PA L A E O L I T H I C A N D E P I PA L A E O L I T H I C

hominids, the Anatolian interior must have been a bleak and wind blown landscape in the early Pleistocene, judging from the sediments of storm waves at the base of the now dried-up lakes, and the sand dunes that developed once the lake waters receded.9 When sea levels dropped in the Pleistocene at the peak of the glaciations, the Anatolian coastal lines changed accordingly, and became deeply incised. These coastlines are now submerged, but during the glacial stages would have experienced extremely cold and semiarid conditions. The configuration of the Aegean would have looked the most different during the Pleistocene, because its low broad shelf would have extended further west.

LOWER PALAEOLITHIC (ca. 1,000,000–250,000 BC)

The prospects the Palaeolithic holds have been vividly demonstrated with the recent discoveries at Kaletepe Deresi 3 (KD3), in central Anatolia, which have pushed the boundaries of human occupation back to 1 million years ago.10 Just as exciting are the fragments of a Homo erectus calvaria (frontal bones and parietals) discovered accidentally in a block of travertine stone quarried at Kocabas¸, near Denizli.11 These fossils are of profound significance for Turkey. Dated to about 500,000–490,000 years ago, not only do they represent the first Middle Pleistocene hominid remains from the peninsula, but they also provide insights on the health of these early immigrants. The lesions identified at the base of the cranium are pathological evidence that the individual suffered from tuberculosis (Leptomeningitis tuberculosa), which inflames the meninges, the membrane that surrounds the brain. This significant discovery is poignant testimony that tuberculosis, once thought to be a fairly recent disease of only a few thousand years, was among the perils the first hominids faced as they left Africa. The earliest human ancestors to migrate out of Africa were protected against the ultraviolet rays of the intense sun of their homeland by their presumably dark skin. But as they moved from tropical lands north into temperate Eurasia, this protection became a problem, preventing the absorption of a requisite amount of vitamin D from sunlight, which, in turn, adversely affected their immune system.

The earliest human attempts in culture are best traced through stone artefacts. Effective and abundant, these tools provide the only continuous series of cultural markers. A particularly important series is emerging at Kaletepe Deresi 3, situated amidst the volcanic landscape of the plateau where the soft volcanic tuffs have eroded, exposing older, artefact-bearing layers that under normal circumstances would not be visible.12 The rock formations of Cappadocia are a striking example of this process. Near Kaletepe Deresi 3 is the extensive Kömürcü obsidian source. Other volcanic rocks in this area such as basalt were also utilized for tool making. Six layers of tephra (R1–R6) in the upper levels of the 7 m deposit are particularly valuable for dating the recent volcanic activity; geochemical characterization of the R1–R5 tephras have linked them to the Acıgöl tuffs assigned to a minimum eruption date of 160,000 years ago. The Kaletepe Deresi 3 sequence comprises two major and interlocking cycles: The sedimentary deposition and the archaeological levels, which, in turn, are ascribed to cultural phases.

12

PA L A E O L I T H I C A N D E P I PA L A E O L I T H I C

The long and uninterrupted sequence at Kaletepe Deresi 3 shows clear changes in the production of stone tools from volcanic rocks such as obsidian, rhyolite, andesite, and basalt. By the end of the 2005 season, some 4000 lithic artefacts were recovered; animal bones, by the same token, are scarce, perhaps owing to the acidic nature of the soil. The earliest cultural phase, I, is of singular significance. Acheulian handaxes—the first such artefacts recovered in situ in Anato- lia—were found in levels V and VI–XII, presently confined to a small area. Only obsidian was used for these handaxes which have been worked on both surfaces (bifaces); andesite and other rocks were utilized for polyhedrons, cleavers, and choppers. Overall, this assemblage is clearly at home with the Acheulian tradition of southwest Asia. Level IV has a different character— choppers, chopping tools, and large flakes struck from andesite and rhyolite cores; obsidian was rarely exploited in this level. Phase II has a flake-dominated stone industry manufactured from obsidian. Thick flakes with unprepared striking platforms were also modified into denticulates and notched tools. The best parallels from Anatolia are found at Yarımburgaz and Karain E (assemblage A). Further work needs to address the apparent restricted utilization of obsidian in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic which is confined to the volcanic provinces, a situation that is at odds with the widespread trade in the Neolithic.

