Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros48-1RecensionsMakoto Arimura – The Neolithic Li...

Recensions

Makoto Arimura – The Neolithic Lithic Industry at Tell Ain El-Kerkh

Ferran Borrell
p. 201-206
Référence(s) :

Makoto Arimura 2020. The Neolithic Lithic Industry at Tell Ain El-Kerkh. Oxford: Archaeopress, 388p.

Texte intégral

1This book studies, interprets, and contextualizes within the Neolithisation process in the Near East the large assemblage of flint artefacts from Tell Ain El-Kerkh, a key Neolithic site in northwest Syria displaying a unique chronological sequence from the Early PPNB to the end of the Pottery Neolithic (ca. 8500-6200 cal. BC). Published by Archaeopress, it forms part of the Al-Shark series (University of Tsukuba: Studies for West Asian Archaeology), which is edited by Akira Tsuneki and Jamal Hydar. This monograph is, as the author honestly explains in the initial Acknowledgements section, largely based on the English translation of his doctoral dissertation presented at the Université Lumière Lyon 2 in 2007, and most of it has not been updated since then. Despite being a relatively outdated study, which could be critical in other cases, for different reasons (very thorough and in-depth study, long-term experience of the author and the projects he has taken part in, less research and new data from the study region since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2010), this does not seem to significantly affect the interest, validity and robustness of the results and interpretations the author presents in the book.

2The first thing that might be said about the monograph is that it has been produced in a traditional style and is far from being a mere report on the lithics that would only be of interest to a relatively limited group of specialists. From the beginning, it is clear that the author has endeavoured to extract the maximum information from the study of the production of flint tools at Ain El-Kerkh (and some other sites he has also researched) in order to contribute to a better understanding of the Neolithisation process in the northern Levant during the PPNB and PN periods. This is a key area to assess the origins and spread of agricultural systems in Southwest Asia.

3The monograph is organised in six chapters: introduction to the geographical and archaeological framework of Neolithisation in the Levant, and the Rouj basin (north-western Syria) in particular (Chapter I), methodology of analysis (Chapter II), results of the study (Chapter III), comparison and contextualization with other contemporary sites the author himself has studied (Chapter IV) and other sites (Chapter V). The last chapter presents the general conclusions of the research (Chapter VI).

4In the first chapter the author rapidly introduces a series of basic aspects of the region (northern Levant) such as the geography, current vegetation, chronological framework, the different periodisations and cultural phases of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and early Pottery Neolithic (for the region and by sub-regions), the main cultural developments and most characteristic aspects of the material culture of each period and, finally, the main sites involved. This chapter is good and very useful for the reader to rapidly understand the context into which the following study will be integrated. Even though all the aspects have to be presented very briefly, there are some relevant omissions (e.g. Akarçay Tepe is not mentioned as Middle/Late PPNB and Nevalı Çori only as an Early PPNB site and not as Middle PPNB). One relatively controversial aspect of this introduction, which has consequences in the subsequent chapters, is that the author includes the sites of Mureybet, Halula and Abu Hureyra as Middle PPNB (ca. 8200-7600 cal. BCE) in the middle Euphrates valley. This information is not wrong but a bit tricky because the author does not mention, either here or in other chapters, that data for this time in the Middle PPNB is very limited and does not cover the whole period. For instance, evidence from Mureybet IVB comes from a 16 m2 excavation area and, secondly, the Middle PPNB occupations of Halula, Abu Hureyra (I would even include Akarçay) are restricted to the barely exposed and excavated basal layers of those sites, which are dated to the very end of the Middle PPNB (7800-7600 cal. BC). Therefore, they are not related to what we mostly know and has been published about these sites, which corresponds to their Late PPNB (7600-7000 cal. BC) occupations. A minor typo mistake is found in the chronology of the PN (Period 5) in fig. 1.13. After that, the author continues the introduction with a much more detailed summary of archaeological research in the Rouj basin and, in particular, the excavations at Tell Ain el-Kerkh (1997-2002). This part is particularly detailed and evidences the long term goals achieved after decades of excellent research by Japanese teams in this part of Syria and in particular at the site of Tell el-Kerkh, formed by Ain el-Kerkh, Kerkh 1 and Kerkh 2, and other nearby Neolithic sites, which among other things has even resulted in a particular chronological periodisation of the PPNB and PN (Rouj 1a to Rouj 2d).

