"Archaeological Evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey."...

111

Documenta Praehistorica XLI (2014)

Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC atGirmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey

Turan Takaoglu1, Taner Korkut2, Burçin Erdogu3 and Gül Isın2

1 Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale (18th March) University, [email protected]

2 Department of Archaeology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, [email protected]< [email protected]

3 Department of Archaeology, University of Thrace, Edirne, [email protected]

Introduction

Girmeler Cave, situated in the valley below the ma-jor ancient Lycian city of Tlos to the east of the mo-dern town of Fethiye in Southwestern Turkey, pre-sents archaeological evidence of one of the mostpoorly understood periods of the region, the 9th and8th millennia BC (Fig. 1). The cave, located at theend of a promontory of limestone hill, is formedfrom two long galleries that are almost parallel (Fig.2). Gallery I, about 100m long, is a narrow cave. Gal-lery II, 150m in length and larger than Gallery I, hastwo entrances opposite one another and contains

stalactites and stalagmites. There is a natural hotthermal spring close to the site, which might havebeen one of the reasons that led to the selection ofthis locality for occupation from as early as the late9th millennium BC to the Byzantine period.

Girmeler Cave was first recognised as an archaeo-logical site by Fethiye Archaeology Museum in the1980s, when a mound type settlement at the cavemouth was bulldozed away illegally to establishthermal installations (Köktürk 2000). This mound

ABSTRACT – A mound settlement in front of the Girmeler Cave near the major Lycian city of Tlos inSW Turkey revealed evidence for occupation during the late 9th and 8th millennia BC. The ccupationis characterized by a structure with at least two layers of lime-plastered floor, hearths and bins anda wattle-and-daub superstructure, all pointing to a sedentary community engaged in intensive hun-ting and gathering. The trial trenches at Girmeler Cave also yielded evidence of an Early Pottery Neo-lithic period at the end of the 8th millennium BC. The remains of several buildings with terrazzofloors and wattle-and-daub superstructures were found. It is likely that the cave served as a sacredsite in the Early Pottery Neolithic period. There was a hiatus between the late 9th/early 8th millen-nium BC and the Early Pottery Neolithic occupations at the site.

IZVLE∞EK – Naselbina na gomili pred vhodom v jamo Girmeler v bli∫ini pomembnega likijskega mes-ta Tlos v jugozahodni Tur≠iji razkriva dokaze o poselitvi v ≠asu poznega 9. in 8. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t.Zna≠ilnost poselitve je struktura z vsaj dvema plastema z apnom prekritih tal, ognji∏≠, odpadnih jamin butane nadgradnje, kar ka∫e na sedentarno skupnost, ki se je ukvarjala z intenzivnim lovom innabiralni∏tvom. Testne sonde v jami Girmeler so prinesle dokaze o poselitvi v obdobju zgodnjegakerami≠nega neolitika ob koncu 8. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. Odkriti so bili ostanki ve≠ zgradb s teraco tlemiin butano nadgradnjo. Verjetno je, da je jama v zgodnjem kerami≠nem neolitiku slu∫ila kot svet kraj.Med poznim 9./zgodnjim 8. tiso≠letjem pr. n. ∏t. in poselitvijo v zgodnjem kerami≠nem neolitiku jeprepoznana prekinitev.

KEY WORDS – Anatolia; Pottery Neolithic; cave site; burials; rituals

DOI>10.4312\dp.41.6

Turan Takaoglu, Taner Korkut, Burçin Erdogu and Gül Isın

112

once stood in front of the cave thatwas continuously occupied from al-most as early as the late 9th millen-nium BC to the Byzantine period.Because nearly 6m of the top layersof the mound were destroyed, onlythe lowest layers containing evi-dence of occupation for the late 9th/early 8th millennium calBC remain-ed. Small portions from the edges ofthe mound were also preserved inthe mouths of Gallery I and II whichprovides a limited picture of the stra-tigraphy of the site. This paper intro-duces data derived from four trialtrenches opened in the lowest layersof the mound in front of the cave and in the preserv-ed parts of the mound in the mouth of Gallery I. Da-vid French (2008) introduced some of the finds thatremained after the destruction of the mound.

