UDK 903.2(4\5)"633\634">001.

4
Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005)

The concept of Neolithic package>

considering its meaning and applicability

iler ilingirog lu
Institut fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte und Archaeologie des Mittelalters, Tbingen, D
cilerc@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr

ABSTRACT In this paper, one of the most frequently used terms in Neolithic studies, e.g. the so-called
Neolithic package, will be discussed. Apart from providing a brief historical background of the term
and how it was used since the 80s, the text will concentrate on a plausible definition and the pos-
sible contents of the package which can be observed as a common set of objects in Southwest Asia,
Anatolia and Southeast Europe. It will be argued that the use of this concept has both advantages
and disadvantages. Although the term provides a macro level look to the large geography mentioned
above, that was obviously closely interconnected in the course of 7th and 6th millenia BC, the term
should be implemented cautiously at regions where the elements of the package do not seem to be
fully integrated into the life of the groups.

IZVLEEK V lanku razpravljamo o enem izmed najbolj pogostih terminov v neolitskih tudijah,
tako imenovanem neolitskem paketu. Opisali bomo kratko zgodovinsko ozadje in uporabo izraza
do 80-ih, skoncentrirali se bomo tudi na verjetno definicijo in mone vsebine paketa, ki jih lahko
opazujemo kot obiajen zbir predmetov v Jugozahodni Aziji, Anatoliji in Jugovzhodni Evropi. Doka-
zali bomo, da ima uporaba tega koncepta tako prednosti, kot pomanjkljivosti. eprav termin na med-
regionalnem nivoju omogoa pregled na irokem geografskem obmoju, ki je bilo tesno medsebojno
povezano v asu sedmega in estega tisoletja pr.n.t., ga je potrebno previdno dopolniti na obmo-
jih, kjer elementi paketa niso bili popolnoma vkljueni v ivljenje prebivalcev.

KEY WORDS Neolithic; terminology; Anatolia; Southeast Europe; Neolithic package

INTRODUCTION

The definition of the term Neolithic and the nature what is important is not what is produced, so much
of Neolithization are among the most debated issues as how it is produced (Thomas 1991.11). Today
among prehistorians who work in SW Asia and there is more recognition that the word Neolithic
Europe1. The word Neolithic, first employed as a implies more than technological developments, the
technological term, has become oriented towards appearance of domesticated plants and animals, or
subsistence, which is considered by some scholars as sedentarism (Hodder 1990; Thomas 1991; Whittle
inadequate, because these approaches undermined 1996; Zvelebil 1998; zdogan 2001; Perls 2001).
the assumption that the technological as well as eco- Now the term is generally accepted to encompass
nomic developments that took place during the Neo- technological, economic, social and ideological as-
lithic were socially constructed. As Thomas puts it, pects as a whole, thus the Neolithic way of life.

1 Throughout the paper, I have tried to omit the use of chronological terms like Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic.
One reason for this is that it would make the text diffucult to read, due to different chronological systems that are implemented
in the regions that are discussed in the text. Secondly, because these terms have hardly any definitions and are mostly arbitrary.
However, when it was necessary, a footnote is included to make it clear to which chronology is referred.

2005 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI 1

 iler ilingirog lu

Parallel to the changing para-

meters of the Neolithic, Neo-
lithization models also be-
came less simplistic and re-
ductionist. Among scholars,
however, the impact of diffu-
sionist and anti-diffusionist
models are strongly felt, a
viewpoint which, unfortuna-
tely, only limits our under-
standing of the period and
the questions it raises.

Within these discussions, a

frequently mentioned concept
is the so-called Neolithic pac-
kage, which is used to refer Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in text.
the material culture of the pe-
riod as a whole, since Neolithic assemblages from The concept was heavily criticised in the early 90s
South-west Asia, Anatolia2 and South-east Europe by Thomas in Rethinking the Neolithic (Thomas
yielded almost identical finds, and these objects 1991) on the ground that the term prevent obscures
tend to occur together repeatedly in this vast geo- the diversity within the Neolithic4. Outside the dis-
graphical region. Yet there is no consensus about cussion circles of the British Neolithic, the term has
what this term means and how it could be used. been used and/or criticised occasionaly since the
Moreover, the contents of this package are not 80s (Whitehouse 1986; Zvelebil 1989; Chapman
clearly defined. The aim of this paper is to try to pro- and Mller 1990) but primarily since the second
mote a common understanding of the term and dis- half of the 90s (see for example Pluccienik 1998;
cuss whether it has anything to offer for researchers Budja 1999; Price 2000; Tringham 2000; Zvelebil
working on the SW Asian, Anatolian and SE Euro- and Lillie 2000; Kotsakis 2001; Gehlen and Schn
pean Neolithic. Our own perception and interpre- 2003). Despite its frequent usage (which is mainly
tations are also included in the text with regards to verbal), there is no clear definition offered for this
the possible usages and implications of the term. term, probably because it is self-explanatory. But is
it really? An exception appears at Whitehouses ar-
ticle (1986) where the term is defined to be farm-
THE USE OF THE TERM ing economy, village settlement, pottery, gorund
stone and obsidian whereas Zvelebil described it
The tendency to group Neolithic assemblages as one as pottery, cultigens and domesticates (Zvelebil
entity in order to distinguish them from other peri- 1989.380). An internet search revealed, apart from
ods can be observed since the late 19th century, and package tours to Turkey, that this term has been
in more obvious form in the writings of Childe (Pluc- used of Beaker Culture, LBK settlements, Mediterra-
cienik 1998; Price 2000.4; see for example Childe nean Early Neolithic, Egyptian Neolithic, Irish Neo-
1929). However, the term Neolithic package sees lithic, Southeast European Early Neolithic, even for
its early use among British archaeologists in the Southeast Asian Neolithic (apparently exported there
early 70's, at a time when archaeology lost its in- by Western archaeologists), since certain common
nocence (Clarke 1973), but gained systemic approa- elements could be found in these areas. Despite all
ches. The term was originally applied in order to the critiques and changing perspectives in archae-
oppose the idea that certain Neolithic features such ological thought, the continuing use of this term in-
as domesticated animals or monumental architec- dicates that there is actually a need for such a con-
ture arrived in prehistoric Britain as independent cept to enable prehistorians to evaluate and contex-
elements, emphasising their functional relatedness3. tualise Neolithic assemblages as related components

2 In this paper, Anatolia refers to Central, Western and Northwestern Anatolia, excluding Southeastern, Eastern and Northern parts.
3 I am grateful to Prof. A. Sherratt for explaining to me how and why the term came into use.
4 A discussion on British Neolithic package has been recently re-opened (see Schulting 2000 and Thomas 2003).

