reingruber.qxd 21/11/2011 11:11 Page 291 (Black plate) a l t e n Documenta Praehistorica XXXVIII (2011) Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean Agathe Reingruber The German Archaeological Institute (DAI), Eurasia Department, Berlin, DE [email protected] ABSTRACT – The Neolithisation process is one of the major issues under debate in Aegean archae- ology, since the description of the basal layers of Thessalian tell-settlements some fifty years ago. The pottery, figurines or stamps seemed to be of Anatolian origin, and were presumably brought to the region by colonists. The direct linking of the so-called ‘Neolithic Package’ with groups of people lea- ving Central Anatolia after the collapse of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B resulted in the colonisation model of the Aegean. This view is not supported by results obtained from natural sciences such as archaeobotany, radiocarbon analyses, and neutron activation on obsidian. When theories of social networks are brought into the discussion, the picture that emerges becomes much more differentia- ted and complex. IZVLE∞EK – Proces neolitizacije predstavlja enega glavnih vpra∏anj v okviru razprav v egejski arheo- logiji vsaj od opisa temeljnih plasti naselbin tipa tell v Tesaliji pred 50 leti. Za keramiko, figurine in pe≠atnike se je zdelo, da izvirajo iz podro≠ja Anatolije, in so jih na podro≠je Tesalije prinesli ko- lonisti. Neposredno povezovanje t.i. ‘neolitskega paketa’ s skupino ljudi, ki je zapustila centralno Ana- tolijo po padcu kulture predkerami≠nega neolitika B, je postalo osnova za egejski kolonizacijski mo- del. Ta vidik pa ne podpirajo rezultati iz naravoslovja kot so arheobotanika, radiokarbonske anali- ze in nevronska aktivacijska analiza obsidiana. ∞e v razpravo vklju≠imo ∏e teorije socialnih omre- ∫ij, postane slika veliko bolj raznolika in zapletena. KEY WORDS – Aegean; Neolithic; Mesolithic; Neolithisation; networks Introduction ’For lack of a name’ James H. Breasted (1919.55) la- communities in areas adjacent to the Fertile Cre- belled the area covering the Levant, Upper Mesopo- scent were either deeply influenced by the transfor- tamia, and the Western flanks of the Zagros Moun- mations happening there, or were a direct offspring tains as ‘The Fertile Crescent’. This telling name now of people living in the Near East who, for whatever refers to the core area in which the ‘Neolithic Revo- reasons, moved West and colonised not only the lution’ – a term coined by Gordon V. Childe – began. Aegean, but also Southeast Europe. Eminent archaeo- In his seminal book ‘Man Makes Himself’, Childe logists dealing with these questions advanced vari- (1951) dedicated a whole chapter to those transfor- ous narratives, three of which were recently publi- mations that cover all aspects of life, leading to the shed in the same catalogue (Lichter 2007). most radical restructuring in human (pre)history. At its far end is our modern society, still comprised of From a Central European viewpoint, the direction of sedentary communities relying on plant and animal the movement as presented by Jens Lüning (2007. husbandry exclusively. 179) seems rather clear and very linear (Fig. 1). Re- presented by thick arrow-lines, the dissemination According to the two basic alternative views of the started from the Eastern Mediterranean, reaching spread of the Neolithic way of life, Early Neolithic Europe via the islands of Cyprus, Crete and both DOI> 10.4312\dp.38.23 291 Agathe Reingruber mainland Greece or Sicily and Magna Graecia. Lüning’s other route is supposed to have led via the Sea of Marmara. Cer- tainly, these routes seem logi- cal and navigable. Yet, the ar- chaeological evidence for this linear movement takes us no farther than the first steps: the colonisation of Cyprus from the Levant. Mehmet Özdogan’s (2007a. 151) narrative dispenses with arrows, but suggests a very powerful expansion starting Fig. 1. Neolithisation model according to Lüning (2007.179). throughout Anatolia, sweep- ing over whole regions, cov- ering enormous areas, and leaving no gaps behind (Fig. 2). Neither were any unoccu- pied territories admitted (for example, the Southern Pelo- ponnese), nor were enclaves of Mesolithic groups taken in- to consideration (e.g. the Da- nube Gorges). The third narrative, by Jean Guilaine (2007.171), operates with more limited and defined areas, and does not use sym- bols to indicate unidirectional Fig. 2. Neolithisation model according to Özdogan (2007a.151). movements, but calibrated dates to show the boun- The spread of the Neolithic is directly linked to the daries between even neighbouring areas (Fig. 3). geographical setting of Anatolia: regional groups are The gaps might result from insufficient evidence delimited by geographical borders, like the Middle and/or insufficient investigation. Taurus mountain range that separates Upper Meso- potamia from Central Anatolia, and farther West, Whereas the first two narratives operate within the the Hasan Dagları of the Western Taurus mountain colonisation