5Chapter II is a detailed compendium of the methodological framework the author has used to study the flint assemblage from Ain el-Kerkh. This part, characteristic of a PhD thesis, is very important and welcome here for the reader to fully understand the parameters, categories and features the author has used to analyse the lithic assemblage and reconstruct the production process/es of lithic artefacts at Ain el-Kerkh. The precise and clear description of the terms and features the author is considering eliminate any kind of confusion or misunderstanding during the subsequent study. This is particularly important, for example, concerning the term Naviform, which has often been misused as synonymous with bidirectional blade technology, when in fact it is not. The term was originally coined to refer to the shape of some bidirectional blade cores whose backs were fashioned by bifacial flaking that formed a crest (shaped like a ship’s keel; Cauvin 1968). The author is very precise in the use of this and other terms, many of which are also accompanied by clear drawings and schemes, showing the influence of the seminal works on bidirectional blade technology by F. Abbès (2003) and Y. Nishiaki (1994, 2000).

6The third chapter constitutes the core of the analysis, a little over 100 pages long with a multitude of data, charts, pictures and drawings. The author presents, step by step, the results of the analysis of the flint artefacts from Sector D at Tell Ain el-Kerkh, an assemblage that covers a chronological time span from the Early PPNB (Rouj 1a period) to the PN (Rouj 2a/2b periods) that was excavated during 1998-2002. All the results are clearly and meticulously presented and supported by a large number of figures and charts. The first pages are devoted to describing macroscopically the different flint types exploited at the site; although the sources of most of them remain unknown to date which hinders a full reconstruction of the raw material procurement strategies at the site. After that, the author presents the techno-typological study of the assemblage following the chrono-cultural periodisation established for the sub-region: Rouj 1a (Early PPNB, layers 10 to 7), Rouj 1c (Late PPNB, layer 6), Rouj 1c (also Late PPNB, layers 5 to 3), Rouj 2a/2b (early PN) and Rouj 2d (PN). The author suggests that layer 6 could be attributed to the Middle PPNB. However, 14C dates on page 22 indicate that this layer is dated to the second half of the 8th millennium cal. BC, and is thus Late PPNB. This is important because there seems to be an occupational gap at the site (and in the sub-region) during the Middle PPNB which, interestingly, has also been observed in other sub-regions of the northern Levant such as the middle Euphrates valley (Borrell et al. 2015). In this chapter the author reconstructs the ‘lithic strategy’ in each of the above mentioned chrono-cultural periods. From the many data and results presented in this chapter, the most significant points could be:

  1. the Early PPNB (Rouj 1a) occupation of the site (as far as I know still the best, maybe the only, evidence of occupation during the period in the Rouj basin), which is dominated by Bidirectional Blade Technology (BBT),
  2. the coexistence during the Late PPNB of BBT and unidirectional blade exploitation of prismatic cores to produce very long and regular (but curved) blades by pressure and/or indirect percussion; a new technology strongly correlated during the Late PPNB with the production of standardized sickle elements,
  3. the continuity of blade production (both unidirectional and bidirectional) during the early stages of the PN (Dark Faced Burnished Ware series, Rouj 2a/2b, ca. 7000-6600 cal. BC),
  4. the decline of BBT during the Rouj 2c period and the abandonment of all types of blade production in the Rouj 2d period.

7It is also very interesting to see the nicely marked evolution of the projectiles (types, measurements, raw materials used, type of retouch) and sickle elements produced at the site and the curious presence of deposits of unidirectional blades during the Late PPNB.