Quite different in character is the slightly younger (900,000–780,000 years) site of Dursunlu where a deeply buried layer, exposed in an open cut lignite mine northwest of Konya, has yielded a rich deposit of remarkably preserved plant and animal remains, interspersed with a sample of stone artefacts.13 Giant deer (Megalaceros) were a common sight in the Pleistocene, roaming the cool steppe landscape around Dursunlu, with horses, cattle, mammoth (probiscideans), and other wildlife. Birds, including herons, egrets, geese, ducks, and waders, attracted to the food afforded by the shallow lakes, were also abundant. Some 175 stone tools, mainly knapped from quartz, show no evidence of bifacial flaking. Rather they comprise simple flakes with few signs of further modification.

Two other Lower Palaeolithic sites stand out for their fine sequences: Yarımburgaz Cave, in the vicinity of Istanbul, and Karain Cave, near Antalya. They belong to clusters of sites located along the coasts of the Mediterranean and the Sea of Marmara.14 Despite its unfortunate destruction, Yarımburgaz Cave remains the key site for the Lower Palaeolithic. The cave had two entrances, an upper and lower. Palaeolithic cultural material was found in the lower chamber, which also contained a substantial amount of fossil bear bones (Ursus deningeri).15 None of the bear bones shows any cut marks or modification by humans, suggesting that the 40 or so individual animals died during hibernation. This curious association of stone tools and bear bones indicates that the cave was home to both humans and beasts, albeit not concurrently. It seems that in winter bears hibernated (and sometimes died) in the cave, and when they left in the spring, humans moved in, using Yarımburgaz Cave as a seasonal shelter. This “dual occupancy” also accounts for the apparent mixing of sediments and the relative homogeneity of the assemblage. Nonetheless, this arrangement appears to have suited all parties. Various archaeometric techniques, including electron spin resonance (ESR), indicate this arrangement lasted a long time (ca. 330,000–130,000 years ago).

13

PA L A E O L I T H I C A N D E P I PA L A E O L I T H I C

Stone tools at Yarımburgaz were manufactured from flint (the principle raw material), quartz, and quartzite (Figure 2.2).16 Excavations yielded 1674 lithic artefacts that show a close link between function/technique and choice of stone. Tools knapped from quartzite, the hardest of the three main materials, amount to no more than 237 artefacts, but comprised the bulk of chopping tools. Flint and quartz, by way of contrast, were preferred for the production of flake tools, the majority of which (about a third of the total assemblage) were retouched. Flint flakes are mostly rectangular or oval in shape, contrasting with the usual triangular forms of the Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian). The total absence of prepared striking platforms—the Levallois technique—that so characterizes the Mousterian assemblages of Western Europe is another prominent difference. The Yarımburgaz repertoire, then, is predominantly a flake industry with flake tools outnumbering core tools eight to one.

Karain Cave forms part of an extensive karstic system, situated in an area with plenty of raw material for the manufacture of stone tools, mostly cobbles and pebbles of radiolarites. First explored in the 1960s by Kökten, renewed investigations since 1985 have provided a very important sequence of settlement.17 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic deposits were found in the main chamber, Karain E, where the sequence reaches a depth of 10 m. Five geological units (I–V, in descending order) each with a number of sedimentary deposits were equated with archaeological layers (A–I). Whereas averages determined from ESR and TL (thermoluminescene) readings from the upper deposits confirm occupation around 250,000 years ago, estimations based on the correlation with oxygen isotope stages push the earliest peopling of the cave to about 500,000 years ago.18

The importance of the long Karain sequence is its capacity to show the technical and typological evolution of the lithic industry, from simple to refined, with associated shifts in raw material procurement and discard patterns. During the Lower Palaeolithic stone tools were produced outside the cave using local material. Within the cave five levels of occupation (Layers A–E) have been distinguished that can be divided into two technological groups (Figure 2.3). The earliest, Layer A, has an assemblage that broadly resembles the one at Yarımburgaz in its simple toolkit, comprising mostly small notched and denticulate flakes that have been expediently struck off cores with no signs of core preparation. No heavy-duty tools, in the form of choppers or bifaces, were found. According to the excavators this assemblage recalls the Clactonian industry of Europe, defined in part as a thick flake industry knapped without hard percussion, possessing smooth striking platforms, and displaying heavily retouched edges. As time progressed, production technology at Karain became more sophisticated. The general trend was from thick, well-retouched scrapers and a limited array of tools through essentially the same repertoire, but with a higher number of denticulates in Layer B (proto-Charentian) towards thinner tools, displaying controlled retouch, and a more specialized and varied toolkit in the uppermost layer.

