DOCSLIB.ORG

The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe THE DIFFUSION OF NEOLITHIC PRACTICES FROM ANATOLIA TO EUROPE A Contextual Study of Residential And Construction Practices 8,500-5,500 BC cal. THESIS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY Maxime Nicolas Brami June 2014 ii Supervisor: Professor D. Baird Co-supervisors: Dr. D.P. Shankland Professor J.A.J. Gowlett Examiners: Dr. J.A. Pearson Professor S.J. Shennan iii iv The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe. A Contextual Study of Residential and Construction Practices. 8,500-5,500 BC cal. Maxime N. Brami Ever since Vere Gordon Childe’s seminal work on The Dawn of European Civilization (Childe 1925), it has been widely accepted that European agriculture originated in Southwest Asia. Exactly how farming spread to Europe from its origins in Southwest Asia remains, however, a matter of debate. Much of the argument has revolved around the manners of spreading of the Neolithic, whether through colonisation, acculturation or a combination of both. Far less attention has been given to the actual content of the Neolithic pattern of existence that spread into Europe. In my thesis, I review one particular type of content, practices, defined by reference to the theories of social action as normative acts or ways of doing. Practices are marked out by repetitive patterns in the material record, such as burnt houses for the practice of house- burning. Accordingly, practices are inferred, rather than instantiated, from their material expression, using information about the context and the sequence of stratigraphic events. Beyond farming practices, the Neolithic witnessed the inception of a new set of residential and construction practices, pertaining to the way in which houses were built, lived in and discarded at the end of their use-lives. This research tracks each of five main areas of practices from their origins in the Near East: house ‘closure’, house replacement, residential burial, spatial organisation in the rectangular house and agglutination. The aim is to examine whether some of the more distinctive Near Eastern practices, such as the deliberate infilling of houses at ‘closure’, the vertical superimposition of houses, the burial of the dead under active households, the spatial division of the main room into two flooring areas and the agglutination of houses in cellular house patterns, spread into Europe. I find that this older habitus of practices, which was involved in upholding a static repetition, house upon house, of the same pattern of existence, did not spread or only marginally into Europe. Over the course of the 7th millennium BC cal., however, it was superseded by another habitus of practices with a focus on collective action, which had wider relevance and appeal. The sequence of Çatalhöyük East, which spans both horizons of practices, serves as a guide to examine the broader dynamics of change in this period. My thesis claims, on the basis of inference drawn from compiling together a database of 848 radiocarbon dates from 59 sites, uniformly re-calibrated and displayed with the same confidence interval in an interactive interface, the 14C Backbone, that there was a two-thousand year lag, plus or minus a few hundred years, between the advent of Neolithic economy on the Central Anatolian Plateau and in the Aegean Basin. As it stands, the Western Anatolian Neolithic, which starts at or shortly before 6,500 BC cal., matches the Southeast European sequence more than it does the Southwest Asian one. New research in Western Anatolia suggests that there is ground to link up Thessaly and Macedonia with the Lake District and the Aegean coast of Anatolia, and Thrace with the Eastern Marmara region, regarding the advent of Neolithic practices. v Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xv Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1. A Fast-Tracked Revolution? The Neolithic Transition in Europe as Seen in the East .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 The Neolithic: a changing definition ........................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 The Neolithic stage of culture ............................................................................................. 6 1.1.2 Food-gatherers and food-producers .................................................................................... 7 1.1.3 The Neolithic ‘Revolution’ ................................................................................................. 9 1.1.4 More than one Neolithic? .................................................................................................. 10 1.2 The two Neolithics of Anatolia ................................................................................................. 13 1.2.1 Anatolia, a land of two continents .................................................................................... 14 1.2.2 The two thousand year lag: introducing the 14C Backbone ............................................... 17 1.2.3 A fault-line between Central and Western Anatolia ......................................................... 23 1.3 Statement of the hypothesis ....................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 2. Approaches to the Spread of the Neolithic into Europe ................................ 33 2.1 A brief history of the research question ..................................................................................... 33 2.1.1 The search for the missing link ......................................................................................... 34 2.1.2 Regionalisation of scholarship? ........................................................................................ 37 2.1.3 Reviving the grand narrative ............................................................................................. 40 2.2 Current approaches of the spread of farming............................................................................. 42 2.2.1 When did farming spread to Europe? ............................................................................... 44 2.2.2 Who spread farming? ........................................................................................................ 46 2.2.3 Along which routes did farming spread? .......................................................................... 