paradigm, option [A], the third dispen- range, with heights around 3000m, between the Ana- ses with indicators for direct movement, leaving tolian Plateau and the Lake District. These ranges open the possibility of the transmission of ideas, op- are certainly not impenetrable, but nevertheless tion [B]. It is the third narrative that also transmits form natural barriers separating not only the regions our sparse knowledge about certain regions like the in an East-West direction, but also in a North-South- one under discussion in this contribution. By ‘Ae- direction: the coastal plains around the gulfs of Mer- gean’ I mean both littorals of the Aegean Sea: the sin and Antalya also have specific regional characte- Eastern, Anatolian coastal area with its hinterland, ristics. and the Western, including Eastern Greece. The Southern boundaries are formed by the island of The ‘Neolithic Package’ Crete, the Northern ones are formed by Aegean Ma- cedonia as well as Greek and Turkish Thrace. North- Before discussing the character of the spread of the west Anatolia, with its complex geographical setting Neolithic – whether of people and/or ideas and/or close to the Marmara Region deserves a separate commodities – a closer look should be taken at the and comprehensive study. arguments for a Near Eastern colonisation of the 292 Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean Following this approach, we should not just be content with the definition of the ‘Neolithic Package’ and the description of its individual components when studying the Neolithisation process, but rather embed them in their social context. In an attempt to place these components within living en- vironments, I shall make use of another concept that seems most suitable for approaching prehistoric societies: social net- work theory (Watkins 2008. 139–171; 2003.36–37). Fig. 3. Neolithisation model according to Guilaine (2007.171). In 6700 calBC at the latest, the so-called ‘Neolithic Pac- Aegean region based on material culture. According kage’ was fully developed in Eastern and Central to Childe, both the agricultural economy relying on Anatolia, including not only economic and technical domesticated plants and animals, as well as seden- items, but also social and symbolic cultural objects tism, were among the key features of the Neolithic like figurines, stamps, and ornamentation on pot- way of life. In his view, ground stone implements tery. Thus, at the moment when the Neolithic way of (hoes and axes), pottery (mainly for storage), spin- life spread into the Aegean, all of the features were dle whorls, and other weaving implements for pro- available. Therefore, they were seen in research as ducing textiles formed the basic elements of the an integrated component of a single ‘Neolithic Pac- Neolithic. Other features of Childe’s primary compo- kage’. Yet, the more sites were excavated in the nents are exponential population growth, the stor- Aegean, the more it became clear that the concept of age of surplus products, trade networks focusing on such a single package arriving with colonists from non-essential items, decentralised social mechanisms farther East could not properly explain the compli- for the coordination of collective activities, and ma- cated process of Neolithisation, as I will argue in the gic-religious traditions that focus on the promotion rest of this paper. of fertility (Childe 1951.75-80; Zeder 2009.13). The concept of the ‘Neolithic Package’ has long been It is well known that the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ was the main argument in research for explaining the a long-lasting process, since even the appearance of Neolithisation of the Aegean and the Balkans by co- the three main elements of material culture that lonists (Perlès 2005.286). Its seemingly sudden Childe mentions (pottery, ground stone, spindle spread into the Aegean paired with the again seem- whorls) encompassed a very long period, more than ingly sudden appearance of new sites in the initial 15 millennia (from roughly 24 000 to 8400 calBP) stage of the Early Neolithic (EN I) were the main rea- (Zeder 2009.18). In Melinda Zeder’s (2009.39) view, sons for taking a colonisation process – triggered “Childe clearly did not conceive of the constituent by a collapse at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic components of the Neolithic bursting forth fully B (PPNB) (Perlès 2001; Özdogan 2007b) – for gran- formed as a complete package. Instead, Childe saw ted. But in the last decade, the positivistic approach these different components as mutually reinforc- to dealing with the arrival of the ‘Package’ in Eu- ing parts of an unfolding process.” Zeder (2009.3) rope has been moderated to some degree. According borrowed the concept of the ’Bauplan’ from macro- to Çilingiroglu (2005.Tab. 2), the ‘Neolithic Package’ evolutionary theory in biology. It is based on the should be divided into several packages that arrived idea that single traits should not be analysed alone; in the Aegean at different times.