2
 The concept of Neolithic package> considering its meaning and applicability

without isolating or overemphasising some of the would be used as tools which implicitly reflect social
find groups. It would also promote a view that sees status within a group. Prestigious items would in-
the Neolithic phenomena as a whole, in order not to clude marble bracelets and well-made beads, since
let the strong tendency towards regionalization and their raw materials would have been brought from
specialization blur the big picture. However, as we a certain distance and/or were made by a speciali-
will see, the use of the term entails some weaknes- sed craftsman. Pintaderas or M-shaped amulettes are
ses which make us question if this set of traits was also considered to reflect social status or group iden-
really a package in the strict sense of the word, or tity; however they could well have been used in ritu-
if we should consider a more flexible concept. als, or simply as decorative elements (Makkay 1984;
Hansen 2003). Phallic symbols, figurines and of-
fering tables are elements that can be associated
THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGES OF SOUTHWEST with rituals, although contextual and ethnographic
ASIA, ANATOLIA AND SOUTHEAST EUROPE data present many contradictory cases (Talalay
1993; Schwarzberg 2003).
Although the concept of Neolithic package to most
people implies only domesticates, in this paper we It is important to mention here is that these elements
concentrate on artefacts, which are usually treated are not all-inclusive. There is no ultimate list for the
in the small finds sections. We argue that these ob- Neolithic package. Certain repeated architectural
jects constitute parts of a meaningful whole, e.g. the elements or chipped stones can be added, if they can
material culture of a certain period and geography, be found in these regions. As Perls suggests, selec-
and for this reason, are found repeatedly in the same tivity is also another issue that should be studied in
contexts. detail in order to find certain routes of some objects,
or choices that different groups made (Perls 2001).
What elements repeatedly occur within Neolithic
contexts? Although they are very well known, for As to the so-called agricultural package emmer
clarity, they must be enumerated named here. Three wheat, einkorn wheat, hulled barley, lentil, chick
categories are obtained if the objects are divided ac- pea, bitter vetch and flax, which have been label-
cording to raw materials. Clay objects comprise stea- led as founder crops should be added, since they
topygous and cylindrical female figurines, male figu- too seem to occur together in this vast region (Zo-
rines, animal figurines, red slipped and/or painted hary and Hopf 1993). These earliest domesticated
pottery and offering tables. Objects made of vari- plants are known from PPNA and Early PPNB sites
ous types of stone comprise M-shaped amulets, mar- from the Levantine Corridor and SE Anatolia, and
ble/stone bracelets, well-made beads, celts and well- were brought to Central Anatolia and Cyprus in
made stone bowls, all of which are usually manufac- their domesticated forms in PPN (Asouti and Fair-
tured with a special sort of stone such as nephrite, bairn 2002; Colledge et. al. 2004). As for animals,
serpentine or marble. Other stone objects are phalli, domesticated sheep and goats are good candidates
grooved stones and chipped discs. Among the bone for the package, which again seem to have been
objects there are polishers, belt hooks and spatu- domesticated either in SE Anatolia or in Levantine
lae. Pintaderas and sling missiles are either of stone Corridor (Martin et. al. 2002). However, it should
or clay whereas ear plugs could be made from be emphasised that the assumption that all these
stone, bone or clay. domesticates co-occurred is a very generalised sta-
tement. It is apparent that subsistence strategies are
Another classification of these objects would be ac- affected both by environmental conditions and
cording to their function. However, in most cases group preferences, which led many settlements un-
this is unclear. Even the function of sling missiles is der discussion to reveal various combinations of
open to debate (see Perls 2001.228231), not to subsistence strategies, not only in comparison to
mention the pintaderas, offering tables, or figuri- other sites, but also within the sequence of a site
nes (see for example Makkay 1984; Sherratt 1997 itself.
[1991]; Talalay 1993). Nevertheless, these elements
can be tentatively divided into several functional ca- Having named regularly occurring objects and men-
tegories as technological, prestigious, prestigious/ tioned the agricultural package, it seems now pos-
technological, and symbolic items. For example, chip- sible to define the term as the sum of traits that ap-
ped discs or grooved stones could be used purely pear repeatedly in the Neolithic assemblages of SW
as tools, whereas celts or decorated bone spatulae Asia, Anatolia and SE Europe.