The archaeological investigations represented byfour trial trenches and surveys were conducted be-tween 2011 and 2013 by a team representing theTlos Excavation Project under the auspices of theTurkish General Directorate of Antiquities and Mu-seums. Because Tlos is among the major sites men-tioned in the 2nd millennium BC Hittite texts suchas Tlawa, the pre-Classical past of the city and itsterritory attracted a great attention among Lycianspecialists (Korkut 2013). It was during the explora-tion of the pre-Classical sequences at Tlos and its ter-ritory that the site came to our attention and was in-cluded in the research programme.

The late 9th/early 8th millennium BC occupa-tion: a sedentary community?

Two trial trenches (A and C) in the lowest layers ofthe mound revealed archaeological evidence of late9th/early 8th millennium calBC structures and relat-ed features. In Trench A, this occupation is about7.6m below the original surface level of the mound,suggesting the intensity and longevity of the settle-ment. Part of a structure with a lime-plastered floorwas discovered in Trench A in 2013 (Fig. 4). The pla-stered floor with small stones has evidently been re-newed at least twice. Two postholes gouged into theplaster floor were also noted. The structure appearsto have had superstructures of wattle and daub. Thisstructure also has a number of features, includingtwo circular sunken mud plastered basins and a rec-tangular pit. These features show the long-term andregular use/reuse of the structure. The finds include

an oval basin filled with ash, and burnt and fire-cracked stones. The basin might have been used forcooking facilities. Two circular hearths of the earli-er phase were found beneath this oval plastered ba-sin. Close to the hearths of the early phase are twoshallow rectangular features with roughly oval cor-ners, both filled with ash. At least two more hearthswere also found in the early phase, but their exactconnection with the structure is obscure. When thestructure was abandoned, further pits for burnedlime and various sizes of hearth were placed over itsremains. Three AMS radiocarbon dates (Wk-37966:8906±37 BP; Wk-37967: 8876±33 BP; Wk-35608:8868±25 BP) obtained from samples taken fromthese deposits in Trench A fall between c. 8200–7900 calBC.

In order to reach virgin soil, the southeast corner ofTrench A was deepened, but the sounding yieldeda line of stones and clay lumps with a dense concen-tration of animal bones and chipped stone imple-ments in red palaeosols. Red paleosols were also di-scovered just below the surface in Trench C in frontof Gallery II. Less than half a metre of the depositwas excavated in Trench C because a rock fall sealedthe trench. A burial leaning against the cave wallwas found in Trench C (Fig. 5). The burial revealeda flexed articulated adult on his/her left side in acontracted position. Three flint artefacts were foundin situ around the skull.

In Trenches A and C, flint was the raw material forthe manufacture of chipped stone tools (Fig. 6). Noobsidian was found. Because it was collected froma variety of mixed sources, flint is often very vari-able in character; in this case, red-brown is the mostcommon. A flake-based technology can be observ-ed in the chipped stone industry of the Girmeler

Fig. 1. Map locating Girmeler Cave and other major sites mention-ed in the text.

Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey

113

Cave. Tools are rare, but flakes are numerous; theywere made from small flint blocks by direct percus-sion technique with the help of a hard expedienttool. Cores often have multiple platforms with a li-mited amount of flakes taken from each. Blade coresare rare. All were bidirectional blade cores, and onlya few traces of core preparation are present. Mostof the blanks were used directly, without retouch.Tools include end and circular scrapers on flakes,perforators, blade, and bladelets. A sickle blade withparallel lateral edges is unique. It must be mention-ed that no microliths were found in the four trialtrenches at the site.

The preliminary analysis of animal bones from Tren-ches A and C indicates that Sus scrofa (wild boar),Cervus elaphus (red deer), Dama dama (Europeanfallow deer), Caracal caracal (caracal), and Lepuseuropaeus (European hare) were the most commonspecies represented, indicating that hunting waspart of the subsistence strategy of settlers at the site.Fish and birds were also consumed. Caprines andaurochs were not detected at all among the avail-able animal bone assemblage. In addition, two per-forated and burned Nassarius shell beads werefound in the habitation debris of the structure inTrench A. One small stone with a polished groovewhich could be identified as a shaft straightener wasalso found in the habitation debris. A total of 19worked bones have also been identified among thehabitation debris in Trenches A and C (Fig. 7); threeare pendants made from the bones of Lepus euro-paeus, each with a hole for suspension, while 13 areawls pointed either at one end or both ends. The re-maining three worked bones are tips of bevel-ended

tools. The habitation debris in TrenchA also revealed grind stones, mainlylarge querns bearing extensive abra-sive use wear on their ventral sur-faces.

