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

net/publication/297484171

Özkaya, V., "Excavation at Körtik Tepe. A New Pre-Pottery Neolitihic A Site in

Southeastern Anatolia", Neo-Lithics 2/09, 2009, p.3-8.

Article in Neo-Lithics · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

17 1,795

1 author:

Vecihi Özkaya
Dicle University
85 PUBLICATIONS 649 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vecihi Özkaya on 08 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Field Reports
Vecihi Özkaya,
Körtik Tepe
Maysoon al-Nahar, Deborah I. Olszewski, Jason B. Cooper,
KPS-75, Kerak Plateau
Ariel Malinsky-Buller, Emil Aldjem, Reuven Yeshurun,
Bir el-Maksur
Makoto Arimura, Christine Chataigner, Boris Gasparyan,
Kmlo 2

Contributions
Sumio Fujii,
Wadi Abu Tulayha
Yitzhak Paz, Sarit Paz, Ron Shimelmitz,
Tel Bareqet
Danny Rosenberg, Nurit Etzion, Daniel Kaufman, Avraham Ronen,
Daliyat el-Carmel 3

Conferences
New Theses
New Websites

NEO-LITHICS 2/09
The Newsletter of
Southwest Asian Neolithic Research
 Contents

Editorial 2
Field Reports
Vecihi Özkaya
Excavations at Körtik Tepe. A New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in Southeastern Anatolia 3
Maysoon al-Nahar, Deborah I. Olszewski, Jason B. Cooper
The 2009 Excavations at the Early Epipaleolithic Site of KPS-75, Kerak Plateau 9
Ariel Malinsky-Buller, Emil Aldjem, Reuven Yeshurun
Bir el-Maksur. A New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in Lower Galilee 13
Makoto Arimura, Christine Chataigner, Boris Gasparyan
Kmlo 2. An Early Holocene Site in Armenia 17
Contributions
Sumio Fujii
Flint Bowlets. A Comprehensive Review from Wadi Abu Tulayha 20
Yitzhak Paz, Sarit Paz, Ron Shimelmitz
An Incised Stone Object from the PPNA of Tel Bareqet 29
Danny Rosenberg, Nurit Etzion, Daniel Kaufman, Avraham Ronen
Daliyat el-Carmel 3. A Flint Bifacial Tools Workshop on Mount Carmel
Preliminary Account 31
Conferences
Bernd Müller-Neuhof
Jordan’s Prehistory: Past and Future Research. A Brief Report on a Symposium held in Amman 36
Olivier Nieuwenhuyse, Anna Russel, Reinhard Bernbeck, Peter Akkermans
Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, Leiden, 24-28 March 2009 39
New Theses 40
New Websites 42
Masthead 43

Editorial

Blizzards of emails, swarms of deadlines and papers, baskets of applications, paralysis by administrative needs: all of this
increasingly characterizes Near Eastern Neolithic research. The share of original research on field work and material is
substituted more and more by research made for the stage, reflected by a mass of papers typified by accelerating redundancy
and unsupported guess-work. A paradoxical situation is reached: colleagues produce papers without being able to read others’
publications to a sufficient extent, nor do they have the time to communicate about mutual research. Big research clusters in
some countries absorb energies by (often) misguiding empty keywords (e.g. landscape, space), while it is forgotten that the
major progress and innovation in research mostly results from an ideal combination of two or three individuals operating
with interdisciplinary cooperating. The personal side of all of this can result in elements of masochism among the more
responsible of us, the inability to say “No,” which sometimes leads to health problems, helpless floating with the current, and
the exclusion of those who do not follow the main trend.

The Near Eastern Neolithic family is still small, and this should foster the opportunity to critically counter these common
trends in research and to develop research ethics against Neolithic research deflation. We have to start considering if all
the conferences and workshops are necessary, since they are one source of our academic breathlessness. We have to start
investing more time in research progress and innovation by simply sitting down and doing the job: working on excavated
materials (final publications) rather than publishing more intriguing preliminary ideas with limited material bases. And we
have to start working more sustainably: site hopping, neglected conservation and curation measures, attitudes of non-sharing,
and failure to raise local competency are some of the dangers we face. Each of us is asked to distinguish wisely and carefully
between necessary constraints promoting Neolithic research and constraints produced by following uncontrolled trends in
research and research politics. Let us dare to say “No.”