3
 iler ilingirog lu

There is no need to say that the existence of repea- ars from attempting to investigate this issue. Firstly,
ting traits in these areas was not a coincidence. The SW Asia, Anatolia and SE Europe cover such enor-
East-West orientation of this geographical region, mous areas that few scholars can fully master them.
which offered similar climatic and environmental Secondly, in these regions archaeology as a discipline
conditions, is probably one of the main factors that was constructed on considerably different understan-
caused Neolithic way of life to occur more or less dings and objectives (Trigger 1989; zdogan 1995;
in the same form5. This is not to imply that SW Asia, 1996). Cultural and chronological synchronizations
Anatolia and SE Europe consisted of homogeneous between SW Asia and SE Europe especially are still
cultures, but one should remember that outside this in their beginnings because of limited communica-
world elements of the Neolithic package are not tion between scholars. The low number of problem-
seen at all, or are found sporadically. For this reason, oriented prehistoric investigations in Anatolia (par-
the existence of pintaderas in the Iberian peninsu- ticularly in Western Anatolia) is another significant
la, or female figurines at LBK settlements, does not factor that retards the opening of communications.
mean that this particular package was there. For Thus, in this part of the world, the Neolithic pack-
instance, the Mediterranean Neolithic seems to con- age and its broad distribution is either not recog-
sist of a different set of repeated features which nised or considered oversimplified.
point towards different conditions and ways in
which the Neolithic way of life occurred and develo- It should also be noted that it is not the intention
ped (Korfmann 1988; Budja 1999). The significant here to suggest that Neolithic was a package. With-
issue about each package that can be defined is that in the Neolithic way of life, Neolithic package
the contents belong to a certain period and space, should be perceived as a material reflection of the
as can be observed in the archaeological record. A Neolithic mentality, rather than the Neolithic it-
detailed examination of the material remains with self; something to begin with, not something to con-
this viewpoint would offer new insights into prob- clude on. In other words, the Neolithic package
lems related to Neolithization processes. However, would be the medium with which one can approach
there are three main factors which prevent schol- the spirit of the period, depending on the assump-

App. cal. Dates 10 000- 9000 9000-7500 7500-7000 7000-6500 6500-6000

Objects\ Period PPNA PPNB Late PPNB Early PN Late PN
Female Figurines X
Male Figurines X
Marble\Stone Bracelets X
Well-made beads X*
Imported Shells X
Well-made Stone Bowls X
Bone belt hooks X*
Bone Spatulae X
Celts X*
Grooved Stones X
Pintaderas X(|)
Animal Figurines X*
Bone polishers X
Chipped Discs X
Phalli X
Offering Tables X
Ear Plugs X
Sling Missiles X
Red slipped\Painted Pottery X
M Shaped Amulettes X(|)

Tab. 1. Table showing the earliest occurrences of Neolithic package elements in SW Asia. [*] means that
these elements appear in Central Anatolia also in the PPN period. It should be noted that the offering
tables are not seen in SW Asia, but in Anatolia and SE Europe.

5 An inspiring chapter on the orientation of the continents and its consequences can be found in Diamond (1997).

4
 The concept of Neolithic package> considering its meaning and applicability

tion that the mentality found its reflection in mate- (Mellaart 1967; ztan 2003; Bak 2001; zbasa-
rial culture. ran 2000). These indicate that NP elements occur-
red in Central Anatolia at least a thousand year after
than they occurred in SW Asia.
TRACING THE PACKAGE
Outside these areas, e.g. Levant, Northern Syria,
A brief survey of Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites in Northern Iraq, SE Anatolia and Central Anatolia, du-
SW Asia and Central Anatolia would reveal that ring the 10th, 9th and 8th millennia BC, as far as it is
most of the elements of the Neolithic package were known there were scantily distributed semi-seden-
present since PPNA and PPNB (see Tab. 1). 14 of the tary or mobile hunter-gatherer groups with a comple-
21 elements enumerated above seem to have occur- tely different material culture. This leaves us with
red already in PPN, a period of intensive foragers (at least) two regions in which the earliest NP ele-
in SE Anatolia, rather than agro-pastoral societies ments are identified. These are the so-called Fertile
(Sherratt 2004), whereas the rest occur firstly in Crescent on the one hand, and Central Anatolia on
the Pottery Neolithic (PN) period. Female figurines, the other, both of which have been designated as
male figurines, well-made beads, grooved stones, core regions (zdogan 1997) in which the Neoli-
bone spatulae, celts, well-made stone bowls and bone thic way of life and its mentality were structured.
belt hooks are among the elements that existed The Neolithic package occurs outside these areas c.
in PPNA levels of ayn, Hallan emi, Jericho and from 7100 BC onwards (as can be observed in early
Mureybet III, which are dated around 10 0009500 levels of Bademagac) in Western Anatolia and Thes-
cal. BC (zdogan A. 1999; Rosenberg 1999). These saly, as well as in Bulgaria, at least from 6500 BC
elements are also known from PPNB sites such as onwards and in Northwestern Anatolia probably
Gbeklitepe and Nevali ori where, for example, from 6100 BC onwards or slightly earlier (Duru
hundreds of male and female figurines have been 2003; zdogan 1998; Perls 2001; Todorova 1995;
uncovered (Hauptmann 1999). Similarly, animal fi- zdogan 1999; Roodenberg 1999 respectively).
gurines, bone polishers, chipped discs, and phalli
first appeared in the late PPNB period, as can be ob- The increase in the number of settlements in West
served from sites at ayn, Djade, Nemrik, Mezraa Anatolia and Southeastern Europe in the course of
Teleilat, and Gritille (zdogan A. 1999; Coqueug- the 7th and 6th millennia BC can hardly be explained
niot 2000; Kozowski 1989; Karul et. al. 2000; Voigt only by population increase, where few Mesolithic
1988 respectively). These elements continue to be settlements were identified and fewer have uninter-
seen in the same area at PN settlements at Hac Fi- rupted sequences from the Mesolithic to Neolithic6.
ruz, Umm Dabaghiyah, Tell Sotto or Tell Sabi Abyad. Newly founded sites between 6500 6000 BC, like
Tepecik-iftlik and Ksk Hyk in the Nigde area,
A number of Neolithic package elements occurred Hycek, Haclar and Kuruay in the Lake District,
in Central Anatolia also during the PPN, c. between Ilpnar in the Iznik area, Hoca esme and Asagp-
85007500 cal. BC, where the site of Askl yielded nar in Turkish Thrace are only a few instances
animal figurines, well-made beads, bone belt hooks where fully-developed villages with a Neolithic pac-
and celts (Esin and Harmankaya 1999). On the kage are attested. The packages that occur in the
other hand, the earliest figurines from Central Ana- Neolithic sites of Western Anatolia and Turkish
tolia are known from atalhyk X, which is dated Thrace are almost identical to those in SW Asia and
around 7000 cal. BC, whereas pintaderas, sling mis- Central Anatolia, suggesting that interaction mech-
siles and marble/stone bracelets occur only from anisms such as trade or exchanges of ideas are
level VI onwards, ca. 6600 cal. BC, at the same site insufficient to cause this high degree of similarity.
(Mellaart, 1967; nlsoy 2002). Bone spatulae, chip- The fact that the some elements of the package
ped discs, and bone polishers also appear in Central (not all) appeared from the earliest levels of most
Anatolia with the PN period, and continue into the of the settlements suggests that there were move-
Early Chalcolithic, as evidenced from sites at atal- ments of people, rather than random movements of
hyk, Ksk Hyk, Tepecik-iftlik, and Musular goods and ideas.

