See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288393956

Early settlements and precurement of raw materials - New evidence based on research at Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatlisu-Çıftl̇ ıkdüzö),̇ Northern Cyprus

Article in TUBA-AR · January 2008

CITATIONS READS 5 20

1 author:

Müge Şevketoğlu Cyprus International University

13 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Akanthou/Tatlisu Rescue Excavation Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Müge Şevketoğlu on 24 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. TÜBA-AR XI 2008

EARLY SETTLEMENTS AND PRECUREMENT OF RAW MATERIALS – NEW EVIDENCE BASED ON RESEARCH AT AKANTHOU-ARKOSYKOS (TATLISU- Ç‹FTL‹KDÜZÜ), NORTHERN CYPRUS

AKANTHOU-ARKOSYKOS (TATLISU- Ç‹FTL‹KDÜZÜ) KAZILARI IfiI⁄INDA KUZEY KIBRIS’TA ‹LK YERLEfi‹MLER VE HAMMADDE ED‹N‹M‹

Müge fiEVKETO⁄LU*

Key words: Cyprus, Tatl›su- Çiftlikdüzü/ Akanthou-Arkosykos, Aceramic Neolitik, obsidien, exchange, Anatolia. Anahtar sözcükler: K›br›s adas›, Tatl›su- Çiftlikdüzü/ Akanthou-Arkosykos, Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik, obsidyen, mal de¤iflimi, Anadolu.

Yak›n zamana kadar K›br›s adas› ile Anadolu aras›ndaki kültür iliflkileri, iki bölge aras›ndaki co¤rafi yak›nl›¤a karfl›n, pek önemsenmeyerek göz ard› edilmiflti. Ancak son on y›l içerisinde gerçekleflen kaz›lar eski görüflleri tümü ile de¤ifltirecek verileri ortaya ç›kartm›fl, K›br›s’›n yerleflim tarihi ile ilgili kuramlar› çürütmüfltür. K›br›s’ta bize bu verileri sa¤layan iki önemli kaz› yeri vard›r; bunlardan biri adan›n güneyinde, 1990’ l› y›llar›n bafllar›nda kaz›lan Parekklisha-Shillourokambos, di¤eri ise K›b - r›s’›n kuzey k›y›s›nda, Anadolu’ya çok yak›n bir konumdaki Akanthou- Arkosykos/Tatl›su -Çiftlik - düzü’dür. Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik döneme ait bu yerleflimde çok say›da Anadolu kökenli obsid - yen bulunmufltur. Bunlar›n say›s› adada flimdiye kadar bulunan obsidyenlerin toplam›n›n birkaç ka - t› daha fazlad›r. Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü kaz›s›n›n bir di¤er önemi ise K›br›s’›n Anadolu ile olan do¤rudan ba¤lant›s›n› kan›tlayan en kesin verileri ortaya ç›kartm›fl olmas›d›r. Böylelikle, Anadolu ç›k›fll› olan bir hammadde olan obsidyenin etkili oldu¤u ticaret a¤›na, Yak›ndo¤u’nun yan› s›ra K›br›s da eklen - mifltir. Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü kaz›lar›nda Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik dönemi çeflitli yönleri ile daha iyi anlamam›z› sa¤layan önemli buluntular da ortaya ç›kart›lm›flt›r.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Earliest evidence of a human presence on (Wigand, Simmons 1999). These early dated Cyprus is of a few worked flint scatters found sites offer a tantalising glimpse of a human pres- within cemented sand dune deposits (aeolianite ence on the island at the same time as pygmy formations) discovered by Ammerman at N i s s i hippopotami and dwarf elephants amongst Beach and Akamas Aspros (Ammerman et. al., other fauna. 2008). These flint scatters are described as con- temporary with excavations at Akrotiri - Until recently, evidence of early human settle- Aetokremnos in the 1980’s that is radiocarbon ment of Cyprus was believed to be much later, dated to c. 10,000 cal. BC; evidence of a human based on excavations of aceramic Neolithic set- presence at Akrotiri itself is less conclusive tlement sites dating to 7000 BC and most