49 2.2.4 What was spread? ............................................................................................................. 51 2.3 Statement of the aims ................................................................................................................ 55 Chapter 3. A Method Based on Practices ........................................................................... 57 3.1 Beyond similarities in material culture ...................................................................................... 57 3.2 Theoretical basis ........................................................................................................................ 60 3.2.1 A theory of action without agency .................................................................................... 61 3.2.2 Practice and habitus .......................................................................................................... 61 3.2.3 Change of practice ............................................................................................................ 63 3.3 Outline of the approach ............................................................................................................. 64 3.3.1 Practices with a material expression ................................................................................. 64 3.3.2 Residential and construction practices .............................................................................. 65 3.3.3 Contextual evidence .......................................................................................................... 68 3.3.4 Interrelationship of practices ............................................................................................. 69 3.4 Data collection ........................................................................................................................... 70 3.4.1 Fieldwork .......................................................................................................................... 71 3.4.2 Nature of sources .............................................................................................................. 72 3.4.3 Scope and terminology ..................................................................................................... 73 3.5 Structure of the results ............................................................................................................... 74 vi Chapter 4. House ‘Closure’ .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Middle East Unit: Reading and Questions Part 1:​ Introduction Located at the Junction of Three Continents—​Europe​,​
    Middle East Unit: Reading and Questions Part 1: Introduction ​ Located at the junction of three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa—the region ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ known as the Middle East has historically been a crossroads for conquerors, peoples, trade, and ideas as well as a transition zone for political and cultural interaction. Today the Middle East’s strategic location as a tricontinental hub, its vast petroleum reserves, its importance to Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike, and its many political disputes give it a global significance out of proportion to its size. The Middle East is a culturally, politically, and economically diverse region that extends for some 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) from west to east and some 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) from north to south. It is made up of several countries located on or near the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Although definitions vary, it is generally understood to encompass Egypt, Lebanon, ​ ​ ​ ​ Syria, Jordan, Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Peninsula, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The part of the region closest to Europe ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ formerly was known as the Near East, and some agencies still use that term instead of the Middle East to describe the entire region. 1. What are the 3 continents that house the “Middle East”? 2. What are they known for? 3. Label your map with the countries and bodies of waters in this text. Color the waters blue and the countries each a different color.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Diachronic Size Variation in Prehistoric Central Asian Cereal Grains
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 29 April 2021 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.633634 Interpreting Diachronic Size Variation in Prehistoric Central Asian Cereal Grains Giedre Motuzaite Matuzeviciute 1, Basira Mir-Makhamad 1,2* and Robert N. Spengler III 2 1 Department of Archaeology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2 Department of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany The morphology of ancient cereal grains in Central Asia has been heavily discussed as an indicator of specific genetic variants, which are often linked to cultural factors or distinct routes of dispersal. In this paper, we present the largest currently existing database of barley (n = 631) and wheat (n = 349) measurements from Central Asia, obtained from two different periods at the Chap site (ca. 3,500 to 1,000 BC), located in the Tien Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan at 2,000 masl. The site is situated at the highest elevation ecocline for successful cereal cultivation and is, therefore, highly susceptible to minor climatic fluctuations that could force gradients up or down in the foothills. We contrast the Chap data with measurements from other second and first millennia BC sites in Edited by: the region. An evident increase in average size over time is likely due to the evolution Gianluca Piovesan, of larger grains or the introduction of larger variants from elsewhere. Additionally, site- or University of Tuscia, Italy region-specific variation is noted, and we discuss potential influences for the formation of Reviewed by: Anna Maria Mercuri, genetic varieties, including possible pleiotropic linkages and/or developmental responses University of Modena and Reggio to external factors, such as environmental fluctuations, climate, irrigation inputs, soil Emilia, Italy Mark Nesbitt, nutrients, pathologies, and seasonality.
