Chap. 1
Klimonas and the continental PPNA: small pieces of a larger issue
Klimonas et le PPNA continental : éléments d’une problématique
p. 17-22
Résumés
This chapter briefly traces the history of our archaeological knowledge on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus since the Swedish missions of the early 20th century, and reports on the state of knowledge for this period at the time of the discovery of Klimonas in 2009. Together with Asprokremnos, Klimonas offers the first opportunity to document the long period between the Epipaleolithic of Aetokremnos and the Early PPNB of Shillourokambos, between 10,500 and 8500 cal BC, which has only recently been discovered. The second part of the chapter recalls the main characteristics of the continental PPNA, especially the late episode of this phase, and summarises the questions raised by the discovery of Klimonas and the unprecedented presence of the PPNA in Cyprus, at the time of their discovery.
Ce chapitre retrace brièvement l’histoire des connaissances archéologiques sur le Néolithique pré-céramique chypriote depuis les missions suédoises du début du XXe siècle, et fait état de l’état des connaissances sur cette période au moment de la découverte du site de Klimonas, en 2009. La seconde partie du chapitre rappelle les grandes caractéristiques du PPNA continental et récapitule les questions que suscitaient la découverte de Klimonas et la présence inédite du PPNA à Chypre.
Texte intégral
1The questions posed by the Klimonas, one of the first agricultural villages in Cyprus, revolve around two essential axes: the insertion of this site in the context of the Cypriot Pre-Pottery Neolithic, and the part played by continental PPNA influxes in its constitution.
1. Klimonas and the Pre‑Pottery Neolithic of Cyprus: a historiographical perspective
2Excavations at Klimonas, a site attributable to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), are part of a dual research trajectory in Cyprus and on the neighbouring continent. In Cyprus, the recognition of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A is relatively recent and only two sites have been identified and studied in recent years: Klimonas (Ayios Tychonas) and Asprokremnos (Ayia Varvara; Vigne et al. 2017b, McCartney 2017).
3The work revealing the earliest phase of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic is itself part of a framework of investigations spanning almost a century. In sum, the first research into the Pre-Pottery Neolithic was undertaken by the Swedish Archaeological Mission on the sites of Phrenaros, in the southwest of the island, and on the islet of Petra Tou Limniti (fig. 1-1), on the northwest coast (Gjerstad 1926, 1934). However, the existence of an original Pre-Pottery Neolithic on the island was only fully demonstrated by the excavations of P. Dikaios on the settlement of Khirokitia, between 1936 and 1946. That author produced a fine monograph published in 1953 by Oxford University Press, revealing a cluster of circular “houses” and abundant archaeological documentation that formed the first basis for studies on the Cypriot Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Dikaios 1953). His interpretations of a village with “domed” dwellings (later recognised as flat--roofed), crossed by a “road” (later interpreted as an enclosure linked to the first enclosure of the site, with a second enclosure subsequently revealing an extension of the village on the western front) were somewhat more speculative. Between 1970 and 1973, A. Le Brun (1981) studied the site of Cap Andreas Kastros, on the -north-eastern extremity of the island, before resuming, following the Turkish invasion, excavations at Khirokitia, which continued during several seasons. The results of these excavations gave rise to several publications (Le Brun 1984, 1989, 1994, 2021). Around the same time, between 1976 and 1979, and again in 1984, I. Todd undertook excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta, for which a first -publication appeared in 1987 (Todd 1987).
4A good synopsis of this research can be found in an article by Le Brun et al. (1987), highlighting the ensuing ambiguity: on the one hand, the probable continental origin of imported plant and animal domestic species, and on the other hand, the original identity of the cultural traits manifested by the Cypriot sites, which did not seem to owe much to a clearly recognised continental stock (on this subject, see also Cauvin 1994). This debate was all the more confused as the forty or so 14C dates available at that time, often with large standard deviations, tended to place this Pre-Pottery Neolithic at a rather late stage in comparison with dates from Levantine sites.
5However, research at the Shillourokambos (Parekklisha) site, which began in 1991 and continued until 2004, completely changed this perspective. This settlement was occupied in several phases between 8500 and 7000 cal BC and proved to be contemporaneous with the various stages of the continental PPNB, aligning the different phases of Levantine Neolithisation with those observed in Cyprus (Guilaine et al. 2011, 2021). In addition to the age of the Neolithic on the island, the site established early links between the Levant and Cyprus, while the culture of Khirokitia only appeared as an island epiphenomenon during the 7th millennium. The data from Shillourokambos were also confirmed by other sites: Mylouthkia where the fills of two wells (116 and 133) were respectively referring to the Early Phase A and the Late Phase of Shillourokambos (Peltenburg et al. 2000, Peltenburg 2003), and Tenta, which was re-evaluated and correlated to certain stages of the 9th and 8th millennia (Todd 2003). On the other hand, research carried out on the Akanthou settlement, on the northern coast of the island, revealed the existence of an 8th-millennium “landing site”, through which several thousand pieces of obsidian were transferred to Cyprus from the volcanic deposits of Cappadocia (Şevtekoğlu 2006).