6 We are well aware of the fact that in several locations in Anatolia and Southeast Europe, including Thessaly, Mesolithic settle-
ments have been identified. Although they prove existence of Mesolithic groups in these areas, they either lack the transitional
phase between Mesolithic and Neolithic or these phases present no gradual development (Perls 1986; Thissen 2000; Gkiasta
et. al., 2003).

5
 iler ilingirog lu

THE SAME PACKAGE EVERYWHERE AND AT and quantity of pottery and their forms show certain
THE SAME TIME? differences between SE Asia, different parts of Ana-
tolia and Southeast Europe, and so on. But do we
On the other hand, it should be noted that the pac- actually need to find identical packages over such a
kage cannot be (and should not be) identified every- large area in order to appreciate the existence of a
where intact and in the same form. Female figurines cultural formation which had its roots in the SW
from SE Europe and Central Anatolia look unques- Asian and Central Anatolian PPN? If we consider
tionably different. The motifs on the pintaderas of each and every group in these regions with a poten-
North Syria, Anatolia and Balkans differ (Makkay tial (perhaps a desire8), to transform their (material)
1984); the so-called offering tables come in many culture, but without independence from their time
regional variations, depending on their forms and and space, then it would be easier to view the re-for-
decoration; moreover, they are absent from the Fer- med elements as autochthonous developments on
tile Crescent (Schwarzberg 2005.255273). M-sha- the one hand, and on the other as contributions of
ped amulets are mainly seen in Western Anatolia, these units to the overall cultural formation at the
Thrace, Thesally and Western Bulgaria7, and never in macro level. This is very well illustrated with the
the northern parts of the Balkans (Hansen 2003. earliest NP elements from core regions and the
348). The bone spoons of the Starevo-Cris-Krs cul- package seen during the PN period in West Anato-
tures from sites at Donja Branjevina or Starevo look lia and Southeast Europe. By the PN period the pac-
different from the Anatolian specimens. The quality kage is not only much more widespread, but also

Sites\
cal. BC atalhyk East Bademag ac Haclar Hoca es
me Ulucak Hyk
Dates
5000

III
I
5500
I
II\ pintaderas,
IIB\ pintaderas bone spatulae,
M shaped ...BREAK...
6000 VI\ sling missiles, amulettes IV\figurines,
I figurines pintaderas
II 1 IX\ bone spatulae V\sling missiles,
3-2\ sling missiles, bone spatulae
figurines,pintadera
6500 IV\ sling missiles
...Virgin Soil...
VIB\ sling missiles,
figurines, pintaderas

7000 9-8\ bone spatulae

...Virgin Soil...
XII\ bone spatulae
...BREAK...
Aceramic
7500

Tab. 2. Early appearances of Neolithic package elements within Anatolian sites. The dates are taken
from Thissen (2002), Duru (2003) and ilingirogglu et. al. (2004).

7 There is also a good possibility that many M shaped amulettes could not be identified in many excavations due to their tiny sizes.
8 Perls mentions how the Neolithic in the Aegean islands is dissimilar to the ones that are known from mainlands, although they
represent clear cases of colonization: ....as though the colonization of new regions by small groups led to a `founding effect`and
a complete break and reorganization of tradition (Perls 2001.58).

6
 The concept of Neolithic package> considering its meaning and applicability

SW Central Western NW
Greece Bulgaria Balkans
Asia Anatolia Anatolia Anatolia
5000
LN Vin;a B
MC MC Chal. LN\Vin;a
5500 Ubaid MN
Vin;a A
EC EC
6000 Halaf PN EN EN Star;evo
proto-Star;evo
Late PN LN Monochrome
6500 PPN(|) Mono- Phase
PPN (|) chrome
EN Mesolithic Phase Mesolithic
7000 Early PN PN Mesolithic
Mesolithic

7500 Late PPNB

8000
PPN (|) |

8500 PPN

9000 PPNB |

9500 |

10 000 PPNA

Tab. 3. A simplified table showing the approximate dates of appearance of the Neolithic package in
different regions, with regional chronologies. The dates are calibrated and taken from Thissen (2002),
zdoggan (1999), Gallis (1996), Todorova (1995) and Schubert (1999). Thin lines indicate the early
phases of the package; thicker lines represent the developed phase of the package.
subject to changes in appearance (probably in some steatopygous female figurines and pintaderas are
cases in function and meaning), and for this rea- found from VI B onwards (Mellaart 1967.217), whe-
son, it is naturally more diverse and differentiated. reas at Haclar the earliest pintaderas are found in
level II B (Mellaart 1970.164166). This also holds
Another question is whether all of the elements of true for the sites situated in Western Anatolia and
the package appeared together at the same time. Thessaly. In fact, at Hoca esme the earliest pinta-
The evidence from Anatolian sites shows that some deras, bone spatulae and M-shaped amulettes are
of the elements indeed occurred later and were ad- known from Phase II, whereas female figurines, sling
ded to the material culture later in the sequence (see missiles and red-slip pottery are present from phase
Tab. 2). At the site of Bademagac, where so-called IV, which is dated between 65006200 BC (zdo-
Early Neolithic levels have been identified as EN gan 1998). As reported by Perls, the earliest Neoli-
91, sling missiles, figurines and pintaderas do not thic accumulations (the so-called pre-pottery Neoli-
occur before EN 32, while bone spatulae are pre- thic levels) in Greece at sites like Sesklo, Argissa or
sent from the EN 98 levels (Duru and Umurtak Achilleion, yielded bone spatulae, bone belt hooks,
2003.323). Bone spatulae were also present both at celts and ear plugs (Perls 2001), and in the fol-
Haclar and Kuruay from the lowest level upwards lowing phase, e.g. in the EN, other elements such as
(Mellaart 1970.162; Duru 1994), but at Haclar be- female and male figurines, pintaderas, marble/stone
fore level VI there are neither female figurines (ex- bracelets, well-made stone bowls, celts etc. would
cept two fragmentary figures from level IX) nor sling either appear for the first time or in clearly increa-
missiles. At atalhyk the earliest sling missiles, sed quantities. A comparable case is known for the

