Géoarchéologie des îles

de Méditerranée
Géoarchéologie des îles
de Méditerranée
Geoarchaeology of the Mediterranean Islands

sous la direction de
Matthieu Ghilardi

Avec la collaboration de
Franck Leandri, Jan Bloemendal, Laurent Lespez et Sylvian Fachard

CNRS ÉDITIONS
© CNRS éDITIONS, PARIS, 2016
ISBN : 978-2-271-08915-1
Sommaire
ntroduction générale
Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée 9
Ghilardi Matthieu, Leandri Franck, Bloemendal Jan, Lespez Laurent, Fachard Sylvian

partie 1 / Part 1 21
Anthropisation et mutations paysagères à la transition Paléolithique/Néolithique
Anthropization and landscape changes during the Late Paleolithic/Neolithic transition
La diffusion du Néolithique en Méditerranée 23
GUILAINE Jean
Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene Sea-Crossings in the Aegean:
Direct, Indirect and Controversial Evidence 33
Papoulia Christina
The insular ecology and palaeoenvironmental impacts of the domestic goat
(Capra hircus) in Mediterranean Neolithization 47
LEPPARD Thomas P., PILAAR BIRCH Suzanne E.
Site Formation Processes at Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus:
Why is the site so controversial? 57
SIMMONS Alan, MANDEL Rolfe D.
La néolithisation de la haute montagne corse :
l’Abri des Castelli, 2 140 m d’altitude (commune de Corte, centre-Corse) 73
MAZET Sylvain, MARINI Nathalie-Anne, BONTEMPI Jean-Michel, BOSCHIAN Giovanni
The Neolithic landscape and settlement of the Island of Gökçeada
(Imbros, Turkey) 89
ERDOĞU Burçin

partie 2 / Part 2 95
Mobilité et reconstitution des anciens niveaux marins depuis la fin
de la dernière grande glaciation quaternaire
Shoreline displacements and sea level changes since the Last Glacial Maximum
Variations relatives du niveau moyen de la mer en Corse
au cours des 6 000 dernières années 97
VACCHI Matteo, GHILARDI Matthieu, CURRÁS Andrés
Reconstructing the coastal configuration of Lemnos Island
(Northeast Aegean Sea, Greece) since the Last Glacial Maximum  109
CHALKIOTI Areti
Holocene sea level changes and palaeogeographic reconstruction of the Ayia Irini
prehistoric settlement (Keos Island, Cyclades archipelago, Greece) 119
MOURTZAS Nikos, KOLAITI Eleni
Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée

partie 3 / Part 3 137

Adaptation aux mutations paysagères à l’échelle intra-site :
la nécessaire prise en compte des paramètres environnementaux
Human adaptation to site-scale landscape changes:
the importance of environmental parameters
étude géophysique et paléogéographique de l’Agora de Thasos (Grèce) :
implications pour l’occupation humaine durant l’Antiquité 139
QUESNEL Y., GHILARDI M., MALAMIDOU D., TRIPPÉ N., LESPEZ L., COLLEU M., VACCHI M.
évolution des paysages et histoire de l’occupation d’Érétrie (Eubée, Grèce) 
du Bronze ancien à l’époque romaine 149
Ghilardi Matthieu, Müller Celka Sylvie, Theurillat Thierry, Fachard Sylvian,
Vacchi Matteo
Les ports antiques des petites îles de Méditerranée.
Proposition d’une typologie géoarchéologique 165
GIAIME Matthieu, MORHANGE Christophe, CARAYON Nicolas, FLAUX Clément, MARRINER Nick
Reconstructing the coastal landscape of Selinus (Sicily, Italy)
and Lipari Sotto Monastero (Lipari, Italy) 177
MAZZA Alba
On the historical role of earthquakes in Antiquity 191
STIROS Stathis