8In Chapter IV the author contextualizes and compares the assemblage from Tell Ain el-Kerkh with those from other excavated (Kerkh 2, Ain Dara III) or surveyed (Slenfe, Tell Riz, Qastun and Ain Dara III) Neolithic sites in northwestern Syria (and Dja’de in the middle Euphrates valley), which he also had the opportunity to study. The presentation of the results is, despite the obvious space limitations, quite detailed and stimulating mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the results presented from the surveyed sites had never been published before and despite being limited in size, the three assemblages are very interesting and complement the core study at Ain el-Kerkh very well. Secondly, through this first hand contextualization with nearby contemporary sites (with the exception of Dja’de), the author has been able to characterize the evolution of lithic production in the Rouj basin and, additionally, north-western Syria, from the Early PPNB to the advanced Pottery Neolithic. In addition, this chapter also includes an excellent detailed summary of the lithics from Dja’de (Early PPNB) that had been studied by the author. This is a plus and it is used by the author to establish a first comparison between the lithics from north-western Syria and the Middle Euphrates valley during the Early PPNB.

9Chapter V is devoted to contextualizing and comparing, period by period (Early, Middle, Late PPNB and early PN), the evolution of lithic production in north-western Syria with that of other sub-regions of the northern Levant, basically the Middle Euphrates valley and south-east Anatolia (I would rather say upper Euphrates and Tigris valleys to avoid any confusions). The author summarizes the most characteristic features of lithic production at the sites to achieve a general idea of how it evolved in each sub-region and period. This is a major task and very useful for readers to obtain a general understanding of the main traits of lithic production in the sub-regions, which interestingly show important similarities but also remarkable differences. At this point, it has to be said that this part of the book suffers significantly from the lack of updated bibliography, and it loses the accuracy the author had mastered in the study of the lithic assemblages. This lack of accuracy, mostly related to the outdated literature, was very obvious to me in the case of the sites I have personally studied (Halula and Akarçay, the latter only mentioned in the Hayaz Höyük sub-section) (Molist 2013; Borrell 2007a, 2011a, 2015; Borrell and Stefanisko 2016), but also evident in such other cases as Mureybet (Abbès 2007; Ibáñez 2008), Sabi Abyad (Astruc 2004) or Çayönü (Binder 2008). In addition, some other sites are well cited but mainly because nothing significant (at least concerning the lithics) has been published for decades; this is the case of Bouqras, Abu Hureyra, Hayaz, Kumartepe, Cafer Höyük, Boy Tepe, etc. Another debatable aspect, as already noted above, is the risk of including, without a previous reflexion, Abu Hureyra 2A and Halula as Middle PPNB sites (8200-7600 cal. BC). It is true that, for example, Halula has repeatedly been considered and published as a Middle PPNB site but taking into consideration the range of 14C dates recently published (Molist 2013), only the basal layers of the site (a small surface with no architecture) correspond to the very final stages of the Middle PPNB (ca. 7800-7600 cal. BC). The situation of Abu Hureyra 2A seems to be similar. Accordingly, these final Middle PPNB layers at Halula and Abu Hureyra, the lithics of which are barely known or characterised, were not contemporary with Mureybet IVB (if I’m not wrong, dated to the early stages of the Middle PPNB). This chronological décalage between these sites is important because it is indicating first, that there was an occupational gap of a few centuries in the Middle Euphrates valley around 8000 cal. BC, as recently published (Borrell et al. 2015), and secondly it could be the reason (chronological) to explain the important differences observed (and mentioned by the author) in lithic technology between Mureybet IVB and ‘Middle PPNB’ Halula and Abu Hureyra. All in all, this chapter is useful but clearly outdated, which will affect some of the interpretations presented in the following chapter. Readers should take these with certain caution and I would recommend looking for the original sources and recent publications, which in some cases are abundant.