6These advances pushed back the establishment of the agricultural economy in Cyprus to the middle of the 9th millennium BC, but nonetheless left the question of a possible neolithisation of the island prior to this time unresolved. Why was Cyprus not approached even earlier by mainlanders during the PPNA phase recognised in the Levant? This question was all the more relevant as an Epipaleolithic human presence had been identified at the site of Aetokremnos-Akrotiri, on the southern extremity of the island, and dated to around 10,500 cal BC (Simmons 1999, Zazzo et al. 2015), meaning that hunter-fisher-gatherers were already frequenting Cyprus several centuries before the first blossoming of Shillourokambos. An enigmatic hiatus was thus interleaved between the Epipaleolithic of Aetokremnos and the early PPNB. The excavations of Klimonas, which partly bridge this gap, provide a constructive answer to this question and write a new page in Cypriot archaeology.
2. The continental PPNA: an outline
7These excavations demonstrated the existence on the island of a site contemporaneous with the advanced phases of the PPNA, dated to the transition between the 10th and 9th millennia. This inevitably raised the question of maritime relations between the Levantine corridor and Cyprus during the first continental domestication processes, as well as the cultural and economic evaluation of external Neolithic influxes on the island. This issue is all the more crucial as this is considered to be a key stage in the domestication of cereals and the emergence of the first farming communities.
8Since K. Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho (Palestine) during the 1950s, the stratigraphic sequence for this site shows the following sequence from the base upwards: i) a “Mesolithic” horizon, in fact Natufian, characterised by a pit dwelling, ii) a “Proto-Neolithic” with El Khiam points (“Khiamian”), with pit dwellings and the use of mud bricks, iii) a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) with constructed buildings (ramparts, “(iii) Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) with constructed buildings (rampart, tower), round semi-buried houses and possible agriculture, and (iv) after a hiatus, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) with rectangular houses, plastered floors, cereal farming and goat breeding (Kenyon 1957).
9These definitions produced a terminology generally applied to subsequently studied sites. Here, we will simply summarise the main known characteristics of the Pre-Pottery A at the beginning of excavations at Klimonas.
10Geographical extension. The PPNA extends from Jordan in the south to the upper Tigris and Euphrates rivers in varying concentrations, at least partly reflecting disparate research efforts. Settlements are particularly abundant in the Southern Levant and the Middle Euphrates, and sparser on the northern margins, at least at the time of discovery of Klimonas (a number of new sites having been uncovered in the second decade of the 21st century). Various cultures have been described (Sultanian, Mureybetian, Nemrikian, among others) among the cultural diversity of this geographical area, making the PPNA more of a global stage of Near Eastern societies than a uniform “civilisation” (Cauvin 1994, Simmons 2007).
11Chronology. A transitional phase between the Natufian and the PPNA, the Khiamian (10,000-9500 BC) is sometimes considered as an epiphenomenon of the former, sometimes as the beginning of the latter, when the first anthropomorphic figurations and arrows began to replace geometric microliths. In fact, following a more concise definition, the PPNA developed between 9500 and 8700 BC. It would therefore have lasted for about eight centuries, with the very last centuries showing a transition to the PPNB, the recent stage characterised in particular by the development of so-called Communal buildings.
12Architecture. Dwellings, sometimes associated with cells, are circular in plan, single-storeyed or recessed; they are built of wood, earth, stone and shaped bricks and may have internal benches (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999). They are often clustered in small sites but real villages can also exist, such as Jericho (2 to 3 ha). During the recent phase of Jerf el’Ahmar (Syria), the first rectangular houses appear (Stordeur 2015). The impression of community life seems to be reinforced with the development of Communal buildings, often half-buried but sometimes “above ground” and solidly built. The purpose of these buildings can be diverse: political, economic, social, or religious. They can be decorated with pillars or painted panels (Jerf el’Ahmar, Dja’de, Tell Abr 3) or large megalithic stelae with mainly animal motifs (Göbekli, Turkey; Yartah 2005, Coqueugniot 2014, Schmidt, 2015, Stordeur 2015). The Jericho “tower”, dated to around 9000 cal BC, was long thought to be a unique building in terms of its dimensions (8 m in diameter, 8.5 m in preserved height). The “towers” of Tell Qaramel (Syria) are now thought to be older (Mazurowski 2016).
13Burials. Built under the floor of buildings or outside, burials generally contain remains in a contracted position. Their number is particularly high at Kortik Tepe (Turkey) where several hundred burials have been recorded, including isolated skull removals and deposits. In the Euphrates Valley, burials are absent, and the dead are only represented by skulls or portions of skull bones deposited in Communal buildings (Stordeur 2015).