partie 4 / Part 4 199

Deltas, lagunes et marais : des interfaces propices à l’implantation
des sociétés humaines
Deltas, lagoons, and marshes as suitable environments for human habitation
Holocene Fluvial Dynamics and Geoarchaeology on Mediterranean Islands 201
BROWN Tony, WALSH Kevin
Occupation humaine et mobilité des paysages dans la basse vallée du Sagone
(Corse, France) entre l’âge du Bronze et l’époque romaine 215
GHILARDI Matthieu, ISTRIA Daniel, CURRAS Andrés, DUSSOUILLEZ Philippe,
VELLA Claude, CREST Yannick, COLLEU Maxime, Vacchi Matteo
évolution du fleuve Golo autour du site antique et médiéval de Mariana
(Corse, France) 229
VELLA Claude, COSTA Kévin, ISTRIA Daniel, DUSSOUILLEZ Philippe, GHILARDI Matthieu,
FLEURY T. Jules, DELANGHE Doriane, DEMORY François, CIBECCHINI Franca,
MOREAU Julien, JOUET Gwenaël
Changements environnementaux et impact des sociétés humaines autour
du site minoen de Malia (Crète, Grèce). Bilan des acquis et nouvelles recherches 245
Lespez Laurent, Müller Celka Sylvie, Pomadère Maia
Changements environnementaux et histoire de la colonisation humaine
des Îles Baléares (Méditerranée occidentale) : conséquences sur l’évolution
de la végétation 259
Burjachs Francesc, PÉrez-Obiol Ramon, Picornell-Gelabert Llorenç, Revelles Jordi,
Servera-Vives Gabriel, ExpÓsito Isabel, Yll Errikarta-Imanol

6
 Sommaire

partie 5 / Part 5 273

Matières premières : exploitation et interactions
Exploitation and exchange of raw materials
Early Holocene Interaction in the Aegean Islands:
Mesolithic Chert Exploitation at Stélida (Naxos, Greece) in Context 275
CARTER Tristan, CONTRERAS Daniel A., DOYLE Sean, MIHAILOVIC Danica D.,
SKARPELIS Nikolaos
Dietary preferences of the inhabitants of ancient Akrai/Acrae
(south-eastern Sicily) during Roman times and the Byzantine period 287
CHOWANIEC Roksana, GRĘZAK Anna
Looking for the invisible: landscape change and ceramic manufacture
during the Final Neolithic-Early Bronze Age at Phaistos (Crete, Greece) 299
MENTESANA Roberta, AMATO Vincenzo, DAY Peter M., GHILARDI Matthieu,
KILIKOGLOU Vassilis, LONGO Fausto, TODARO Simona
Reconstitution des paléoenvironnements et des activités humaines
à partir de l’étude de sédiments prélevés dans le Cap Corse (Corse, France) 311
FAGEL Nathalie, FONTAINE François, PLEUGER élisa, LECHENAULT Marine,
LEPOINT Gilles, GOIRAN Jean-Philippe
Kouphonisi (Greece): a briefly vibrant Roman harbourage
between Crete and Africa 333
COUTSINAS Nadia, GUY Max, KELLY Amanda

7
 The Neolithic landscape and settlement
of the Island of Gökçeada (Imbros, Turkey)
ERDOĞU Burçin1

Abstract
The recent archaeological discoveries on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros) shed new light on the early Prehistory
of the North Aegean Islands. The earliest finds date from the Middle Palaeolithic period, and possible Mesolithic/
Epi-palaeolithic chipped stone tools were discovered in the eastern part of the island. Stratigraphic excavations at
the site of Uğurlu have clarified the spatial extent of the settlement from Preceramic or Initial Neolithic occupation
onwards. Uğurlu Phase VI is dated to 6700-6500 cal. BC. A site near the Salt Lake is probably contemporary with
Uğurlu Phase VI. The Neolithic Phase V (6500-6000 cal. BC) at Uğurlu has signs of continuity, and the perma-
nent settlers were agriculturalists who introduced domestic sheep, goats, cattle and pigs to the island. The distribu-
tion of Melian and Central Anatolian obsidian suggests long-distance exchange mechanisms during the Neolithic.
The sea level and shoreline in the Aegean were different during prehistoric times compared to the present
day. During the low sea level of the Last Glacial Maximum the island of Gökçeada, together with all of the
North Aegean Islands, was connected to the mainland. Gökçeada, together with Lemnos, became an island
probably just after the Younger Dryas, and they were connected by an isthmus. Around 7000-6500 cal. BC,
sea level was 20 m lower than today and the separate island of Gökçeada lay close to the Gelibolu Peninsula.