*Eastern Mediterranean University Department of Archaeology and Art History, Gazima¤usa- K›br›s via: Mersin 10, Turkey [email protected] 64 Müge fiEVKETO⁄LU notably, Khirokitia (Le Brun 2001: 109; Dikaios, monplace. It may be reasoned that cultures 1953: 339). Khirokitia culture is developed and developed in pace and in contact with the main- complex but quite distinct from any known con- land cultures. The lack of similarity between temporary mainland cultures. The existence of a island and mainland cultures is arguably not a distinctive Khirokitia culture posed questions of result of isolation but reflects the opportunity for what was its origins or where did they come difference between cultures. Whilst there is dif- from? Only a few artefacts from the Khirokitia ference, island culture was nevertheless influ- culture sites are demonstrably from the main- enced through contact and exchange through land; these include a handful of obsidian blades the millennia. The sea may not have been so from an original Anatolian source. These items much of an obstacle to cross, but more as the are so few that they do not provide strong evi- means of communication with opportunities for dence for a direct link to Anatolia, however, contact with many different locations, for indirect contact through the Levant has been resources, for exchange and other reasons. s u g g e s t e d . REDISCOVERY OF AKANTHOU ARKOSYKOS Excavations at Parekklisha-S h i l l o u r o k a m b o s a n d ( T A T L I S U - Ç ‹ F T L ‹ K D Ü Z Ü ) at Akanthou- A r k o s y k o ( T a t l › s u - Ç i f t l i k d ü z ü ) pro- vide evidence of settlement a millennium or so The site of Akanthou was first recorded by the earlier and initial findings illustrate how the dis- Cyprus Survey in 1931 and later in 1945 and 1946 tinctiveness of the Khirokitia culture is likely to by researchers Anastasiou and Dikaios of Cyprus be the result of continuous settlement on the Museum. They reported finds of a Neolithic type island from more distant times. These two earli- that included: a stone axe; stone vessel fragments, er sites, in turn, also pose the question of what chert flakes, blades and cores obsidian blades, ani- are the origins of these cultures; are they exam- mal bone (sheep/goat, pig and fallow deer (dama ples of separate indigenous development from mesopotamica)) and a perforated shell (Stanley- the mainland or do they represent the first set- Price, 1979: 119). In 1972 and 1973, Stanley-Price tlers to the island from other shores? revisited the site and also discovered surface finds of similar artefacts. In 1996 this author conducted Debate amongst archaeologists since the discov- a systematic field walking of the site and also ery of Khirokitia in the 1930’s has often centred found similar artefacts, including finds of obsidian around the question of how there came be a b l a d e s . distinctive Aceramic Neolithic farming commu- nity on Cyprus, with the implied assumption Obsidian finds have played an important role in that there must have been a first migrant or set- the discussion of first human settlement of the tler from somewhere else. An equal and oppo- island and relations with the mainland as this site assumption may be that settlement evolved volcanic glass does not occur naturally on the in Cyprus, much as anywhere else, from the first island and must indicate contact in some form evidence of flint scatters in 10t h millennium BC with the mainland. Previous excavations have through to the present recovered only a small number of obsidian, these are: Khirokitia 14 pieces, 0.5% of the lith- Discoveries at Parekklisha-S h i l l o u r o k a m b o s i c a s s e m b l a g e ( D i k a i o s 1 9 5 3 ) , Klepini - T r o u l l i and Akanthou-A r k o s y k o s in particular, show 24 pieces, 2% of the lithic assemblage that there was contact with the mainland at a (Peltenburg, 1979), Cape Andreas Castros 13 much earlier date from artefacts of obsidian and pieces, 0.15% of the lithic assemblage (Le Brun, cattle bone, neither of which is indigenous to 1981), Kallavassos-Tenta 32 pieces, 0.03 of the the island. Indications are that the exchange of lithic assemblage (Todd 1986: 15). More recent- items was significant and perhaps even com- ly, as larger number of finds from earlier sites Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü) 65 became available, the presence of obsidian has ing project confirmed that an archaeological site come to greater prominence, indicating that of some importance lay preserved at A k a n t h o u . there may have been more significant contact Following on from this, a limited archaeological with the mainland at a date earlier then rescue excavation of the subsurface deposits assumed. At the excavated site of Parekklisha- was planned with the Department of Museums S h i l l o u r o k a m b o s the number of obsidian blades, and Antiquities and sponsored by Eastern evidently all of Anatolian origin, is 217 pieces, Mediterranean University. The excavation was comprising 2% of lithic assemblage of the site to take the form of an evaluation trench to find (Guilaine et. al., 1995; Briois, Guilaine 1997, architectural remains that correlate with the un- 1 0 4 ) . Excavations to date at the site of Akanthou stratified finds discovered during surface survey have recovered over 5000 pieces of obsidian, works. In this way, the aim was to demonstrate also from an Anatolian origin; this large number the physical existence of the site. Once the further indicates a greater scale of contact with importance of the site could be established, the mainland than previously thought. measures could be taken to establish protection from future damage. THE AKANTHOU- TATLISU RESCUE ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