In Layer C, the presence of a sidescraper with a partial retouch on both surfaces has been compared with the Acheulio-Yabrudian or Mugharian facies of the Levant, but otherwise the Acheulian traditions in the Levant are absent at Karain.19 Nonetheless, the Charentian

14

PA L A E O L I T H I C A N D E P I PA L A E O L I T H I C

character of the industry continues through to Layer E, when sidescrapers, some displaying fine marginal retouch, increase in number. The inhabitants at Karain Cave hunted wild sheep and goat, whose bones prevailed among the faunal remains, although deer were represented too. Bear bones were also collected at Karain Cave, but there were not as many as at Yarımburgaz.20

These sequences—Karatepe Deresi 3, Yarımburgaz, and Karain—highlight a conspicuous feature of Lower Palaeolithic Anatolia, one that it shares with Greece, namely the presence of two different assemblages or stone tool industries.21 One industry, found concentrated in the northwest corner, is characterized by core choppers and flake tools, and a conspicuous absence of bifacial handaxes. This chopperand flake-dominated industry is found across the Balkans, Greece, and central Europe where they are sometimes referred to as “small tool industries.” By contradistinction, central and eastern Turkey are largely defined by an assemblage based on handaxes that resemble the well-known Acheulian types found in western Europe, Caucasus, the Levant, and Africa.22 Bifacial tools are particularly prevalent at open-air sites strung along the ancient terraces of the Euphrates and Orontes rivers. But, apart from the Kaletepe Deresi 3 examples, the finds from Turkey have been collected from the surface, offering little chronological control.23 Even so, there is enough evidence to show that Anatolia is where two worlds met in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. This geographic division in Anatolia is defined by what Curtis Runnels recently termed the “Arsebük Line,” essentially a continuation of a modified “Movius Line” that divides the Acheulian tool users of Europe, Africa and western Asia from the chopping tool industries of East Asia (Figure 2.4).24

This geographical division is not easy to explain, and many views have been put forward, succinctly summarized by Runnels.25 What has become abundantly clear is that the Lower Palaeolithic stone tool traditions of Europe and the Near East are distinguished by diversity. Bifacial handaxes and cleavers, choppers and small tool industries, as well as simple and sophisticated technologies are all features that form part of two varied and widespread industries that were contemporary for good stretches of time, if not the entire Lower Palaeolithic.

According to some, this coexistence has rendered the linear evolutionary model that argued for a chronological progression from Oldowan through Acheulian to Mousterian as untenable.26 Others, however, maintain that flake-dominated assemblages are an archaic industry (the socalled Clactonian/Tayacian) that represents groups of earlier immigrants into Eurasia than those who brought the bifacial handaxes.27

Of all the explanations, the most persuasive are those that posit the two assemblages may be the product of either different environmental zones, or representative of functional distinctions. Sites with handaxes are scattered across terrain in Turkey that is generally 600 m above sea level, whereas core choppers assemblages are found at lower elevations that would have been associated with warmer and wetter climatic conditions. Moreover, the rather amorphous toolkit of core chopper industry suggests there was no need for specialized tools, possibly reflecting ample supplies of wood. This pattern is also broadly consistent with evidence from Europe. Contrariwise, the occurrence of handaxe assemblages at open-air sites and the association of nonbiface

17

PA L A E O L I T H I C A N D E P I PA L A E O L I T H I C

Figure 2.4 Map showing the re-alignment of the Movius Line and its continuation in Anatolia where it has been termed the Arsebük Line (adapted from Runnels 2003)

industries with cave sites suggest separate functions.28 This view would gain strength if it could be shown through detailed comparative analyses that the flake tools associated with the handaxe assemblages are technically similar to those of the core chopper repertoire.

This brings us to the important issue of presence and absence of elements in assemblages, which has also called into question the mode of stone tool classification. There is now a shift away from clustering lithic artefacts into groups of retouched tools (typologies) to studying reduction processes, and the use and discard of tools (châines opératoires). According to this approach, the final forms of the tools are not as fundamental as the technology and processes used to produce them. Using this methodology, it has been argued that the Lower Palaeolithic had very linear production patterns, which were directly linked with the raw material. This resulted in parallel technological trajectories—specific reduction techniques applied to particular stones producing a limited range of tools that nevertheless displayed diversity over a time and space. This contrasts with the more flexible Middle Palaeolithic production processes, discussed later, that produced a standard array of flakes and blades through one or two reduction

18