Introduction The earliest finds on the island date from the

The field of island archaeology provides an oppor-
tunity to address the following questions. Why
did people settle islands? How did they manage in
an insular setting? What type of relations existed
between island societies or between islanders and
mainlanders (Broodbank 2000; Knapp, 2008;
Dawson, 2014)? These key research themes were also
central to our research on Neolithic societies at the
island of Gökçeada. The island of Gökçeada (Imbros)
is about 17  km from the Gallipoli Peninsula and
covers an area of 289.5 km² (Figure 1). The Uğurlu
Archaeological Project was initiated in 2009 with
the aim of exploring the role of the Northern Aegean
Islands in the Neolithization of South East Europe.
The project was also focused on understanding the
Neolithic environment and with stratigraphical anal-
ysis of Prehistoric sites on the island.
Middle Palaeolithic period. Middle Palaeolithic
activity is documented around the chert outcrops in
the eastern part of the island (Özbek and Erdoğu,
2014; Erdoğu, in press). Levallois flakes and points
are dominant (Figure  3 B). Possible Mesolithic/
Epi-palaeolithic finds, consisting mainly of micro
flake tools, were also found in the eastern part of
the island, around the Eksino Stream. Uğurlu is the
only early Neolithic settlement on the western part
of the island (Figure 2). It is a low mound covering
an area of approximately 250 × 200 m on a gentle
slope at the eastern foot of Mount Isa (Doğanlı). The
main Uğurlu-Dereköy road cuts through the site. The
Pilon stream lies at the eastern part of the site, and
there is also a nearby spring. During the six years of
excavation six main cultural phases, designated I-VI
(counting from top to bottom), and at least 12 layers
of occupation, have been revealed so far. The earliest

Department of Archaeology, Trakya University, 22030 EDİRNE, Turkey (berdogu@gmail.com)

1

89
Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée Erdogu

Figure 1: Location of Uğurlu in the Northeastern Aegean.

Figure 2: The Neolithic site of Uğurlu and its environment.