The 1996 field walking survey of Akanthou, Akanthou is located on the north-east coast of conducted by the author, resulted in a rich col- Cyprus to the west of the Karpaz peninsula, sit- lection of finds both from surface and also from uated on top of a 15 metre high extensive the spoil of the modern pits that had been cut marine terrace terminating in limestone cliffs on into archaeological deposits, revealing the the seaward side. Below the cliff there is a small potential importance of the site for the aceram- bay and pebble beach. The site lies very close ic Neolithic period.. A poultry farm nearby had to the current coastline and was still close to a excavated a series of 38 refuse pits and used projected Neolithic coastline according to sea these for illegally discarding chicken remains. level changes suggested for some sites in Cyprus The spoil from these pits provided an opportu- (Ammerman, 2008). Nearby there is still a fresh nity to test the archaeological importance of the water spring and fossilized spring rock is evi- site and demonstrated the threat of modern dence that there was a spring in ancient times activity to these fragile deposits. Action was sufficient to attract settlement. The terrain is flat taken to stop the immediate threat to the site; and there were plentiful resources for hunting, however there was also a clear need to evaluate proto agricultural activity (herding, corralling, the site further to demonstrate its importance plant gathering and cropping) and construction and to ensure its future protection. (timber, limestone and soils suitable for making mudbrick, plaster). As now, the sea was a rich In 1999 a survey of the spoil from these modern marine sources of food and afforded opportuni- pits cutting into the archaeological deposits was ty for easy coastal travel and the potential to undertaken. The author and students from the travel to farther shores; the Anatolian coast is Eastern Mediterranean University Archaeology visible from the site 55 kilometres away. and Art History Department spent several weeks systematically dry sieving spoil from the dis- OVERVIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL turbed archaeological deposits; this resulted in R E M A I N S finds of 420 obsidian pieces, a number of well- preserved cattle bones, many small picrolite Archaeological excavations have been within an tokens and beads made of sea shells. The large evaluation trench 15 metres by 24 metres in number of artefacts recovered from the dry-siev- extent. Currently, settlement deposits excavated 66 Müge fiEVKETO⁄LU have been dated to the early Pre-ceramic pits and numerous postholes cut into earlier sur- Neolithic Period, around 10,000 years ago and faces and collapse or demolition deposits. the site may prove to be earlier; a calibrated radiocarbon date of 8200-7800 BC has been An intriguing sub-rectangular feature with traces established from carbonised seeds taken from a of a plaster lining and filled with heat fractured hearth contemporary with Phase C of the site. stones has been tentatively interpreted as possi- Five broad phases (A-E) of Neolithic activity ble evidence for limestone processing have been established and within these are (Rollefson 1990; Kingery et. al., 1988). recorded the remains of six building structures, Limestone may have been heated in this pit to extensive plaster floor surfaces, a massive ditch, produce a workable material for making plaster; plaster lined pits, evidence interpreted as plaster close by this pit are four shallower pits, each manufacture and many pits and postholes. The filled with several white layers plaster that may site is rich in artefacts including: stone tools of represent a further stage of plaster manufacture. worked flint, chert and obsidian, polished stone (Garfinkel 1987a) axes and picrolite ‘chisels’, stone vessels includ- ing flat querns and bowls, bone tools including P r e - C e r a mic Neolit hic Period: needles and fish hooks, ornaments including Phase B, Building Collapse incised picrolite and pierced shell. A large num- and Erosion Layers ber of well preserved faunal remains have been collected including; pig, sheep/goat, fallow Separating occupation deposits of Phases A and deer, fish bones, dog, fox, cat and turtle bone. C are a series of layers consisting of silts and The faunal remains also include some cattle mud brick debris formed from the collapse, ero- bone, which is a non-indigenous species and sion and possible deliberate levelling of the indicator of mainland contact (Simmons 1999). structures in Phase C. In one instance deliberate Several fragments of human bone have been destruction a building wall is suggested by the found, including a piece of skull and phalanges, numerous pieces of fine painted plaster that lie however, no remains of structured burials have in situ, painted side down, sealed within col- been uncovered so far. lapse deposits. Some of these plaster pieces have moulded edges and surviving red, black P