10The last 20 pages of the manuscript correspond to the General Conclusions. Chapter VI starts with the author presenting a synthesis of the development of Neolithic lithic industries in the northern Levant, which is a summary of the previous chapter and, accordingly, the same inaccuracies appear here again. This section is followed by reflections on lithic production during the PPNB in the northern Levant in a socioeconomic context, and followed by two more final sections where the emergence and diffusion of PPNB culture and its “collapse” are discussed. The first section of this chapter is, like the previous one, interesting in the way it presents the reader with the broader picture concerning the evolution of lithic production in the northern Levant during the PPNB and PN and because it also includes some parts that are more interpretative and not only descriptive. It is well written and generally well documented, with some parts, more than others, suffering from the lack of updated bibliography. The part dealing with the Early PPNB is fine, while I have already mentioned the problem of the part on the Middle PPNB: very little evidence about the Middle PPNB in the middle Euphrates, limited to the early and final stages of this period when the 14C dates available are considered. This occupational gap in the middle Euphrates valley is, interestingly, also observed at the site of Ain el-Kerkh, where no 14C dates correspond to the Middle PPNB. During the Late PPNB the author, based on the differences observed in lithic production, distinguishes between two groups of sites: the Western Group (from Çayonü and Cafer to Ain el-Kerkh and Ras Shamra in the coast, passing through Akarçay) and the Eastern Group (from Halula to Bouqras and the Balikh valley). The main difference between them in terms of lithic technology is that in the former group of sites, BBT coexisted with the production of unidirectional blades from prismatic cores using pressure and/or indirect percussion techniques, as was proposed after the excavations at Akarçay (Borrell 2007b). In the latter group of sites, on the contrary, blade production was exclusively restricted to BBT. In addition, in the Eastern Group a new variant of BBT is documented, termed ‘Douara method’ in the Douara basin (Nishiaki 1994) and more recently ‘off-set bidirectional strategy’, though not mentioned by the author, after it was identified and well dated at Halula (Borrell 2011b). The author also considers that the evolution in lithic production at these two groups of sites was different during the Pottery Neolithic (first half of the 7th millennium). The sites that formed the Western Group (with minor changes and now termed group 1) are characterised by continuity in the tradition of lithic production from the Late PPNB, while in the sites that formed the Eastern Group a marked decrease in BBT is reported. This is basically true and thanks to the author’s research we now know that the sites located in the Rouj basin do not seem to have followed the same evolution towards flake-oriented production, as observed in the Euphrates and Balikh valley sites during the PN. However, I have to disagree with the author about including Akarçay in group 1, as the study of the lithics clearly showed an important shift in lithic production during the early stages of the PN (Borrell 2011a, Borrell 2015) and accordingly, it should be included in group 2, with the rest of the middle Euphrates sites. The second section of the chapter is devoted to summarizing and illustrating with good drawings and diagrams, first the origins and diffusion of BBT, which is to be considered the most characteristic element of the PPNB lithic industries throughout the northern Levant, and, second, the origins and diffusion of unidirectional blade technology (prismatic cores detached by indirect percussion or pressure technique/s) from the Upper Tigris and Euphrates regions to the Rouj basin and the coast of Syria. In addition, the author suggests distinguishing between sites (again, Western Group and Eastern Group) as regards the design of sickles, with oblique (Eastern Group) and parallel hafting (Western Group). In general terms, both sub-sections are correct although important papers devoted to this debate are missing (e.g. Quintero and Wilke 1995; Astruc 2004; Quintero 2010; Borrell 2011c, 2017; Astruc et al. 2012) and could have enriched the discussion at regional and supra-regional scales. One point I tend to disagree with is the clear distinction the author makes between sites with sickles with oblique or parallel hafting during the Late PPNB and early PN. In my opinion, the phenomenon is more complex than that and the possibility of intra-site changes during the period should be considered. For instance, the reconstructed sickle from the Late PPNB layers at Halula, which has been included in the group of sites with oblique hafting, had its four elements inserted parallel to the haft (Borrell and Molist 2007). However, it is also true that at the very end of the Late PPNB, sickle elements with oblique gloss started to appear at the site. Thus, I assume that to obtain a complete and better understanding of sickle production in the region during the Late PPN and PN, the possibility of changes during this short period should be considered, as well as the possibility of coexistence of both hafting methods (oblique and parallel) at some sites during a certain time. The final sub-sections discuss the emergence, diffusion and collapse of the PPNB culture, emphasising the data and results generated through the long-term research at Tell el-Kerkh (I assume the author refers to the different Kerkh sites). These have produced important novelties, such as the diffusion of the PPNB culture to the Rouj basin during the Early PPNB or the different evolution of lithic production in the el Rouj basin during the PN compared with neighbouring regions such as the middle Euphrates valley. These final pages of the monograph are quite interpretative. Although they again suffer from few citations that are not updated, in general terms, given the fact that the academic debate about the causes of both the origins and the collapse of the PPNB culture has not been as vibrant and fruitful in recent years as in the past, these final lines illustrate quite well the different hypotheses, interpretations and opinions that have been put forward about those two major topics.

