensen L., Wolf D., and Horejs B. in press. From near and far. Stone procurement and exchange at Çukuriçi Hö- yük in Western Anatolia. Journal of Lithic Studies (in press). Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic in western Anatolia and Aegean 83 Séfériadès M. 2007. Complexity of the processes of Neo- lithisation: Tradition and modernity of the Aegean world at the dawn of the Holocene period (11–9 kyr). Quater- nary International 167–168: 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2006.11.008 Shennan S. J., Downey S. S., Timpson A., Edinborough K., Colledge S., Kerig T., Manning K., and Thomas M. G. 2013. Regional Population Collapse Followed Initial Agriculture Booms in Mid-Holocene Europe. Nature Communica- tions 4: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3486 Simmons A. 2014. Stone Age Sailors: Paleolithic Sea- faring in the Mediterranean. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek, CA. Souvatzi S. G. 2008. A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece. An Anthropological Approach. Cam- bridge University Press. Cambridge. Sørensen L., Pétrequin P., Pétrequin A.-M., Errera M., Ho- rejs B., and Herbaut F. 2017. Les limites sud-orientales des jades alpins (Grèce et Turquie)/The south-eastern li- mits of Alpine jades (Greece and Turkey). In P. Petrequin, E. Gauthier, and A.-M. Petrequin (eds.), Jade. Objets-signes et interprétations sociales des jades alpins dans l’Eu- rope néolithique 3. Imprimerie Messages. Toulouse: 491– 520. Stiner M. C., Munro N. D. 2011. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Paleolithic through Me- solithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece). Journal of Human Evolution 60: 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.12.005 Strasser T., Panagopoulou E., Runnels C., Murray P., Thom- pson N., Karkanas P., McCoy F., and Wegmann K. 2010. Stone Age seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic habitation of Crete. Hesperia 79: 145–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2972/ hesp.79.2.145 Takaoglu T., Korkut T., Erdogu B., and Isın G. 2014. Ar- chaeological Evidence for 9 th and 8 th millennia BC at Gir- meler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey. Documenta Praehi- storica 41: 111–118. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.6 Theocharis D. R. 1973. Neolithic Greece. National Bank of Greece. Athens. Trantalidou K. 2003. Faunal remains from the earliest stra- ta of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra. In N. Galanidou, C. Per- lès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic: Problems and perspec- tives. British School at Athens Studies 10. British School at Athens. London: 143–172. 2010. Dietary adaptations of coastal people in the Ae- gean archipelago during the Mesolithic period: The ma- crofauna assemblages of Maroulas on Kythnos. In A. Sampson, M. Kaczanowska, and J. K. Kozłowski (eds.), The prehistory of the island of Kythnos and the Meso- lithic settlement at Maroulas. Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences – University of the Aegean. Krakow: 163– 177. 2011. From Mesolithic fisherman and bird hunters to Neolithic goat herders: The transformation of an island economy in the Aegean. In A. Sampson (ed.), The Cave of the Cyclops. The Mesolithic and Neolithic networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece II. Bone Tool Indu- stries, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archeometrical Studies. INSTAP Academic Press. Philadelphia: 53–101. Vigne J.-D. and 12 co-authors. 2012. First wave of cultiva- tors spread to Cyprus at least 10,600 yrs ago. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(22): 8445–8449. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201693109 Vigne J.-D., Zazzo A., Cucchi T., Carrère I., Briois F., and Guilaine J. 2014. The transportation of mammals to Cyprus sheds light on early voyaging and boats in the Me- diterranean Sea. Eurasian Prehistory 10(1–2): 157–176. Watkins T. 2005. The Neolithic revolution and the emer- gence of humanity: a cognitive approach to the first com- prehensive world-view. In J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supple- mentary Series 2. Council for British Research in the Le- vant & Oxbow Books. Oxford: 84–88. 2010. New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia. Antiquity 84: 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00100122 2018. The Epipaleolithic-Neolithic as the pivotal trans- formation of human history. Documenta Praehistorica 45: 14–29. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.45.2 Weninger B., Clare L., Gerritsen F., Horejs B., Krauß R., Linstädter J., Özbal R., and Rohling E. J. 2014. Neolithisa- tion of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600– 6000 cal BC period of Rapid Climate Change. Documenta Praehistorica 41: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.1