7
 iler ilingirog lu

sling missiles which appeared in Southwest Asia apparent. Despite these developments many ele-
only towards the end of PN period9 (zdogan 2002. ments continue into the Chalcolithic and Early
438). It is worth noting that, as is mentioned above, Bronze Ages, both in Anatolia and in SE Europe, but
at the early sites of atalhyk and Bademagac sling as we have mentioned before, it can no longer be
missiles were not found at the deepest levels which found as a single entity. One can probably speak of
points towards their late occurence in these regions, a Chalcolithic package for Anatolia and SE Europe,
and at later sites from Turkish Thrace, Bulgaria or but with the current level of data on the Middle and
Thessaly sling missiles are present from the earliest Late Chalcolithic periods10 this does not seem feasi-
deposits upwards (Vutiropulos 1991). It is at this ble.
point that very word package is called into ques-
tion. The examples above clearly illustrate that it was
not the case that once the package was packed, LIMITS OF THE TERM: THE EXAMPLE OF FIKIR-
it was carried along with all of its components. It TEPE CULTURE
would be better to choose a more flexible term to
allow for a constantly developing and diversifying The question remains, however: does the existence
set of objects, since the package apparently con- of a similar material culture mean that they were
tinued to develop until it reached a high point in perceived in the same way by the people who used
the late 7th early 6th millennium BC, and with the it? Until now, it has been pointed out that the exis-
end of this phase the strong ties seem somehow to tence of the Neolithic package reflects one macro-
loosen. cultural zone with shared dynamics sustained by
constant interaction. Nevertheless, it should once
By the second half of the 7th millennium, SW Asia again be underlined that this zone consists of many
and Central Anatolia had ceased to be the origins of smaller cultural units with varying cultural tradi-
new or changing elements. The core regions became tions and perceptions, even though the material cul-
part of an augmented cultural formation until the ture (e.g. their common use of the Neolithic pack-
Middle Chalcolithic period, when Central and Wes- age) implies otherwise. In order to demonstrate
tern Anatolia cultures came increasingly the under this point and test the limits of the term, Fikirtepe
influence of Southeast European cultures until the culture is outlined below as an example.
beginning of the Early Bronze Age, implied or deno-
ted by a number of scholars as a Balkano-Anatolian The Neolithic culture of Northwest Anatolia which is
cultural zone (Childe 1956; Garaanin 1979; Todo- known as Fikirtepe culture is defined by its round,
rova 1991; Esin 1993; zdogan 1993). Meanwhile, wattle and daub structures, dark, incised pottery, and
on the Eastern side, after the phase of pre-Halaf microlithic tools from sites such as Fikirtepe, Pen-
painted wares, connections between Southeast Ana- dik and Yarmburgaz Cave (zdogan 1999). More-
tolia and rest of Anatolia seem to have loosened. over, the groups which inhabited these settlements
Together with Northern Syria and Iraq, Southeast relied primarily on fishing, mollusc collecting, and
Anatolia, with a decreasing attachment to Central hunting and gathering, rather than on farming (Bui-
and Western Anatolian cultures, would become one tenhuis 1995). However, their material culture con-
of the key regions where Halaf, Ubaid and Uruk cul- sists of Neolithic package elements such as bone
tures are identified. This is to imply that the Fer- spatulae, bone polishers, chipped disks, female fig-
tile Crescent developed in another direction from urines (although rare), offering tables and red-slip
that of Anatolia and the Balkans from the Middle pottery. Since these objects did not exist in the area
Chalcolithic onwards, and was no longer a part of during the Mesolithic and PPN periods11, the sud-
this cultural zone. den appearance of the Neolithic package in the PN
period can only be explained by movements into
Within these developments, what happens to the the area, as suggested by zdogan (1999) which is
Neolithic package? It seems that it loses its homo- also evident from the site of Ilpnar where, from the
geneity. The elements become increasingly diversi- earliest level upwards, a farming community has
fied and regional boundaries are becoming more been identified (Roodenberg 1999). However, with

9 In SW Asian terms.
10 In Anatolian terms.
11 The evidence from these periods comes from extensive surveys that were carried out in the region during the 80s early
90s and were identified as Agal and alca Groups. For details see, Gatsov and zdogan (1994), zdogan and Gatsov (1998).