r e - C e r a mic Neolit hic Period: and brown pigment shows that wall surfaces Phase A, Settlement Occupation were probably decorated with specific designs or patterns. Collapse debris from Phase B also The latest evidence of Neolithic settlement is sealed several hearths in use at a near contem- mostly of fragmentary floor surfaces overlying porary time and indicating a ‘squatter’ or con- earlier collapse debris. One of these fragmentary tinued use after earlier evidence of more organ- surfaces is a fine example of later floor con- ised settlement of Phase A. A single hearth fill struction technique; a whitish grey limestone contained some 200 carbonised seeds, a sample plaster laid carefully on a foundation of closely of which was carbon dated giving a calibrated packed stones and re-laid over an earlier floor date for Phase B of 8100-7800 BC. surface. Set within these fragmentary surfaces were also the remains of four plaster lined pits Pre-ceramic Neolithic Period: c. 70 cm in diameter, which were most likely for Phase C, Settlement Occupation storage. However, stones found at the base of one of these may have been ‘potboilers’ or The remains of an earlier phase of activity is bet- stones heated in a fire and then transferred to ter preserved; there are the remains of founda- the pit for heating as a means of cooking. In tions and wall bases of six building structures, addition to these, there are more than twenty each constructed with a combination of stone Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü) 67 and mudbrick. The plans of buildings varies (Phase D) over 10 metres by 12 metres in extent from round to more sub-rectangular, all being and beyond the confines of the evaluation approximately 5 to 6 metres in diameter. trench. This surface may have been in use for Evidence of postholes within and beside the some time before it was used as a foundation walls indicates that the roofs may have been for later structures as two plaster lined pits con- made of timber rafters set on posts. The build- temporary with the surface lie beneath the foun- ings all appear to have been built directly onto dations of one of the building structures. the extensive plaster floor surface, indicating that they are contemporary at some time in their Beneath the plaster surface there are earlier usage. Many of the buildings abut one another deposits (Phase E) visible from cut features. In or are very closely spaced so as to prevent pas- several places these are reasonably substantial sage between buildings; the structures appear to occupation deposits; in other places the plaster have developed from an initial single cell being surface lies close above natural bedrock. developed over time with the addition of ‘lean- to’ single cells, almost as the addition of rooms. OBSIDIAN FINDS By inference, the building structures indicate close family or group ties where adjacent living Perhaps the most significant of the artefact cate- space is added as the group grows in numbers gory of the assemblage is the large quantities of of individuals. obsidian; 95% of the 5000 and more pieces col- lected so far are small blades or bladelets, being The interiors of the buildings have not been common in every Neolithic phase. As men- fully excavated, however, evidence of internal tioned previously, the number of obsidian finds features to date, includes hearths and plaster at the site far exceeds the numbers collected at lined pits. In one of the structures there is evi- any other site on the island and even amongst dence for a partition and a widened foundation Neolithic settlements of the Levant. Finds of indicates there may have been an upper room. obsidian at Akanthou exceed total numbers of Between the building structures and cut within finds at other Cypriot sites by a factor of 10 com- the extensive plaster surface on which the struc- pared to the similarly dated site of Parekklisha- tures stand, are four plaster lined pits and also S h i l l o u r o k a m b o s and a factor of 100 to other the remains of a hearth. later Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites including K h i r o k i t i a . A massive ditch running east to west across the southern edge of the evaluation trench has ver- Chemical analysis of 10 obsidian sample pieces tical sides, is 3.5 metres across and 2 metres has been carried out by Prof. Pernicka and his deep. A preliminary ground radar survey of the t e a m at the Institute of Archaeometrie / ditch indicates that it may be a linear feature Archaeometallurgie (Institut für Ur und (approximately 90 metres in length) which does Frühgeschicte und Archaeologie des Mittelalters not enclose the settlement. However, a detailed der Universitaet Tübingen). The results demon- and systematic survey of the ditch is required to strate that the obsidian comes from two sources fully establish its nature and help understand its in Central Anatolia: 9 pieces from East Göllü function for the settlement. Da¤ and 1 piece from Nenezi Da¤ .