11The manuscript is followed by over 120 pages full of drawings of lithic artefacts from most, if not all, of the sites described throughout the book. Accordingly, there are a large number of drawings for Ain El-Kerkh but also for other sites the author has studied (Qastun, Slenfe, Tell Riz, Tell el-Kerkh 2, Ain Dara III, Dja’de) and other locations (Bouqras, Kumartepe, Çayönü, etc.). This part of the book is, in my opinion, very positive and makes it stand out from similar publications. I totally agree with the author that it is crucial for a lithic analyst to show and prove the most significant aspects of the results of the study via drawings and diagrams, in addition to photos. Drawings are indispensable to illustrate, show and prove what is said in the text. While photos can be a nice complement in many aspects (for example, to show the characteristics of the raw materials used) they are never a substitute for drawings. A photo (or 3D scan) lacks interpretation; it is a totally ‘aseptic’ presentation of an artefact. A drawing is an interpretation that results from the study and complete understanding of an artefact, full of information. It is sad to see how the number of lithic publications without drawings has increased dramatically, undoubtedly because drawings are seen by some colleagues as time consuming and the result of a long learning process that is not worth the time and the expertise of analysis it requires; expertise that too often is lacking in some lithic papers that exclusively use photos or 3D scans. The hard truth is that a drawing (whether nicely-drawn or relatively crude) can, if wrong, easily reveal that the author doesn’t understand what he is studying or interpreting, while a photo or a 3D scan won’t. However, that is not the case here: plenty of excellent drawings demonstrate and help to follow up the detailed analyses of the lithics in this book. This is also the result of combining two schools of analysis of lithic artefacts the author has trained in (French and Japanese), which have traditionally emphasised accurate analyses and the use of drawings as a major tool to understand, show, prove and teach about the techno-typological features of lithic production.

12In conclusion, this is a very good, easy to read and well-illustrated book and, in many aspects, also very educational for anybody interested in learning how to undertake a very detailed and thorough lithic techno-typological analysis. Results and interpretations are well presented and based on solid data, always exquisitely demonstrated and accompanied with illustrations. Contextualization is good and there is no doubt about the author’s knowledge and long experience in the region, despite some minor problems mostly owing to the outdated literature used. Given the chronology and topics involved in the study, the book is of interest not only to lithic specialists but also academics working or interested in the origins of agricultural systems in the Near East. Finally, as further reading about the el-Kerkh sites, a new book on the Neolithic cemetery at Tell el-Kerkh has been edited by A. Tsuneki et al. (2022) and also published by Archaeopress.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abbès F. 2003 – Les outillages néolithiques en Syrie du Nord. Méthode de débitage et gestion laminaire durant le PPNB. Oxford : BAR Publishing (International Series 1150), 235p.

Abbès F. 2007 – Les débitages laminaires de la fin du PPNA (Jerf el Ahmar, Mureybet, Cheikh Hassan). In: Astruc L., Binder D. and Briois F. (eds), Systèmes techniques et communautés du néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient: 127-136. Antibes: Éditions APDCA.

Astruc L. 2004 – Des pointes de flèche aux faucilles. Mutations économiques et sociales au VIIe millénaire av. J.-C. : l’exemple de la vallée du Balikh (Syrie du Nord). Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 18: 69-77.

Astruc L., Ben Takaya M. and Torchy L. 2012 – De l’efficacité des faucilles néolithiques au Proche-Orient : approche expérimentale: Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 109,4: 671-687.