The late 9th/early 8th millenniumcalBC occupation at Girmeler Cavewas characterised by a total absenceof pottery. The structure with at leasttwo layers of lime-plastered floor,wattle and daub superstructures, andfloor furnishing in Trench A pointsto a sedentary community. However,it is unclear whether sedentism couldbe viewed as an extension of radia-ting mobility or as a generically dis-tinct way of life. The site is contem-porary with well-known 9th millen-

nium calBC Central Anatolian sites such as Asıklı, Pı-narbası and Boncuklu. This period in Central Ana-tolia is characterised by sedentary communities en-gaging in intensive hunting and gathering. Oval stru-ctures with mud-brick walls and a central hearthexisted at both Asıklı and Boncuklu (Özbasaran2012; Baird et al. 2012). The architectural traditionat Pınarbası is different, as the site is characterised

Fig. 2. Aerial view of Girmeler Cave from the south showing themouths of Gallery I (left) and Gallery II (right). A mound oncestood in the front of the cave.

Fig. 3. Map of Girmeler Cave showing trial trenches.


114

by sunken curvilinear buildingswith wattle and daub superstructu-res (Baird 2012). Human remainshave been discovered beneath thefloors of Asıklı and Boncuklu, butnot at Pınarbası. The structure inTrench A at Girmeler Cave may beassociated with the curvilinear, wat-tle and daub architectural traditionof Pınarbası, with the difference be-ing the lime-plastered floor.

Subsistence in Central Anatolia inthe 9th millennium calBC dependedon hunting mainly cattle, boar, deer,sheep and goat, and gathering plantsfor food. Cattle, sheep, and goat aretotally absent from Girmeler Cave.Differences in archaeological assemblages of faunalremains might be explained by differences in thestrategies of 9th millennium calBC communities. Thechipped stone assemblages of Central Anatolian siteswere dominated by obsidian and characterised bymicroliths. The chipped stone assemblage at Girme-ler Cave is different from that of the Central Anato-lian assemblages. Microliths are totally absent; flake-based technology is dominant. All these differencesmay show a different form of sedentism in South-western Anatolia.

Some dates from layer Ib1 at the Öküzini Cave fallinto the end of 9th millennium calBC, i.e. contempo-rary with Girmeler Cave. Layer Ib1 of the ÖküziniCave is described as a mixture of microlithic indus-tries with Neolithic elements, and may be assignedto the Aceramic Neolithic Period (Albrecht et al.1992). Despite the more or less contemporary dates,there are no identical similarities between the as-semblages of the two caves.

The end of the early phase of the Aegean Mesolithicalso dates around the end of the 9th millenniumcalBC. The available evidence from the semi-perma-nent settlements at Maroulas on Kythnos in the Cy-clades and Kerame I on Ikaria in the Dodecaneseboth show that the lithic industry of this period con-sisted of flake-based technology. Denticulated-not-ched forms, end-scrapers, perforators and archedbacked pieces were the most frequent chipped stonetools at these two sites (Sampson et al. 2012). Asmall scale excavation at Kerame I yielded no archi-tectural structures except hearths and several stonerings, while the remains of more than 30 stone cir-cular dwellings were found at Maroulas (Sampson

et al. 2010). The structures consist of small stonesplaced in an upright position on the periphery andflat slabs on the floor. Burials were recovered be-neath the floors of the circular dwellings or betweenthem. In the Aegean, the west trench in the Cyclo-pes Cave on Youra was dated to the middle of the9th millennium calBC. The lithic industry here is alsocharacterised by a flake technology in which flakedtools, end-scrapers, retouched flakes and notchedtools dominate (Sampson et al. 2008; Kaczanow-ska, Kozłowski 2008). Surface finds from Chalki inthe Dodecanese also suggest a similar chipped stoneindustry within the Aegean Mesolithic tradition, butthe presence of microblade technology and a morenumerous group of geometric and parageometricinserts makes this industry different. The chippedstone industry at Girmeler Cave bears general simi-larities with the Aegean Mesolithic, although toolssuch as blades with parallel lateral edges also findparallels in Neolithic contexts.