    [Show full text]
  • Hassuna Samarra Halaf
    arch 1600. archaeologies of the near east joukowsky institute for archaeology and the ancient world spring 2008 Emerging social complexities in Mesopotamia: the Chalcolithic in the Near East. February 20, 2008 Neolithic in the Near East: early sites of socialization “neolithic revolution”: domestication of wheat, barley, sheep, goat: early settled communities (ca 10,000 to 6000 BC) Mudding the world: Clay, mud and the technologies of everyday life in the prehistoric Near East • Pottery: associated with settled life: storage, serving, prestige pots, decorated and undecorated. • Figurines: objects of everyday, magical and cultic use. Ubiquitous for prehistoric societies especially. In clay and in stone. • Mud-brick as architectural material: Leads to more structured architectural constructions, perhaps more rectilinear spaces. • Tokens, hallow clay balls, tablets and early writing technologies: related to development o trade, tools of urban administration, increasing social complexity. • Architectural models: whose function is not quite obvious to us. Maybe apotropaic, maybe for sale purposes? “All objects of pottery… figments of potter’s will, fictions of his memory and imagination.” J. L. Myres 1923, quoted in Wengrow 1998: 783. What is culture in “culture history” (1920s-1960s) ? Archaeological culture = a bounded and binding ethnic/cultural unit within a defined geography and temporal/spatial “horizons”, uniformly and unambigously represented in the material culture, manifested by artifactual assemblage. pots=people? • “Do cultures actually
    [Show full text]
  • Did Anatolia Contribute to the Neolithization of Southeast Europe?*
    Colloquium Anatolicum IV 2005 17-41 Did Anatolia contribute to the Neolithization of Southeast Europe?* Jak Yakar In the Near East, the process of “Neolithization” highlighted by sedenta- rization or semi-sedentarization could be defined as a slow socio-economic course that evolved parallel to the climatic amelioration with milder temper- atures and increased humidity during the early Holocene. Climatic changes having a certain impact on the local flora would have affected the composi- tion of the local fauna. Shifting migration patterns and feeding zones of animal species hunted for their meat due to environmental changes no doubt neces- sitated certain economic adaptations requiring lesser or more selective mobil- ity on the part of hunter-gatherer communities. Recognizing the archaeologi- cal implications of social changes during the process of sedentarization is a difficult task, in most instances attainable only by way of an interdisciplinary approach. In Anatolia, the chronological sequence of this process indicates an early start in the southeast, gradually spreading to areas of grassland vege- tation in the southern Anatolian plateau. It subsequently reached the Aegean coast and slightly later spread to the more northerly regions of western Anatolia. The question is did the spread of this so-called “Neolithization” involve human agents from a specific geographic source area? Most scholars answer this question in the affirmative despite the fact that ethno-culturally the Neo- lithic society of Anatolia was not a homogenous entity. The society in this sub-continent characterized by its geographical diversity was equally divers ethno-culturally; in certain peripheral habitats having more in common with the prehistoric inhabitants of neighboring lands (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • (AMS) Dates for the Epipaleolithic Settlement at Abu Hureyra, Syria
    Radiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates for the Epipaleolithic Settlement at Abu Hureyra, Syria Item Type Article; text Authors Moore, A. M. T.; Gowlett, J. A. J.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Hillman, G. C.; Legge, A. J.; Rowley-Conwy, P. A. Citation Moore, A. M. T., Gowlett, J. A. J., Hedges, R. E. M., Hillman, G. C., Legge, A. J., & Rowley-Conwy, P. A. (1986). Radiocarbon accelerator (AMS) dates for the Epipaleolithic settlement at Abu Hureyra, Syria. Radiocarbon, 28(3), 1068-1076. DOI 10.1017/S0033822200020130 Publisher American Journal of Science Journal Radiocarbon Rights Copyright © The American Journal of Science Download date 01/10/2021 02:24:30 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/652764 [RADIOCARBON, Vol. 28, No, 3, 1986, P 1068-1076] RADIOCARBON ACCELERATOR (AMS) DATES FOR THE EPIPALEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT AT ABU HUREYRA, SYRIA A M T MOORE*, J A J GOWLETT**, R E M HEDGES**, G C HILLMAN-, A J LEGGED and P A ROWLEY-CONWY ABSTRACT. The prehistoric settlement of Abu Hureyra in Syria was occupied in both the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic periods. It has provided significant evidence for changes in econ- omy at the time of the inception of agriculture in southwest Asia. Twenty accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates have been obtained to determine the duration of occupation of the Epipaleolithic settlement there and the precise age of samples of cereal grains and animal bones found within it. The results have demonstrated that the AMS technique can answer such questions because it dates exceedingly small samples with high precision.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Urbanization Dynamics in Turkey's Marmara Region Using CORINE Data Between 2006 and 2018