Pre-ceramic Neolithic Period: Phases D and E, Typological and technological analysis of the Early Settlement Occupation and Deposits obsidian assemblage carried out by Lother Herling has revealed that core revival parts are The plaster surface on which the buildings are very few and that there are no cores, indicating constructed forms an extensive earlier surface that the bladelets were imported ready-made (or 68 Müge fiEVKETO⁄LU less likely, manufactured elsewhere at the site?). understand these construction techniques better These are prismatic bladelets obtained by pres- and to gain an understanding of the effort sure technique and they are known from required to build these structures a Neolithic Hut Kaletepe workshop at East Göllü Da¤ (Binder, was reconstructed close to the site. Balkan-Atl› 2001). The presence of large amounts of these blades at Tat l › s u - Ç i f t l i k d ü z ü The project to build a Neolithic Hut was also an indicates a strong relationship between the set- opportunity to bring to life fragmentary evi- tlement and Kaletepe workshop or/and similar dence to show visitors to the site what a workshops at Göllü Da¤, such as Kay›rl›- Neolithic building may have looked like and in Bitlikeler workshop (Balkan-Atl› et. al., 1999). turn to promote the site and its protection. The project was part funded by the UNDP PFF. Based on the very large number of obsidian collected at Akanthou, the settlement may well SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS have had an important role as point of distribu- tion of obsidian for the island and even more The Pre-Pottery Neolithic site at Akanthou is widely across the Levant region. This evidence extremely rich in architectural structures, sur- for significant contact with the mainland pro- faces and artefacts. It is exceptional in Cyprus in vides fertile ground for conjecture surrounding terms of the breadth of types and recovered the nature of this distribution and the nature of numbers of artefacts and the quality of surviving society at Akanthou. The surviving finds of plaster and mud brick structures. A first carbon obsidian may be an indicator of a wider and date from carbonised seeds recovered from a more various contact or exchange with the Phase B hearth has given a date of 8100-7800 mainland; perhaps the settlement also imported BC and future dating of later phases may show livestock (as evidenced by several cattle bones) the settlement to be considerably earlier. The and a range of other items that have left no trace current evaluation of the site is based on the sys- in the archaeological record. The scale of the tematic excavation of deposits and recovery of endeavour required to convey material from the finds from a 15 by 24 metre evaluation trench. mainland and Anatolia would have required a However, indications are that the settlement site sophisticated level of social organisation and may be as extensive as 210 by 200 metres based communication which by inference, suggests on distribution of surface finds and the results of the people of Akanthou may have been a dom- a resistivity survey carried out across the area of inant social group on the island. Moreover, the the site. investment needed to obtain the obsidian may indicate that these objects had an intrinsic value The recovery of 5000 plus pieces of obsidian at worth more than their value as tools alone; Akanthou is of particular importance and is far potentially these obsidian bladelets conferred in excess of any other Cypriot site, sufficient to status on the owner or carried currency for raise questions about the nature of contact with exchange for goods and foodstuffs. the mainland at a very distant time in prehisto- ry. The scale of the obsidian finds places THE AKANTHOU-TATLISU RESCUE Akanthou (and Cyprus) in a position of region- ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT: al importance; where the economy of the settle- NEOLITHIC HOUSE RECONSTRUCTION ment required mainland contact, so the archae- ological inquiry needs to extend its scope. There The remains of six mudbrick and stone building may be as yet unfound Neolithic sites on the foundations at Akanthou have provided a Turkish coast or other coasts of the eastern wealth of information about the size and shape Mediterranean that were in contact with the set- of dwellings and how they were constructed. To tlement at Akanthou and can further help us Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü) 69 understand the nature of the contact between The controlled and limited excavation of the mainland and island. This future enquiry may Akanthou/Tatl›su Rescue Archaeology Project finally answer the question of where the people has so far served to demonstrate the archaeo- of the Khirokitia Culture came from. The evidence logical and wider cultural importance of the from Akanthou shows that the Khirokitia people Neolithic site at Akanthou. Previous damaging were likely to be the descendents of the settle- activity to the site has ceased and the area of the ments at Akanthou and Parekklisha- wider settlement is now protected from future S h i l l o u r o k a m b o s rather than migrants from the development. The results of this limited rescue mainland. In turn, the people of Akanthou were excavation are already sufficient to inform new clearly capable of making extensive contact with arguments about the early settlement of Cyprus; the mainland, but there is no evidence that they continuity of settlement versus migration; the were migrants or from the mainland themselves. nature of contact between Cyprus and the main- The human settlement of Cyprus may prove to be not a colonisation event but an indigenous devel- land and many other questions. opment of people who arrived as far back as 10,000 BC (Ammerman, 2008). Evidence for main- The archaeological site at Akanthou is clearly a land contact may in fact represent the beginnings rich resource for inquiry and energy and of influence from the mainland (in exchange and resources are still required to ensure its contin- other contact) between two distinct peoples with ued protection for future generations and for two different cultural traditions. further research.