For a number of various reasons on our side, issues of Neo-Lithics appear late, for which we ask you to accept our
apologies. We would like to announce that the special issue on Rubble Slides (Neo-Lithics 1/09) will appear in Spring 2010,
and the one on Water Domestication (now Neo-Lithics 2/10) later in 2010. We warmly welcome the new Neo-Lithics’
managing editorial board (beginning with issue 1/09): Dörte and Jan Krumnow and Christoph Purschwitz, while gratefully
remembering the work of the previous managing editor, Jürgen Baumgarten. Dörte, Jan, and Christoph will be on your side
during the submission and publication process: as ever, we welcome your research, especially from the young colleagues and
sites outside the Levant, for publication in Neo-Lithics.

Hans Georg K. Gebel and Gary O. Rollefson

2
Neo-Lithics 2/09
 Field Report

Excavations at Körtik Tepe.

A New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in Southeastern Anatolia

Vecihi Özkaya Dicle University, Diyarbakır–Turkey [email protected]

Introduction

With its location near the point where Batman Çayı

and the Tigris River meet, approximately 30 km west
of Batman in southeastern Anatolia, Körtik Tepe is
situated on the west bank the Tigris near a Pınarbaşı field
of the Ağıl Village (Ancolini) within the administrative
borders of Bismil district, Diyarbakır (Fig. 1). In
the form of a low hill, the mound extends across an
area of 100 x 150 m and a height 5.50 m above its
surroundings. The mound, also known by its traditional
names Kotuk or Kotik, was first detected in surveys
carried out in 1989 and evaluated as a late site (Algaze
and Rosenberg 1990). Archaeological excavations
that began in 2000 continued until 2009. Excavations
exposed an area of approximately 2600 m² in 89 trenches Fig. 1 Location of Körtik Tepe.
of 5.00 x 5.00 m, reaching variable depths between 1.00-
5.50 m (Fig. 2). Together with Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe hunter-gatherer communities following a nomadic way
is one of the earliest sites in which the transition from of life to settled village life is represented.

Fig. 2 Topographical plan of site

3
Neo-Lithics 2/09
 Field Report

Fig. 3 Circular structures and intramural tombs

Excavations revealed two main culture phases in the

mound: a medieval period represents the later culture
phase, while the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, represented
mainly by architectural remains, burials, and grave
goods, is the earlier one. Fig. 5 PPNA tomb

Architecture pressed into the compact earth. Based on a preliminary

judgement, these round buildings from Körtik Tepe,
The PPN cultural structure of the mound generally whether with flat or con cave floors, are single-family
reflects important differences, especially in terms of dwellings characteristic of the earliest Pre-Pottery
small finds, from other well-known contemporary Neolithic period and similar in nature to Hallan Çemi,
settlements in the region. All data indicate that Körtik Göbekli Tepe, Tell Abr, Jerf el-Ahmar, Sheikh Hassan,
Tepe is a permanent settlement (Özkaya and San 2007). Mureybet, Qermez Dere and Nemrik (Aurenche
Excavations during 2005-2009 showed that there are at 2007; Kozlowski and Kempisty 1990; Rosenberg and
least six separate architectural layers. Redding 2000).The second group is composed of 34
It is possible to gather Körtik Tepe structures in three buildings that are too small for residences. The sizes
main groups. The first group is composed of 77 round of these buildings, which are found in almost all levels
buildings. All houses are round in plan with dirt floors in the excavated areas and are also round in plan, vary
surrounded by single-leaf walls of unworked stones. between 1.10–2.10 m in diameter. Floors of this group
Walls were badly damaged by construction activity of are also paved with pebbles (Özkaya 2004; Özkaya
the medieval phase occupations (Fig. 3). Among these and San 2007; Özkaya and Coşkun 2008). These
there are many structures that are not walled at all. These structures must have served as storage units similar to
structures, varying in size between 2.30-3.00 m, are
constructed directly on the ground. The floors of stones

Fig. 4 PPNA tomb Fig. 6 Tomb contents

4
Neo-Lithics 2/09
 Field Report

those at Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg and Redding 2000;