8
 The concept of Neolithic package> considering its meaning and applicability

a mixed economy, microlithic tools and round huts, Early cultural deposits at sites such as Ulucak H-
Fikirtepe culture is not representative of typical yk near Izmir and others must be exposed, at least
Neolithic culture, but is more like a peripheral deve- in order to approach the problem of the initial Neo-
lopment. Unfortunately, the emergence of Fikirtepe lithic in the area13. The latest information from
culture and its relation to local cultures is not well- Ulucak levels V and IV, dated around 61005900
understood. Nevertheless, it seems highly likely that cal. BC, point to a fully developed village layout
in addition to the newcomers, local groups in the with wattle and daub architecture followed by mud-
area adopted the Neolithic package while retain- brick architecture in the upper level. Level IV at the
ing their traditional architecture, subsistence strat- site has Neolithic package elements such as red-slip
egy and tools, which makes the Neolithic of North- pottery, sling missiles, celts, pintaderas, female and
west Anatolia very peculiar and unlike those known male figurines, animal figurines, stone/marble bra-
from Central or Western Anatolia12. As an answer celets, and well-made stone bowls (ilingiroglu et.
to the question above, the evidence from the Fikir- al. 2004). One of the pintaderas with concentric cir-
tepe sites helps demonstrate that the existence of NP cles from the site is almost identical to those found
elements at a given site or region does not necessa- at Bademagac and Nea Nikomedeia14. Although it
rily point towards identical cultural formations. For is too early to draw conclusions, Western Anatolia
this reason, in the case of Fikirtepe culture, where seems to have been a region where demic diffusion
the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities, or where can be suggested for the appearance of communities
the Neolithic package is not fully integrated into the with the Neolithic package. The fact that the source
groups life, the term loses its applicability. A com- of obsidian was Central Anatolia (ilingiroglu et.
parison of Fikirtepe culture with other Neolithic cul- al. 2004.52), not Melos, for the tools uncovered at
tures only depending on the Neolithic package would Ulucak might also be an indication with regards to
be, needless to say, misleading and inadequate. How- the Anatolian origin of this group. Whether a Meso-
ever it must be also said that Fikirtepe culture, as a lithic or PPN population existed in the area and whe-
peripheral Neolithic culture with its own peculiari- ther they had any contacts with the newcomers re-
ties, still belongs to the cultural formation mentio- main to be investigated. It can be stated, although
ned above. It cannot be evaluated or studied with- with reservations, that the West Anatolian Neolithic,
out comprehending the Neolithic cultures of SW unlike the NW Anatolian, contains no elements that
Asia, Anatolia, and SE Europe. can be traced back to the Mesolithic.

THE EXISTENCE OF NEOLITHIC PACKAGE IN CONCLUDING REMARKS

WESTERN ANATOLIA
As mentioned in the introduction, there is neither
Western Anatolia, on the other hand, shows different a clear definition for the concept of the Neolithic
characteristics. The Mesolithic background of the package, nor an explicit use of it. As is the case with
area is virtually unknown. The massive alluvial silt- many undefined but frequently used terms in archa-
ing and rise of the coastline prevent archaeologists eological literature, lack of definition causes only
from locating prehistoric sites, although surveys confusion. For this reason, it seemed to be useful
have identified over 30 Neolithic sites (French 1965; to discuss this term and its implications in the hope
Seeher 1990; Meri 1993; Efe 1995; Lichter 2002). that this would promote common understanding
The Neolithic settlements in the area are identified and grounds for discussion. It was not the inten-
by means of red-slip pottery that appears usually tion here to discuss the Neolithization of Anatolia
with S profiles and vertical tubular lugs. The sites or Southeast Europe; however, since the term is em-
that are investigated have mainly red-slip pottery bedded within these discussions, it was impossible
and the rest of the Neolithic Package that occurs to avoid references to these issues. Another critical
with them. Pre-red-slip pottery sites are either absent point is that the finds mentioned are admittedly
from Western Anatolia or have not been discovered. largely decontextualised and not discussed in depth.

12 Besides, the rarity of female figurines in the Fikirtepe culture might also point out to a reluctancy in adopting a belief system by
the local people (if the female figurines are to be associated with a belief system).
13 According to paleogeographical analyses that were carried out at the site by Prof. Kayan and his team, the cultural deposits con-
tinue as deep as 3 meters below the present plain level of Nif ay (for details see ilingiroglu et. al. 2004).
14 With the current information from the region, it is not possible to suggest a development sequence for Neolithic package.

9
 iler ilingirog lu

There is no doubt that such a study would provide ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

valuable information. However, the main interest This paper presents a part of my master thesis which
was to evaluate the terms applicability and see was completed in June 2004 at Istanbul University.
whether it can offer anything new. By doing so, we I am most grateful to Mehmet zdogan who opened
have attempted to trace the origins of some ele- up numerous perspectives to me with his knowledge,
ments from the Neolithic package back to the PPN experience and analytical thinking. I would also like
period, and in relation to that, tried to present how to thank the academic staff and doctoral candidates
the package became widespread and diversified du- at Istanbul University Prehistory Department. Earlier
ring the PN period. It was also the aim here to point drafts of this paper have been read by Mehmet z-
to a greater Neolithic world within which numer- dogan, Andrew Sherratt, Manfred O. Korfmann, Ulf
ous cultural regions are defined and studied as iso- Schoop, Altan ilingiroglu, Sinan nlsoy and zlem
lated entities. I have also tried to discuss the terms evik to whom I am grateful for their critiques and
limits within the framework of Fikirtepe culture. It suggestions. Last but not least, I would like to thank
is definitely not a magical term that guarantees an Mihael Budja for giving me the chance to present
explanation of everything, but it does have impor- this paper to a wider audience.
tant methodological implications for future research
in terms of integrating all the find groups in order to
achieve a synthetic approach.

REFERENCES

ASLAN R., BLUM S., KASTL G., SCHWEIZER F., THUMM CHILDE V. G. 1929. Danube in the Prehistory. Ox-
D. (eds.) 2002. Mauerschau: Festschrift fr Man- ford, Clarendon.
fred Korfmann, Remshalden-Grunbach, Verlag
Bernhard Albert Greiner. 1956. Anatolia and Thrace. Some Bronze Age Re-
lations. Anatolian Studies 6: 4548.
ASOUTI E. and FAIRBAIRN A. 2002. Subsistence eco-
nomy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic. In F. CLARKE D. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence.
Gerard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Cen- Antiquity 47: 618.
tral Anatolia: 181192.
COLLEDGE S., CONOLLY J. and SHENNAN S. 2004.
BIAKI E. 2001. Tepecik-iftlik Hyg (Nigde) Ka- Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Far-
zs Isgnda Orta Anadolu Tarihncesi Kltrleri ile ming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthro-
Ilgili Yeni bir Degerlendirme. TBAAR, IV: 2541. pology 45: 3558.