R E F E R E N C E S

A M M E R M A N, A.J et. al., 2008 W.D. KINGERY, P.B. VANDIVER, M . PRICKETT,1988 “Two New Early Sites on Cyprus”, RDAC, Report of the “The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and Use Department of Antiquities, Republic of Cyprus, Nicosia. of Lime and Gypsium Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near BALKAN -ATLI, N., D. BINDER , M. C. CAUVIN, 1999 East”, Journal of Field Archaeology , 219-244. “Obsidian: Sources, Workshops and Trade in Central Anatolia.” LE BRUN, A., Neolithic in Turkey, (Eds.) M. ÖZDO⁄AN, N. BAfiGELEN, ‹stan- 1981 “Un site neolithique préceramique en Chypre. Cape Andreas bul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay›nlar›. Castros, Etudes Neolithiques”, Paris, Recherce sur les Grandes BINDER, D., N. BALKAN-ATLI, 2001 Civilisations, Memoire 5. “Obsidien Technology at Kaletepe/Kömürcü”, Beyond Tools. 2 0 0 1 “At the other end of sequence: The Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic Reconsidering Definitions, Counting and Interpretation of Lithic as seen from Khirokitia”, The earliest Prehistory of Cyprus from A s s e m b l a g e s , (Ed.) I. CANEVA, Venice, 1-9. Colonisation to exploitation (Ed.) S. SWINY, American Schools BRIOIS, F., J. GUILAINE, 1 9 9 7 of Oriental Research, 109-118, “Obsidiennes du Site Neolithique Preceramique de 2003 “Ideologie et symboles a Khirokitia: La ‘Fermeture’ d’un Shillourokambos (Chypre)”, Paleorient 23/1, 95-112. Batiment et sa mise en scene”, Le Neolithique de Chypre, (Eds.) DIKAIOS, P. 1953 J. GUILAINE, A. LE BRUN, Athens, Bulletin de Correspondance Khirokitia Final Report on the Excavation of a Neolithic Hellenique Supplement 43, 341- 349 Settlement in Cyprus on Behalf of the Department of Antiquities PELTENBURG, E.J. 1979, 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 4 6. Oxford, Oxford University Press, “Troulli reconsidered”, Studies presented in Memory of Porphyros GARFINKEL, Y. D i k a i o s , (Eds.) V. KARAGEORGIS at. al., Nicosia, 21-45. 1 9 8 7 a “Burnt Lime Products and Social Implications in the Pre-Pottery ROLLEFSON, G.O. 1990, Neolithic B Villages of the Near East”, Paleorient 13/1, 69-76. “The use of Plaster at Neolithic‘Ain Ghazal,Jordan”, 1 9 8 7 b “Yiftahel: A Neolithic Village from the Seventh Millenium BC in A r c h a e o m a t e r i a l s 4, 3-54. Lower Galilee, Israel”, Journal of Field Archaeology 14, 