Rosenberg 2007), confirmed by the dense vegetable
remains in them.
The last group of structures in our sample (Y3,
Y11, Y44, Y35) is completely different in terms of
their sizes and floors as well as in their rare numbers.
Data are not sufficient to explain functions of these, but
we suspect they may have played some special roles,
similar in some ways to the public structures at Hallan
Çemi (Rosenberg and Redding 2000).
However, despite the architectural similarities with
Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe stands apart in terms of its
small finds. Although there are no direct similarities
with Çayönü (Özdoğan-Özdoğan 1989; Schirmer 1990)
or Nevalı Çori (Hauptmann 1993), similar structures to
the third group are found in other Neolithic settlements
of Anatolia. In the Levant region there are comparable
structures in such early settlements such as ‘Ain Mallaha Fig. 8 PPNA stone vessels
(Perrot 1966), Jericho (Bar-Josef 1986; Kuijt 1996),
and the lower layers of Beidha (Byrd 1994; 2000).
Though they include specific differences in terms of upper parts of the bones. In two different samples red and
features, structure types, finds, and some functions, it black lines are parallel to each other. Such color traces
is not surprising that the rarity of these buildings are are also seen on grave goods. All these data show that
generally considered to be public structures. Therefore, the dead were defleshed, subsequently partly covered
the site of Körtik Tepe shows parallels not only with with plaster, and then pigmented. Similar practices in
Anatolia but also with the Levant. the later PPN period have been noted (Goring Morris
2000), but Körtik Tepe holds a special place in terms of
the specific kinds of plastering treatment.
Burials Traditions of burying the dead and the accompanying
grave goods help to demonstrate the sociocultural
Graves play an important role in terms of characterizing system of the era. It is possible to gain an understanding
the social and cultural structure of Körtik Tepe. The in such related features as production, technology,
majority of skeletons were buried with grave goods, labor, and decoration of grave gifts, most of which were
and a large proportion of the burials on the mound were of worked stone. Jewelry was made of different stones;
found beneath house floors (Figs. 4-5). The context of decorated and undecorated bone objects and stone
a few graves is uncertain as they are near the surface figurines were numerous. Other grave goods include
and badly disturbed. Burials inside houses show that stone vessels, axes, pestles, mortars, perforated stones,
the places where people were living were sanctified as and cutting-piercing tools (Figs. 6-9). Similarities to
well as profane. tools used in daily life indicate fundamental beliefs
Instead of being buried haphazardly, rules of treating among the Körtik Tepe settlers, particularly the concept
the dead included practices before burial as well as of a continuation of life after the death.
interment itself. One specific practice was the partial
smearing of skeletons with gypsum plaster (Özbek
2005) (Fig. 4). For many of the plastered skeletons,
including skulls, colored parallel bands occur in the

Fig. 7 General view of the Körtik Tepe finds from 2009 Fig. 9 Stone pestles

5
Neo-Lithics 2/09
 Field Report

Fig. 11 Bone fish hooks

utilitarian and ceremonial axes in different shapes

and sizes, mortars, pestles, and grinding stones, all of
which reflect the rich cultural collection in Körtik Tepe.
Foremost among the types, stone vessels constitute a
special group with their broad formal repertoire and
their geometric and natural decoration (Fig. 8). All parts
of the stone vessels are covered by engraved animal
Fig. 10 Decorated stone with patterned incisions figures, mostly snakes, wild goats, scorpions, birds,
and mixed creatures that likely represent elements of
Chipped and Ground Stone Artifacts their belief system. Despite their rarity throughout the
region, it is clear that such stone vessels are seen in
Chipped stone artifacts from Körtik Tepe are chiefly Pre-Pottery Neolithic period communities in Near East.
composed of flint. Obsidian tools and debitage are One type of ground stone object brings relationships
secondary. Furthermore, although rare numerically, among Körtik Tepe and contemporary sites into sharp
quartz raw material was also used. Among tool groups relief. This is the pestle produced for utilitarian and
Çayönü tools show up although in small quantities. ceremonial use (Fig. 9). Samples worked from coarse
Notably, although projectile points are numerous, no stone include abrasion traces as a result of use, and they
arrowheads of PPNA or PPNB types common to the generally display rough formal features. Ones that have
classic Levant or Zagros traditions were found. Instead, shiny surfaces are made of more workable chlorite that
tool types are more typical of the Epipaleolithic, is also used for stone vessels (Özkaya 2004). Most of
characterized by microliths and arch-backed blades, the pestles of this type have upper ends finished with
generally similar to the inventory from Hallan Çemi. stylized wild bird and goat heads and are found as
There is nothing among the tool types to to contradict grave goods. Nearly identical pestles also came from
our interpretation that wild plant collecting was the Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 1999) and Çayönü (Davis
principal means of acquiring plant foods. Some tools 1982; Özdoğan 1999) in Anatolia and from Nemrik 9
still reflect Paleolithic origins, with large scrapers in Iraq (Kozlowski 1989).
being very important. It is observed that more formal Among the Körtik Tepe finds, stone axes comprise
tools were produced from obsidian, and these mostly another important group. In addition to some with
consist of lunates and other geometric forms. rough formal features, there are others that were
The obsidian at Körtik Tepe was only obtainable shaped carefully. Axes differ in terms of size based on
from a great distance, whether through exchange or different stone types; however, they all share similar
direct acquisition. As was the case for Hallan Çemi morphologies. Axes among the grave goods have holes
(Rosenberg and Redding 2000; Hauptmann 2002), the carefully bored in the center. The majority of axes
green transparent obsidian is likely East Anatolian in from non-burial contexts are abraded from rough usage
origin (Özkaya and San 2007). (Özkaya and San 2007). In addition to axes included as
Most of the material from the mound consists of grave goods, there are also small, carefully fashioned
ground stone artifacts (Fig. 7), and the majority of mace heads with compressed circular forms (Özkaya
these came from burials; a small proportion came from and San 2007).
domestic contexts. Except for a few examples that were Chlorite stone figurines included as grave goods
preserved as complete objects, most finds included as made by abrasion and incision are often of undefinable
grave goods were broken, including many stone vessels, animals, although there is one that is clearly a goat.