    remote sensing Article Assessing Urbanization Dynamics in Turkey’s Marmara Region Using CORINE Data between 2006 and 2018 Özlem Altınkaya Genel 1,2 and ChengHe Guan 3,4,* 1 Kenniscentrum NoorderRuimte, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen Zernikeplein 1, 9747 AS Groningen, The Netherlands; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Architecture and Design, Özye˘ginUniversity, Orman Sk.13, Istanbul˙ 34794, Turkey 3 Arts and Sciences, New York University Shanghai, 1555 Century Avenue, Pudong New District, Shanghai 200122, China 4 Shanghai Key Laboratory of Urban Renewal and Spatial Optimization Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200122, China * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study investigated the urban growth dynamics of urban regions. The study area was the Marmara Region, one of the most densely populated and ecologically diverse areas in Turkey. Using CORINE land cover data for 2006, 2012, and 2018, the study utilized multiple correspondence analyses and cluster analyses, to analyze land cover changes. The resulting maps, visualized in GIS, revealed the rapid urban transformation of the regional structure, formerly comprised of four distinct areas, into a more complex structure, in which densification and sprawl occur simultaneously. Our findings demonstrated a dissonance between the spatial dynamics of the Marmara Region during the study period, and the capacity and scope of the simultaneously initiated regional policies and mega-projects. This uncoordinated approach has endangered the region’s sustainable development. The paper, therefore, discusses the importance of land use planning and transboundary collaboration Citation: Genel, Ö.A.; Guan, C. for sustainable regional development. Beyond the local case, the results contribute to critical theories Assessing Urbanization Dynamics in in regional planning by linking theory and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Monuments, Materiality, and Meaning in the Classical Archaeology of Anatolia
    MONUMENTS, MATERIALITY, AND MEANING IN THE CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANATOLIA by Daniel David Shoup A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Art and Archaeology) in The University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Elaine K. Gazda, Co-Chair Professor John F. Cherry, Co-Chair, Brown University Professor Fatma Müge Göçek Professor Christopher John Ratté Professor Norman Yoffee Acknowledgments Athena may have sprung from Zeus’ brow alone, but dissertations never have a solitary birth: especially this one, which is largely made up of the voices of others. I have been fortunate to have the support of many friends, colleagues, and mentors, whose ideas and suggestions have fundamentally shaped this work. I would also like to thank the dozens of people who agreed to be interviewed, whose ideas and voices animate this text and the sites where they work. I offer this dissertation in hope that it contributes, in some small way, to a bright future for archaeology in Turkey. My committee members have been unstinting in their support of what has proved to be an unconventional project. John Cherry’s able teaching and broad perspective on archaeology formed the matrix in which the ideas for this dissertation grew; Elaine Gazda’s support, guidance, and advocacy of the project was indispensible to its completion. Norman Yoffee provided ideas and support from the first draft of a very different prospectus – including very necessary encouragement to go out on a limb. Chris Ratté has been a generous host at the site of Aphrodisias and helpful commentator during the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macrobotanical Evidence for Vegetation in the Near East, C. 18 000/16 000 B.C to 4 000 B.C
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons University of Pennsylvania Museum of University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Papers Archaeology and Anthropology 1997 The Macrobotanical Evidence for Vegetation in the Near East, c. 18 000/16 000 B.C to 4 000 B.C. Naomi F. Miller University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers Part of the Near Eastern Languages and Societies Commons Recommended Citation Miller, N. F. (1997). The Macrobotanical Evidence for Vegetation in the Near East, c. 18 000/16 000 B.C to 4 000 B.C.. Paléorient, 23 (2), 197-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1997.4661 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers/36 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Macrobotanical Evidence for Vegetation in the Near East, c. 18 000/16 000 B.C to 4 000 B.C. Abstract Vegetation during the glacial period, post-glacial warming and the Younger Dryas does not seem to have been affected by human activities to any appreciable extent. Forest expansion at the beginning of the Holocene occurred independently of human agency, though early Neolithic farmers were able to take advantage of improved climatic conditions. Absence of macrobotanical remains precludes discussion of possible drought from 6,000 to 5,500 ВС. By farming, herding, and fuel-cutting, human populations began to have an impact on the landscape at different times and places. Deleterious effects of these activities became evident in the Tigris-Euphrates drainage during the third millennium ВС based on macrobotanical evidence from archaeological sites.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution
    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1998. “On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.” Cam. Arch. Jnl 8 (02) (October): 141. Published Version doi:10.1017/S0959774300000986 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:2 (1998), 141-63 On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution Ofer Bar-Yosef This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates that issues that are common- place to the study of the trajisition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Farmers from Across Europe Directly Descended from Neolithic Aegeans
    Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans Zuzana Hofmanováa,1, Susanne Kreutzera,1, Garrett Hellenthalb, Christian Sella, Yoan Diekmannb, David Díez-del-Molinob, Lucy van Dorpb, Saioa Lópezb, Athanasios Kousathanasc,d, Vivian Linkc,d, Karola Kirsanowa, Lara M. Cassidye, Rui Martinianoe, Melanie Strobela, Amelie Scheua,e, Kostas Kotsakisf, Paul Halsteadg, Sevi Triantaphyllouf, Nina Kyparissi-Apostolikah, Dushka Urem-Kotsoui, Christina Ziotaj, Fotini Adaktylouk, Shyamalika Gopalanl, Dean M. Bobol, Laura Winkelbacha, Jens Blöchera, Martina Unterländera, Christoph Leuenbergerm, Çiler Çilingiroglu˘ n, Barbara Horejso, Fokke Gerritsenp, Stephen J. Shennanq, Daniel G. Bradleye, Mathias Curratr, Krishna R. Veeramahl, Daniel Wegmannc,d, Mark G. Thomasb, Christina Papageorgopoulous,2, and Joachim Burgera,2 aPalaeogenetics Group, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany; bDepartment of Genetics, Evolution, and Environment, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom; cDepartment of Biology, University of Fribourg, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland; dSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; eMolecular Population Genetics, Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland; fFaculty of Philosophy, School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; gDepartment of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4ET, United Kingdom; hHonorary Ephor of Antiquities, Hellenic Ministry of Culture & Sports,
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic and Social Impact of COVID-19 on Women and Men
    The economic and social impact of COVID-19 on women and men Rapid Gender Assessment of COVID-19 implications in Turkey ©2020 UN Women. All rights reserved. Published by UN Women Turkey Office Lead Author: Dr. Yasemin Kalaylıoğlu Contributing Authors: Arif Mert Öztürk, Gözde Bingüler Eker This publication reflects the findings of a rapid gender assessment of immediate social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on women and men in Turkey, commissioned by UN Women in April 2020. It is based on a nationally representative survey among women and men, conducted by research company SAM Araştırma Danışmanlık A.Ş. The rapid gender assessment was conducted with the generous contribution and support of Sweden through Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of UN Women, the United Nations, any of its associated organizations or the offical position of Sweden. 2 Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID Proceedings of the 5Th
    Burying the Dead in Late Neolithic Syria Akkermans, P.M.M.G.; Cordoba, J.M.; Molist, M.; Perez, C.; Rubio, I.; Martinez, S. Citation Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (2006). Burying the Dead in Late Neolithic Syria. Proceedings Of The 5Th International Congress On The Archaeology Of The Ancient Near East, 621-645. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/15850 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/15850 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Madrid, April 3-8 2006 Edited by Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez, Isabel Rubio, Sergio Martínez (Editores) Madrid, 3 a 8 de abril de 2006 Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Arqueología del Oriente Próximo Antiguo VOL. III Centro Superior de Estudios sobre el Oriente Próximo y Egipto Madrid 2008 Colección Actas © ISBN (OBRA COMPLETA): 978-84-8344-140-4 ISBN (VOL. III): 978-84-8344-147-3 Depósito legal: GU-129/2009 Realiza: Palop Producciones Gráficas. Impreso en España. Diseño de cubierta: M.A. Tejedor. 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East V Congreso Internacional de Arqueología del Oriente Próximo Antiguo Scientific Committee Scientific Steering Committee Comité Científico Organizador Comité Científico Permanente Joaquín Mª Córdoba Manfred Bietak Sergio Martínez Barthel Hrouda (honorary member) Miquel Molist Hartmut Kühne Mª Carmen Pérez Jean-Claude Margueron Isabel Rubio Wendy Matthews Paolo Matthiae Diederik Meijer Ingolf Thuesen Irene J.
    [Show full text]