199- SIMMONS, A., 1999, 2 1 2 . Faunal Extinction in an Island Society Pigmy Hippopotamus GJERSTAD, E. 1980 Hunters of Cyprus. New York. “Ages and Days in Cyprus”, Goteborg, Paul Atrom Forlag. SIMMONS, A., R. MANDEL, 2007, GUILLAINE, J., 2003 “Not such a new light: a response to Ammerman and Noller”, De la vague a la Tombe. La Conquete Neolithique de la World Achaeology 39/4, 475-482. Mediterranee (8000-2000 avant J.-C.), Paris, Editions du Seuil. STANLEY PRICE, N.P. 1979. GUILLAINE, J. F. BRIOIS, J. CAULAROU, I. CARVERE, Early Prehistoric Settlement in Cyprus: A Review and Gazeteer 1995 “L’établissement Neolithique de Shillourokambos (Parekklisha, of Sites c. 6500-3000 B.C. Oxford, BAR International Series 65. Chypre). Premier Resultats.” R D A C,Report of the Department of fiEVKETO⁄LU, M. Antiquities,Republic of Cyprus,Nicosia, 12-32 2 0 0 0 Archaeological Field Survey of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic 70 Müge fiEVKETO⁄LU

Settlement Sites in Kyrenia District, North Cyprus ,Oxford, BAR periods. New Evidence from the Vasilikos Valley ”,Acts of the International Series 834. International Symposium Cyprus Between the Orient and the 2 0 0 3 “Akanthou-Arkosyko (Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü ) and the Anatolian O c c i d e n t , (Ed.) V. Karageorgis, 12-27. Connections in the 9th Millennium BCE” Proceedings of the VIGNE, J.D., T.CUCCHI 2005, International World Islands Conference in Prehistory 2001 “ Premieres navigations au Proche-Orient: les informations de Conference, Deia, Mallorca, Spain Oxford, BAR International Chypre”, P a l e o r i e n t 31/1, 186-94. S e r i e s . WIGAND, P. E., A. SIMMONS. 1999. 2 0 0 6 “Anatolia and Cyprus Relations in the 9t h Millenium B.C.: Akanthou (Tatl›su) Rescue Excavation”, Anatolia/ Anadolu 3 0 , “The Dating of Arkotiri Aetokremenos”, Faunal Extinction in an ( 2 0 0 6 ) . Island Society: Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus, TODD, I., 1986 Chapter 8, (Ed.) A. SIMMONS, New York, Kluwer “The foreign Relations of Cyprus in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Fig. 1 : Akanthou/Tatlisu aerial view of the excavation.

Fig. 2: A view of the ditch. Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü) 71

Fig. 4: Turtle bones.

Fig. 3: Possible oven. 72 Müge fiEVKETO⁄LU

Fig. 5: Plaster basin.

Fig. 6 : Obsidian.

Fig. 7: Flint tool.

View publication stats