BOGUCKI P. 2001. Recent Research on Early Farming COQUEUGINOT E. 2000. Djade (Syrie), Un Village
in Central Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta A la Veille de la Domestication (Seconde Moiti du
Praehistorica 28: 8597. IXe Millnaire Av. J.-C.). In J. Guilaine (ed.), Pre-
miers paysans du monde, Naissance des agricul-
BUDJA M. 1999. The transition to farming in Medi- tures: 5571.
terrenean Europe an indigineous respond. In M.
Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 26: 119142. ILINGIROGLU A., DERIN Z., ABAY E., SAGLAMTIMUR
H., KAYANI. 2004. Ulucak Hyk: Excavations Con-
BUITENHUIS H. 1995. The Faunal Remains. In J. ducted Between 1995 and 2002. Ancient Near
Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilpnar Excavations I: 151 Eastern Studies, Supplement 15, Louvain, Peeters.
156.
DIAMOND J. 1997. Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates
CHAPMAN J., MLLER J. 1990. Early Farmers in the of Human Societies. London, Cape.
Mediterranean Basin: the Dalmatian evidence. Anti-
quity 64: 127134.

10
 The concept of Neolithic package> considering its meaning and applicability

DURU R. 1994. Kuruay Hyk I. 19781988 Kaz- HAUPTMANN H. 1999. Urfa Region. In M. zdogan,
larnn Sonular, Neolitik ve Kalkolitik ag Yer- N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of
lesmeleri. Ankara, Trk Tarih Kurumu. Civilization: 6587.

2003. Bademagac Kazlar 2000 ve 2001 Yllar HODDER I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe.
alsma Raporu. Belleten LXVI: 549594. Blackwell: Oxford.

DURU R., UMURTAK G. 2003. Bademagac Kazlar KARUL N., AYHAN A., ZDOGAN M. 2002. 2000 Yl
2001. 24. Kaz Sonular Toplants, Ankara, Kl- Mezraa-Teleilat Kazs. In N. Tuna et.al. (eds.), An-
tr Bakanls Yaynlar: 319328. kara Ilsu ve Karkams Baraj Glleri Altnda Kala-
cak Arkeolojik Kltr Varlklarn Kurtama Pro-
EFE T. 1995. I Bat Anadoluda Iki Neolitik Yerles- jesi, 2000 Yl alsmalar, TADAM: 101141.
me: Fndk Kayabas ve Akmaka. In I . Metin Akyurt-
Bahattin Devam An Kitab, A. Erkanal et. al. (eds.), KORFMANN M. 1988. East-West Connections Through-
Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar: 105114. out the Mediterranean in the Early Neolithic Period.
Berytus 36: 925.
ESIN U. 1993. GelveriEin Beispiel fr die kulturel-
len Beziehungen zwischen Zentralanatolien und Sd- KOTSAKIS K. 2001. Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece:
osteuropa whrend des Chalkolithikums. Anatolica Continuity, discontunity or change of course? In M.
XIX: 4757. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 28: 6373.

ESIN U., HARMANKAYA S. 1999. Askl. In M. zdo- KOZOWSKI S. K. 1989. Nemrik 9, A PPN Neolithic
gan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle Site in Northern Iraq. Palorient 15/1: 2531.
of Civilization: 115132.
LICHTER C. 2002. Central Western Anatolia a key
FRENCH D. 1965. Early Pottery Sites from Western region in the neolithization of Europe. In F. Gerard
Anatolia. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Ana-
5: 1524. tolia: 161170.

GALLIS K. 1996 Thessaly The Northern Sporades. MAKKAY J. 1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-East
In G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture Europe. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado.
in Greece: 120123.
MARTIN L., RUSSELL N. and CARRUTHERS D. 2002.
GARAANIN M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. Animal Remains from the Central Anatolian Neoli-
Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II: 79212. thic. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen (eds.), The Neoli-
thic of Central Anatolia: 193216.
GATSOV I., ZDOGAN M. 1994. Some Epi-Paleolithic
Sites from Northwestern Turkey: Agal, Domal and MELLAART J. 1967. atalhyk: A Neolithic Town
Gmsdere. Anatolica XX: 97120. in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson. London.

GEHLEN B., SCHN W. 2003. Das Sptmesolithi- 1970. Excavations at Haclar 12. Edinburgh
kum und das initiale Neolithikum in Griechenland- University Press. Edinburgh.
Implikationen fr die Neolithizierung der alpinen
und circumalpinen Gebiete. Archologische Infor- MERI M. 1993. Pre-Bronze Age Settlements of West-
mationen 26/2: 255273. Central Anatolia. Anatolica XIX: 143150.

GKIASTA, RUSSELL T., SHENNAN S., STEELE J. 2003. ZBASARAN M. 1999. Musular: A General Asses-
Neolithic Transition in Europe: the radiocarbon sment on a New Neolithic Site in Central Anatolia. In
record revisited. Antiquity 295: 4562. M. zdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey:
Cradle of Civilization: 147163.
HANSEN S. 2003. Anhnger-Amulette-Siegel: Zu Einer
Neolithischen Fundgruppe. In M. zdogan, H. Haupt- ZDOGAN A. 1999. ayn. In M. zdogan, N. Bas-
mann, N. Basgelen (eds.), From Villages to Towns: gelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civiliza-
343360. tion: 3565.