Binder D. 2008 – Technologie lithique et comportement social dans le PPN de Çayönü tepesi (Turquie). Paléorient 34,1: 5-21.

Borrell F. 2007a – From PPNB to PN: Chipped Stone Industries of the Middle Euphrates Valley. New Data, New Interpretations. Neo-Lithics 1,07: 33-37.

Borrell F. 2007b – Single platform blade knapping in the middle Euphrates valley during the mid VIIIth millennium cal. B.C. Anatolia Antiqua 15: 1-16.

Borrell F. 2011a – Changes in chipped stone industries in south-eastern Anatolia: Akarçay Tepe (7600-6800 cal. B.C.). Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment (SENEPSE) 13: 213-226.

Borrell F. 2011b – Knapping methods and techniques at Tell Halula (middle Euphrates valley), during the mid VIIIth millennium cal. B.C Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment (SENEPSE) 13: 291-303.

Borrell F. 2011c – Bi-directional Neolithic Blade Technology in the Northern Levant During the 7-8th Millennia CAL B.C: New Insights from Mamarrul Nasr 2, Syria, Journal of Field Archaeology 36,2: 132-150

Borrell F. 2015 – Further remarks about lithic production at Akarçay Tepe (middle Euphrates valley) during the Late PPNB. BAR International Series 2698: 265-277.

Borrell F. 2017 – La technologie de débitage laminaire bipolaire au Proche-Orient durant le Néolithique précéramique B (PPNB). Journal of Lithic Studies 4,2: 129-161.

Borrell F. and Molist M. 2007 – Projectile Points, Sickle Blades and Glossed Points: Tools and Hafting Systems in Tell Halula (Syria) during the mid 8th millennium cal. B.C. Paléorient 33,2: 59-78.

Borrell F., Junno A. and Barceló J.A. 2015 – Synchronous Environmental and Cultural Change in the Emergence of Agricultural Economies 10,000 Years Ago in the Levant. PLoS ONE 10,8. e0134810. doi:10.1371/journal.pone

Cauvin J. 1968 – Les outillages néolithiques de Byblos et du littoral libanais. Fouilles de Byblos, tome IV. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 360p.

Ibáñez J. J. (ed.) 2008 – Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du Nord). Oxford: BAR Publishing (International Series 1843).

Molist M. (coord.) 2013 – Tell Halula: un poblado de los primeros agricultores en el valle del Éufrates: 144-162. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

Nishiaki Y. 1994 – The naviform method at Douara Cave II, Palmyra, Syria. SENEPSE 1: 363-378.

Nishiaki Y. 2000 – Lithic Technology of Neolithic Syria. Oxford: BAR Publishing (International Series 840), 241p.

Quintero L. 2010 – Evolution of Lithic Economies in the Levantine Neolithic. Development and Demise of Naviform Core Technology as Seen at ‘Ain Ghazal. ‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports, vol. II. Berlin: ex oriente (Bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis), Berlin, 184 p.

Quintero L. A. and Wilke P. J. 1995 – Evolution and Economic Significance of Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 21,1: 17-33.

Tsuneki A., Hironaga N. and Jammo S. (eds.) 2022 – Excavation Reports of Tell el-Kerkh, Northwestern Syria, vol. II: The Neolithic Cemetery at Tell el-Kerkh. Oxford: Archaeopress (Studies for West Asian Archaeology, AL-SHARK 5).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Ferran Borrell, « Makoto Arimura – The Neolithic Lithic Industry at Tell Ain El-Kerkh »Paléorient, 48-1 | -1, 201-206.

Référence électronique

Ferran Borrell, « Makoto Arimura – The Neolithic Lithic Industry at Tell Ain El-Kerkh »Paléorient [En ligne], 48-1 | 2022, mis en ligne le 02 août 2022, consulté le 11 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1827 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.1827

Haut de page

Auteur

Ferran Borrell

Institución Milá y Fontanals de investigación en Humanidades (IMF), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Barcelona, Spain | ferran.borrell@imf.csic.es

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search