The late 8th millennium BC occupation: an EarlyPottery Neolithic sacred site?

Archaeological evidence for Early Pottery Neolithicat Girmeler Cave was mainly recovered from part ofthe mound that remained after destruction at themouth of Gallery I. The profile of the mound at themouth of Gallery I measures 20m in length andabout 1–1.5m in height. In the 2012 and 2013 sea-sons, two small trial trenches (B and D) were open-ed in this area to obtain a picture of the stratigraphyover the late 9th/early 8th millennium BC occupati-onal debris. In front of Gallery I, a number of super-imposed terrazzo floors were exposed in the section,along with parts of a building with a terrazzo floor

Fig. 4. Trench A with the remains of a late 9th/early 8th millenniumBC structure with a lime-plastered floor and related features suchas hearths, bins, basins, and postholes.


115

overlying them (Fig. 8). The examination of thesurviving parts of the standing walls suggests thatthis building was made of wattle-and-daub. The wallwas plastered on the inside and outside with fine la-yers of lime. The terrazzo floor of this building wasmade with lime and small stones with thickness vary-ing from 9cm to 12cm. A number of lumps of claywith impressions of split planks and twigs werefound among the structural debris over the terrazzofloors (Fig. 9).

The other terrazzo floors of underlying buildingswere cleaned in the 1x3m sized Trench D, whichwas opened to reach the bedrock. A total of nine su-perimposed layers of terrazzo floors and eight layersof burned debris were revealed. The first terrazzobuilding was formed directly on the stony virginsoil. It seems that when the building fell into dis-use, it was deliberately burned and another built

directly on top. The building wasprobably burned ritually and regu-larly in order to mark the end of the‘life’ of the structure. Almost all burn-ed debris contained scattered seeds,probably wheat, some of which stuckto the lime floors, apparently as partof a closing ritual. The last terrazzobuilding was destroyed by a naturaldisaster. Very large rocks fell ontothe building from the ceiling of thecave. Other terrazzo floors and burn-ed debris in the profile of the moundindicate that at least three additionalterrazzo buildings once lay at themouth of Gallery I.

Pottery is the most common artefactfound in this period. The bottom la-

yer yielded pottery typical of Bademagacı Early Neo-lithic I /9–8. The very oldest pottery at GirmelerCave is rare, consisting mainly of coarse, grit-tem-pered grey to black clay, with a reddish-brown sur-face colour. In the upper layers, red and black-slip-ped, fine-burnished pottery begin to appear. No de-coration is seen on the pottery. Medium to largedeep bowls with rounded sides predominate the as-semblage. The eastern-most surface of Gallery I andthe entrance to Gallery II (French 2008) yieldedLate Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic white-on-red andred-on-buff painted pottery, similar to those of theLake District region.

The chipped stone tools recovered from the EarlyNeolithic occupation were made from flint, althoughtwo obsidian tools of probably Melian origin werealso identified. The chipped stone technology differsfrom that of the late 9th/early 8th millennium BC

occupation. Typical artefact assemblages in-clude large blades. Grind stone tools, espe-cially large saddle querns and pestles, alsoexisted. A full-grooved stone fishnet sinkerwas also discovered.

As mentioned above, the remains of themound at the mouth of Gallery I are form-ed of buildings with terrazzo floors. Terraz-zo floors were constructed of burnt limeand crushed limestone and were polished.The embedded crushed limestone givesthese terrazzo floors a slightly mottled ap-pearance. The earliest known lime plasterpyrotechnology dates to c. 12 000 calBC inthe Levant, although floors made of lime

Fig.5. Trench C with a late 9th/early 8th millennium BC burial incontracted position.

Fig. 6. Late 9th/early 8th millennium BC flint artefacts fromTrenches A and C.