11
 iler ilingirog lu

ZDOGAN M. 1993. Vina and Anatolia: A new look PLUCCIENIK M. 1998. Deconstructing the Neolithic
at a very old problem. Anatolica XIX: 173193. in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition. In M. Edmonds,
C. Richards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of
1995. Neolithic in Turkey: The Status of Research. Northwestern Europe: 6183.
The Readings in Prehistory, Studies presented
to Halet ambel: 4159. PRICE T. D. 2000. Europes First Farmers: an intro-
duction. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes First Farmers:
1996. Neolithization of Europe: A view from Ana- 118.
tolia. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neoli-
tika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22: 25 61. ROODENBERG J. 1993. Ilpnar X to VI: Links and
Chronology. Anatolica XIX: 251267.
1997. The Beginning of Neolithic Economies in
Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian Perspective. 1999. Ilpnar, An Early Farming Village in the Iz-
Journal of European Archaeology 5.2: 133. nik Lake Basin. In M. zdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.),
Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization: 193
1998. Hoca esme: An Early Neolithic Anatolian 202.
Colony in the Balkans? In P. Anreiter et. al. (eds.),
Man and the Animal World. In Memoriam San- ROSENBERG M. 1999. Hallan emi. In M. zdogan,
dor Bknyi: 435451. N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of
Civilization: 2534.
1999. Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in
Between the Balkans and Anatolia. In M. zdogan, SCHWARZBERG H. 2003. On Problems in Identifying
N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle Ritual Pottery: The Example of the so-called Cult
of Civilization: 203224. Tables. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems
for Communication in Southeast Europe, BAR In-
2001. Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia: A Cri- ternational Series 1139: 7984.
tical Overview. In R. T. J. Cappers, S. Bottema
(eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. 2005. Prismatic polypod vessels and their way to
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub- Europe. In C. Lichter and R. Meri (eds.), How
sistence and Environment 6: 155161. did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European
relations from the second half of the 7th through
2002. On Arrows and Sling Missiles: What Happe- the first half of the 6th millennium cal. BC. BY-
ned to the Arrows. In R. Aslan et. al. (eds.), Mauer- ZASZ. Verffentlichungen des Deutschen Archo-
schau: Festschrift fr Manfred Korfmann: 437 logischen Instituts. Istanbul: 255273.
444.
SCHUBERT H. 1999. Die bemalte Keramik des Frh-
ZDOGAN M., GATSOV I. 1998. The Aceramic Neoli- neolithikums in Sdosteuropa, Italien und West-
thic Period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. anatolien. Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Anatolica XXIV: 209232.
SCHULTING R. 2000. New AMS dates from the Lam-
ZTAN A. 2003. A Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settle- bourn long barrow and the question of the earliest
ment in Anatolia: Ksk Hyk. Colloquium Anato- Neolithic in southern England: repacking the Neoli-
licum II: 6986. thic package? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19:
2535.
PERLS C. 1986. New Ways with an Old Problem:
Chipped stone assemblages as an index of cultural SEEHER J. 1990. Coskuntepe, Anatolisches Neolithi-
discontinuity in early Greek prehistory. In E. B. kum am Nordostufer der Aegaeis. Istanbuler Mit-
French, K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Pre- teilungen 40: 915.
history: 477488.
SHERRATT A. 1997 [1991]. Sacred and Profane Sub-
2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge stances: The Ritual Use of Narcotics in Later Neolithic
University Press. Cambridge. Europe. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe:
403430.

12
 The concept of Neolithic package> considering its meaning and applicability

2004. Fractal Farmers: Patterns of Neolithic Ori- NLSOY S. 2002. Neolithische und chalkolithische
gin and Dispersal. In J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Steinarmringe: Untersuchungen zur Chronologie
Shennan (eds.), Explaining the social change: und Verbreitung von Steinarmringen im Nahenos-
studies in honour of Colin Renfrew: 5363. ten und in der Aegeis. In R. Aslan et. al. (eds.),
Mauerschau: Festschrift fr Manfred Korfmann:
TALALAY L. 1993. Deities, Dolls and Devices: Neoli- 541566.
thic Figurines from Franchti Cave, Greece. India-
na, Indiana University Press. VOIGT M. 1988. The Excavations at Neolithic Gritille.
Anatolica XV: 215232.
THISSEN L. 2000. Thessaly, Franchti and Western
Turkey: Clues to the Neolitihisation of Greece? In M. VUTIROPULOS N. 1991. Fernwaffen in Sdosteu-
Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXVII: 141 ropa Neolithikum bis frhe Bronzezeit. Buch am
153. Ehrlbach, Verlag Marie Leidorf.

2002. Appendix I. The CANeW 14C databases. WHITEHOUSE R. 1986 . Siticulosa Apulia revisited.
Anatolia, 10 0005000 cal BC. In F. Grard and L. Antiquity 60: 3644.
Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia:
299338. WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. Cam-
bridge, Cambridge World Archaeology.
THOMAS J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cam-
bridge, Cambridge University Press. ZOHARY D. and HOPF M. 1993. Domestication of
plants in the Old World. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
2003. Thoughts on the Repacked Neolithic Re-
volution. Antiquity 295: 6774. ZVELEBIL M. 1989. On the Transition to farming in
Europe, or what was spreading with the Neolithic: a
TODOROVA H. 1991. Kulturblcke und Kulturkom- reply to Ammerman (1989). Antiquity 63: 379383.
plexe im Neolithikum und in der Kupferzeit auf der
Balkanhalbinsel. Symposium Illyro-Thrace. Saraje- 1998. Whats in a name: The Mesolithic, the Neo-
vo: 153162. lithic and Social Change at the Mesolithic-Neoli-
thic Transition. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards
1995. The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-
Period in Bulgarian Prehistory. In D. Baird and I. western Europe: 137.
Panayotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Mono-
graphs in World Archaeology: 7988. ZVELEBIL M., LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to Agricul-
ture in Eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Eu-
TRIGGER B. 1989. A History of Archaeological ropes First Farmers: 5792.
Thought. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the Tran-

sition to Agriculture. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europes
First Farmers: 1956.

13