6
Neo-Lithics 2/09
 Field Report

Such figurines are not known from contemporary sites holes. Although generally oval in shape, serpentine
in the Near East, and they appear to be expressions beads also occur in different forms (Özkaya and San
of a local belief system. The concentric circles on the 2002), similar to those from Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg
shoulders of the figures are also commonly found on 1993). Although there are some specific differences,
decorated stone vessels among the grave goods, adding the jewelry from Körtik Tepe is similar to that from
to the uniqueness of these objects. Another exotic Çayönü as well (Özdoğan 1999).
piece that is of unknown use is a stone decorated with The disparity of grave good distributions suggests
patterned incisions (Fig. 10). that those burials with large quantities of beads and
Another type of shaped stone object from Körtik other jewelry are of a different social class than those
Tepe includes small-sized pointed cylinders that reflect people buried in graves with none or only a few objects.
close culturtal ties with other early and late Pre-Pottery This, in turn, indicates that social complexity had
Neolithic period sites in Anatolia (Özkaya and San already appeared among the residents of Körtik Tepe
2007). Shaped by means of abrasion, these chlorite by the PPNA period.
objects have simple incised lines; one of them, with
deep corrugations has counterparts at Hallan Çemi
(Rosenberg 1999) and Demirköy (Rosenberg and İnal Concluding Remarks
1999).
The character of the site, similarities to contemporary
sites throughout the Upper Tigris Valley, the finds as
Bone Artifacts grave gifts beneath houses and in other burials, faunal
remains (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006), and other
Bone artifacts make up another basic group at evidence all show that Körtik Tepe definitely belongs
Körtik Tepe. The majority of them were found in to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period. This fact is
burials, although a few were found in other contexts. confirmed with C14 analysis showing that mound was
Considering their formal features and decoration, it settled at the beginning of the 10th millennium BC
is possible to classify bone artifacts in two groups as (Özkaya and San 2007; Özkaya and Coşkun 2008).
either decorative or utilitarian (Özkaya and San 2003; Körtik Tepe is thus one of the oldest known Neolithic
2007). Utilitarian tools consist of awls, hooks, and sites of Anatolia. In view of the strong Epipaleolithic
points (Fig. 11) (Özkaya and San 2007). character demonstrated by the presence of microliths
Most of them are fragmentary, but definable awls and arch-backed blades that reflect close parallels with
reflect morphological differences with Çayönü samples. Hallan Çemi, there are indications that Körtik Tepe was
Awls with their bigger size and stubby heads differ settled in an even earlier time.
from points. Close equivalents of small sized bone
points that are used as pins are known from Çayönü
(Özdoğan 1999). Once again, the bone material from
Körtik Tepe shows similarities with bone finds from References
Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 1999) and is related to the
Zarzian tradition, connected to some degree with Davis M.K.
traditions known from other sites of the region in form 1982 The Çayönü Ground Stone. In L.S. Briadwood
and function. and R.J. Braidwood (eds.), Prehistoric Village
Archeology in South-Eastern Turkey: The Eight
Millenium B.C. Site at Çayönü: Its Chipped and
Personal Ornaments Ground Stone Industries and Faunal Remains:
3-174. BAR International Series 138. Oxford,
Different jewelry groups produced from different B.A.R. Press.
materials reveal the richness of the collection of
grave goods from the mound. Beads are one group Goring-Morris N.
placed in burials as gifts next to skeletons or in stone 2000 The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of
vessels (Fig. 6). Most of the beads were produced from Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen
burgundy-colored stone (Özkaya and San 2002), which from Kfar HaHoresh. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in
is easily worked. This kind of ornament is the largest Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization,
group, but another includes vertebrae of animals such Identity, and Differentation: 103-136.
as birds, fish and shell (Özkaya and San 2007). As in
other kinds of grave goods, the quantity and quality Hauptmann H.
of beads vary from burial to burial; some graves lack 1993 Ein Kultgebäude in Nevali Çori. In M.
ornaments altogether. Although they are represented by Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P.
only a few samples, some beads are made of chlorite, Matthiae, and M. Mellink (eds.), Between the
the same material the stone vessels are fashioned Rivers and over the Mountains: Archaeologica
from. Ornaments were competently made involving Anatolica et MesopotamiaAlba Palmieri
decoration of parallel incised lines and carefully drilled Dedicata: 37-69.