116

plaster are not recorded in the Mid-dle East until c. 9000 calBC (Kin-gery et al. 1988). Buildings with ter-razzo floors are generally associatedwith special buildings in the Ace-ramic period of Southeastern Tur-key (e.g., Göbeklitepe, Çayönü, andNevali Çori), and also from Acera-mic Central Anatolia (c. 8500–6600calBC). Both Terrazzo Building T atAsıklı Höyük and Terrazzo BuildingA at Musular have been interpretedas special buildings where ritual ac-tivities might have taken place (Du-ru, Özbasaran 2005.26). Buildingswith terrazzo floors also existedaround 7000 calBC at Early Neoli-thic settlements in the Lake District,including Hacılar and Bademagacı (Duru 2012). Spe-cial buildings marked by their red-coloured limeplastered floors were also found in Ulucak, WesternAnatolia, c. 7000 calBC (Çilingiroglu et al. 2012).It is possible that the buildings with terrazzo floorsat Girmeler Cave might have been more or less con-temporary with those of the Lake District. A singleradiocarbon date (KIA-44211) recovered from thisarea in the trial trenches of 2011 provided a datearound 7460–7070 calBC (Becks, Polat-Becks 2013.166).

The terrazzo buildings identified at the mouth of Gal-lery I at Girmeler Cave might have also been usedfor ritual and ceremonial purposes. Caves are notonly physical geographic landmarks, but also part ofthe very structure of the spirit world. They are thedwellings of deities, a place where one can pass from

one cosmic zone to another (Duerr 1985). Cavesmay also symbolise the dead and the underworld,the womb, childbearing and new life. Although usual-ly portrayed as terrifying, dangerous or unpredict-able places, caves appear in many myths as sourcesof growth, life and rebirth. They were probably sa-cred meeting centres in the Neolithic Period.

Concluding remarks

Girmeler Cave is one of the first extant early seden-tary sites with a subsistence based mainly on inten-sive hunting and gathering in SW Turkey. The diffe-rences between the archaeological assemblages offaunal remains and the chipped stone tool produc-tion at Girmeler Cave and other sites of this period,such as in the Lake District, Central Anatolia, and theAegean islands, show that sedentism developed

along quite different paths in SWTurkey. The Early Pottery Neolithicperiod at Girmeler Cave, on theother hand, is characterised by buil-dings with terrazzo floors at the en-trance to Gallery I, indicating thatthese buildings might have had sa-cred functions. The Early PotteryNeolithic culture identified at Girme-ler Cave more or less shared thesame cultural tradition to which thecultures of the Lakes District also be-longed in this period. Whether a hia-tus occurred between the late 9th/early 8th millennium BC occupationdating between 8200 and 7900 calBCand Early Pottery Neolithic occupa-tion dating around late 8th millenni-

Fig. 7. Late 9th/early 8th millennium BC bone objects from TrenchesA and C: (a-e) awls, (f) part of a bevel-ended tool, (g) tip of a round-ended tool, (h-j) fragments of pendants with holes for suspension.

Fig. 8. Trench D and the remains of buildings with terrazzo floorsrepresenting early pottery Neolithic at the preserved edge of themound at the mouth of Gallery I.


117

um BC is difficult to estimate with certainty due tothe extensive destruction at the site and the natureof the topography, which slopes down from east towest. However, the horizontal association of sectionsof four trial trenches indicates that the late 9th/early8th millennium calBC occupation unearthed at Trench

A constitutes the lowest layer. Although re-mains representing Early Pottery Neolithicoccupation are absent above Trench A be-cause they were moved away during the de-struction of the mound, a deposit of some0.80m thick grey-brown silt overlying thelate 9th/early 8th millennium calBC occu-pation is observable here. It is also clearfrom Trench D that the Early Pottery Neoli-thic occupation rested on bedrock, as theground level in this part is higher than inthe western part. This indicates that not allparts at the front of the cave were used inthe late 9th/early 8th millennium calBC. Thedifferences in the material assemblages ofthe late 9th/early 8th millennium calBC andEarly Pottery Neolithic occupations also con-

firm that a hiatus existed between these two periods.Therefore, the new data from Girmeler Cave shedssome light on aspects of culture and subsistence attwo different, crucial cultural stages of SW Turkey,which has long been considered void of human occu-pation during the Neolithic and pre-Neolithic periods.

This project was conducted with the financial support of the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBITAK Project no:11K227). We are grateful to Levent Atıcı, who undertook the preliminary analysis of animal bones from the site.Our thanks are also due to Denis Guilbeau, Nurcan Kayacan, and Çiler Algül for sharing their thoughts on thechipped stone assemblage from Girmeler Cave. Thanks are also due to Gülnaz Acar and Abdülkadir Özdemir fortheir contributions during the fieldwork and A. Onur Bamyacı and Çilem Yavsan for their help in preparing theillustrations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Fig. 9. Lumps of clay with impressions of split planks andtwigs found in occupational debris just above the terrazzofloors.