14Tools. Polished axes and sharp chisels appear during the PPNA. Knapped lithic industries follow different traditions. The Sultanian of the Southern Levant is characterised by heavy tools (bifacial slicers, sickle knives) alongside El Khiam points. The Mureybetian comprises armatures such as the Helouan point (with spikes and peduncle), the Nevalı Çori point (with concave base), the foliated point, long blades with a narrowed base and scrapers (Cauvin 1994). Obsidian was imported from Cappadocia. Pestles with decorated handles are characteristic of northern regions (Hallan Çemi, Nemrik; Kozlowski 1990, Rosenberg 1999). Grooved stones are decorated in the Middle Euphrates and the High Valleys, but they are not decorated elsewhere. Grindstones and mortars vary from region to region.
15Stoneware. Stone vessels are an important cultural feature and may bear geometric, anthropomorphic or animal decoration in the Upper Valleys and Euphrates regions (Kortik Tepe, Özdoğan 2014).
16Cultural traits. In the tradition of Khiamian stone statuette production, stylised female terracotta figurines appear (Mureybet, Netiv Hagdud). Decorated plates can represent fantastic beings (Kortik Tepe), geometric or animal motifs (Jerf el-Ahmar, Tell Abr 3). The megalithic iconography of Göbekli often depicts dangerous or harmful animals (snakes, scorpions, aurochs, boars, foxes, felines), birds or anthropomorphic motifs (Helmer et al. 2004, Schmidt 2015).
17Agriculture. The PPNA is credited with the beginning of the cultivation of cereals (starch, einkorn, barley) and legumes (peas, lentils, beans), which had in fact already been consumed for a long time. The morphology of grains nevertheless pointed to wild types, and their domestic status gradually evolved through an increase in size and a more durable anatomical attachment of the ear to the rachis, processes acquired during the PPNB. This is the “pre-domestic” agriculture of archaeobotanists. Evidence of cultivation is detected from several observations: increased cereal consumption, spread of cultivated taxa beyond their natural habitat, -development of weeds, first changes in grain size, beginning of storage, use of straw and chaff in building materials and the presence of milling tools in houses (Willcox 2014).
18Hunting, commensalism, breeding. Meat is still acquired through hunting. The dog is attested since the Natufian. The “domestic” cat is probably present from the time of increases in cereal stocks, which led to the proliferation of mice (Weissbrod et al. 2017, Cucchi et al. 2020). The breeding of ungulates is unclear before the middle of the 9th millennium during the PPNB.
3. Klimonas and the continental PPNA
19The presence in Cyprus of establishments such as Klimonas ou Asprokremnos, contemporaneous of the Late PPNA of the continent, rises many questions among which:
Does the village model introduced to the island reproduce the one known in the Levant: houses distributed around a communal building with various public functions?
If they exist, are the communal buildings of Cyprus identical to those recognised on the mainland? The same questions apply to domestic architecture (materials, surface areas, volumes, elevations).
Do burials exist at this time and, if so, what are the corresponding funerary rites, the anthropological and genetic characteristics of the deceased?
Is it possible to identify the origin of the pioneers or are the observed influxes related to various cultural spheres, ranging from Anatolia to the Southern Levant? Can knapped stone tools (arrowheads, sickles, common tools) contribute to a better understanding of the continental poles of origin? What is the share of obsidian imports in relation to the later phases of the PPNB? What other elements (decorated or unadorned vessels, grooved stones, heavy tools, ornaments; introduced plants or animals) can point to specific continental centres? Are the diverse symbolic features (figurines, works of art) of the PPNA of the Levantine corridor replicated in Cyprus?
Does the morphology of cultivated species (cereals) demonstrate that plants were imported to the island in a still spontaneous or already modified state? Which natural species were part of the diet?
What specie or species were hunted to supply meat? Does the presence of dogs and mice, which is attested on continental PPNA sites, follow the same pattern in Cyprus? Was the cat already introduced to Cyprus? Were other species introduced?
More generally, is the Cypriot PPNA pattern strongly marked by cultural endemism, possibly reinforced by the difficulty of sea crossings, or is it nothing more than a regional variation with slight differences in relation to the already known variations in the PPNA? What new information does this period of Cypriot history provide on navigation or the capacity of this first Near Eastern Neolithic to adapt to island conditions, to new sectors, to an arid Mediterranean climate?
20The present monograph on the site of Klimonas attempts to answer these questions, among others.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Les allées sépulcrales du Bassin parisien à la fin du Néolithique
L’exemple de La Chaussée-Tirancourt
Arnaud Blin
2018
Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France
Laure Salanova et Yaramila Tcheremissinoff (dir.)
2011
La grotte-abri de Peyrazet (Creysse, Lot, France) au Magdalénien
Originalité fonctionnelle d’un habitat des derniers chasseurs de rennes du Quercy
Mathieu Langlais et Véronique Laroulandie (dir.)
2021
Klimonas
An Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village in Cyprus
Jean-Denis Vigne, François Briois et Jean Guilaine (dir.)
2024