7
Neo-Lithics 2/09
 Field Report

2002 Upper Mesopotamia in Its Regional Context Rosenberg M.

During the Early Neolithic. In F. Gerard and I. 1993 Excavations at Hallan Çemi Tepesi, 1991. Kazı
Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Sonuçları Toplantısı XIV: 117-130.
Internal Developments and external Relations 1999 Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen
During the 9th-6th Millenia Cal. B.C.: 263-275. (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: the Cradle of Civiliza-
tion: 25-33.
Kozlowski S. K. 2007 Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdoğan ve N. Başgelen
1989 Nemrik 9. A PPN Neolithic Site in Northern Iraq. (eds.), Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya
Paléorient 15/1: 25-31. Yayılımı: Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem, Yeni Kazılar, Yeni
Bulgular: 1-11.
Kozlowski S. K. and Kempisty A.
1990 Architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settle- Rosenberg M. and İnal N.
ment in Nemrik, Iraq. World Archaeology 21(3): 1999 Sounding at Demirköy Höyük, 1997. Kazı
348-362. Sonuçları Toplantısı XX.1: 249-258.

Kuijt I. Rosenberg M. and Redding R. W.

1996 Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Conside- 2000 Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organization in
ration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic Eastern Anatolia. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in
A Period Mortuary Practices. Journal of Anthropo- Neolithic Farming Communities: Social
logical Archaeology 15: 313-336. Organization, Identity, and Differentation: 39-61.

Özbek, M. Schirmer W.
2005 Körtik Tepe’de İnsan Sağlığı. Arkeometri 1990 Some Aspects of Building at the Aceramic Neoli-
Sonuçları Toplantısı XX: 41-52. thic Settlement of Çayönü Tepesi. World
Archaeology 21: 363-383.
Özdoğan A.
1999 Çayönü. In M. Özdoğan - N. Başgelen (eds.),
Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilizations:
35-63.

Özdoğan M., and Özdoğan A.

1989 Çayönü: A Conspectus of Recent Work.
Paléorient 15: 65-74.

Özkaya V.
2004 Körtik Tepe: An Early Preottery Neolithic Site in
Upper Tigris Valley. In T. Korkut (ed.), Festschrift
für Fahri Işık zum 60. Geburstag: 585-599.

Özkaya V. and San O.

2002 Körtik Tepe Arkeolojik Kazıları. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı XXIII/2: 423-34.
2003 Körtik Tepe 2001 Kazısı. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı XXIV/2: 423-36.
2007 Körtik Tepe: Bulgular Işığında Kültürel Doku
Üzerine İlk Gözlemler. In M. Özdoğan and
N. Başgelen (eds.), Anadolu’da Uygarlığın
Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı: Türkiye’de Neolitik
Dönem, Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgula: 21-36.

Özkaya V. and Coşkun A.

2008 Anadolu’nun Erken Kültür tarihinde Körtik
Tepe’nin Yeri ve Önemi. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 129:
1-18.

Perrot J.
1966 Le Gisement Natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan),
Israel. L’Antropologie 70: 437-484.

8
Neo-Lithics 2/09

View publication stats