Albrecht G., Albrecht B., Berke H., Burger D., Moser J.,Rähle W., Schoch W., Storch G., Uerpmann H.-P. and Ur-ban B. 1992. Late Pleistocene And Early Holocene Findsfrom Öküzini: A Contribution of the Settlement History ofthe Bay of Antalya, Turkey. Paléorient 18(2): 23–141.

Baird D. 2012. Pınarbası: From Epi-Paleolithic camp siteto Sedentarising Village in central Anatolia. In M. Özdo-gan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic inTurkey. Central Turkey. Vol. 3. Archaeology & Art Publi-cations. Istanbul: 181–218.

Baird D., Fairbrain A., Martin L. and Middleton C. 2012.The Boncuklu Project: The origins of Sedentism, Cultiva-tion and Herding in Central Anatolia. In M. Özdogan, N.Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey.Central Turkey. Vol. 3. Archaeology & Art Publications.Istanbul: 219–244.

Becks R., Polat-Becks A. 2013. Girmeler Magarası: Lykia’da bir Kalkolitik dönem yerlesimi. Mehmet Akif ErsoyÜniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 8: 166–183.

Çilingiroglu A., Çevik Ö. and Çilingiroglu Ç. 2012. UlucakHöyük: Towards Understanding the Early Farming Com-munities of Middle West Anatolia; Contribution of Ulucak.In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neo-lithic in Turkey. Central Turkey. Vol. 3. Archaeology &Art Publications. Istanbul: 139–175.

Duerr H. P. 1985. Dreamtime: Concerning the Boundarybetween Wilderness and Civilization. Blackwell Publish-ing. Oxford.

Duru R. 2012. The Neolithic of the Lakes Region. In M. Öz-dogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic inTurkey. Central Turkey. Vol. 3. Archaeology & Art Publi-cations. Istanbul: 1–65.

References

∴∴


118

Duru G., Özbasaran M. 2005. A non-domestic site in Cen-tral Anatolia. Anatolia Antiqua 13: 15–28.

French D. 2008. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pot-tery of southwest Anatolia. In H. Erkanal, H. Hauptmann,V. Sahoglu and R. Tuncel (eds.), The Aegean in the Neo-lithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. AnkaraUniversity Press. Ankara: 197–202.

Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K. 2008. Chipped stone ar-tefacts. In A. Sampson (ed.), The Cave of Cyclops. Vol., In-tra-Site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Di-stribution. INSTAP Academic Press. Philadelphia: 169–178.

Kingery W. D., Vandiver P. B. and Prickett M. 1988. Thebeginnings of pyrotechnology, Part II: production and useof lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery NeolithicNear East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 219–240.

Korkut T. 2013. Die Ausgrabungen in Tlos. In P. Brun, L.Cavalier, K. Konuk and F. Prost (eds.), Euploia: La Lycieet la Carie antiques. Dynamiques des territoires, échan-ges et identités. Ausionius. Bordeaux: 333–344.

Köktürk H. 2000. New lights on prehistoric Lycia: Findsfrom Girmeler Cave near Tlos. Lykia 3: 39–45.

Özbasaran M. 2012. Asıklı. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelenand P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. Central Tur-key. Vol. 3. Archaeology & Art Publications. Istanbul: 135–158.

Sampson A., Kozłowski J. and Kaczanowska K. M. 2008.Mesolithic chipped stone industries from the Cave of Cy-clope on the island of Youra (Northen Sporades). In N.Galanidou and C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek MesolithicProblems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Stu-dies 10. British School at Athens. Athens: 123–130.

Sampson A., Kaczanowska M. and Kozłowski J. K. 2010.The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Gre-ece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas. PolishAcademy of Arts and Sciences. University of the Aegean.Krakow.

2012. Mesolithic Occupations and Environments on theIsland of Ikaria, Aegean, Greece. Folia Quaternaria 80(1): 5–86.

"Archaeological Evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey."...

Documents

Transcript of "Archaeological Evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey."...