90
 The Neolithic landscape and settlement of the Island of Gökçeada (Imbros, Turkey)
Table 1: Radiocarbon dates for Uğurlu.
Phase VI is dated to 6700-6500 cal. BC and Phase
V is dated to 6500-6000 cal. BC (Table 1). Another
Early Neolithic site was discovered near the Salt Lake
in the southeastern part of the island.
Geological background
and sea level change
Gökçeada is a mountainous island and Mount
Doruk (Elias), with an altitude of 673 m, is the highest
point. Narrow valleys, such as Büyükdere in the north
and Ballidere in the west, and the northern part of
the Salt Lake, provide the only agricultural land. The
solid geology is composed mainly of volcanic rocks.
Volcanic rocks on the island occur as vents, intrusion
centres or as volcanoclastics interlayered with the sedi-
mentary strata. They usually constitute topographic
highs and have an andesitic composition (Kurtulus
et  al., 2010). The commonest minerals present in
andesitic rocks are: plagioclase feldspar, more specif-
ically andesines; amphiboles, usually hornblende;
pyroxenes, usually augite; spinel, such as titanomag-
netite, ilmenite and magnetite; quartz; apatite; and
biotite. At least 5 chert outcrops in the eastern part
of the island were discovered. Black-coloured fine-
grained chert of Kuzu Limanı was mainly used in the
Neolithic.
The sea level and the shoreline of the Aegean
were different during prehistoric times compared to
the present day and our project was focused on the
following questions: When did Gökçeada begin to
separate from the mainland and become an island?
How far was it across the sea to the mainland in the
Early Neolithic?
Starting at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum
(around 21 000 years ago), sea level was about 120 m
lower than today (Lamback and Purcell, 2005).
The island of Gökçeada, along with all the North
Aegean Islands, was connected to the mainland.
Sea level was 55-60  m lower during the Younger
Dryas between 10800 and 9600 cal. BC. Gökçeada,
together with Lemnos, became an island probably
just after the Younger Dryas, and they were connected
by an isthmus (Perissoratis and Conispoliatis, 2003;
Efstratiou, 2014). Subsequently the rise in the level of
the Aegean Sea continued at a slower pace, reaching
a height approximately 20 m lower than today during
the Neolithic period, around 7000-6500 cal. BC
(for discussion see Özbek and Erdoğu, 2014), and
the island of Gökçeada lay close to the Gelibolu
Peninsula, ca. 10 km. In addition, geomorphological
investigations indicate that deep bays were formed at
the river estuaries in the island (Öner, 2000). Today,
the seashore is about 2 km from the site of Uğurlu, but
the site was located far from the shoreline during the
Neolithic period. Archaeobotanical research demon-
strates that the first settlement was located in an
area where small lakes and swamps occur, and the
Neolithic inhabitants of Uğurlu lived near a spring in
this well-watered fertile area.
The Uğurlu project was also intended to improve
our knowledge of the palaeoenvironment. A coring
programme was conducted to reconstruct the
Neolithic environment. A single core, to a depth of ca.
3.24 m, was taken from the marsh some 2 km south of
Uğurlu, but no Early Neolithic levels were detected.
91
Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée
The Early Neolithic Occupation
The earliest occupation at Uğurlu is located in
the eastern part of the settlement, close to the Pilon
stream. Phase VI is represented in sounding trenches
only. No architectural structures, with the exception
of scattered stones in clusters, and a hearth, were
found in this Phase. Three AMS radiocarbon dates
range from ca. 6682-6570 cal. BC (1 α). No ceramics
or any other clay objects were recorded. Several disc-
shaped shell or stone beads and bone awls were found.
The chipped stones of Phase VI are characterised by
thin blades made using the pressure technique. Only
8 obsidians (6 blades) were found in this phase, and
local flint/chert was used much more frequently.
A flotation sample of 100 litres was taken from Phase
VI and only one possible cereal grain was identified.
The site near the Salt Lake (Figure 1) is probably
contemporary with Uğurlu Phase VI. The site lies
on the eastern bank of the Salt Lake and most of its
surface is flooded by saltwater all year round, except in
summer (Figure 3). However, it is unclear whether or
not the Salt Lake existed during the Neolithic period.
Only chipped stone implements were found at this
site, and no pottery or ground stones were discov-
ered. Raw materials are similar to the raw materials
used at Uğurlu. Only two pieces of obsidian were
found on the surface (Figure 3A). Flakes are domi-
nant and there are also flake cores. Blades are quite
rare and most of them were made using the pressure
technique. Some of the blades may have been used
as sickle inserts and tools are relatively abundant.
A foliate point is noteworthy.
Figure 3: The Salt Lake. Figure 3A: An obsidian blade from the Salt Lake site; Figure 3B: Middle Palaeolithic finds.
92
Erdogu
So far two possible occupational layers of Phase
V have been recorded. The early layer of Phase V is
represented in sounding trenches and consists of
earthen floors with an extremely dense concen-
tration of animal bones, flint and obsidian tools
and bone spatulas, and a fish hook was also found
(Figure 4A). A single-room, earthen-floored building
about 5 × 4 m, has been excavated in the late layer of
Phase V (Figure 4). It is characterized by small room
size (9.2 m²), thick walls (1.00 m) and massive exte-
rior buttresses. The northern wall stands to a height
of about 1 m, and a fireplace is set inside the wall.
Following its abandonment the fireplace seems to have
been filled with earth and stones, and a stone axe was
deliberately left within it. The northern wall stretches
about 3-5 m to the east with a parallel wall ca. 1 m
wide, creating a courtyard. A sherd with a human
motif in relief and a head from animal bone from an
Acrolithic figurine were found in the courtyard. The
nose of the figurine head was shown in relief while
the eyes were highlighted with red paint (Figure 4 B).
Several broken bone tools, a small stone axe made of
serpentine, and a small broken malachite bead, were
found in situ in the building. The malachite bead
is one of the earliest malachite finds in Southeast
Europe. There are two malachite veins running
between the villages of Dereköy and Tepeköy, close
to the site. A single AMS radiocarbon date from the
early layer of Phase V yielded an age of 6478-6436 cal.
BC (1α), and an additional AMS radiocarbon date
from the late layer of Phase V yielded an age of 6085-
6010 cal. BC (1 α).
 The Neolithic landscape and settlement of the Island of Gökçeada (Imbros, Turkey)
A large number of soil samples in Phase V were
processed by flotation. Domestic cereals, including
einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), six-rowed
barley (Hordeum vulgare) and pea (Pisum sativum
L.), were present throughout the sampled deposits.
Einkorn wheat was the most abundant of the culti-
vated species. The faunal data show that domestic
sheep and goat are dominant in a very early phase V.
Domestic pig, cattle and dog also occur. The presence
of wild boar, red deer, hare and fox indicate hunting.
Most of the chipped stone production made use of
raw materials found in the island: different coloured
flint/cherts, jasper and quartz. Obsidian was also used
as a raw material. Melian obsidian was widely used,
but Central Anatolian East Göllü Dağ obsidian was
also available (Miliç, 2014). Flakes are more common
than blades. Tools are very rare and scrapers are the
most common type. Polished stone axes and adzes
are abundant, especially in the late layer of Phase V.
The raw material used in their manufacture probably
comes from local sources. On the other hand, stone
axes made from nephrite were imported to the island
from outcrops at the foot of Ganos Mountain in the
Gallipoli Peninsula (Özbek and Erol, 2001).
Pottery is the most common artefact found in
Phase V. The vast majority of the pottery is red slipped
and burnished. Black burnished sherds were found in
small quantities. All pottery is handmade and thin
walled. Deep bowls with an “S” profile, hole-mouth
vessels and straight-sided shallow dishes are common
Figure 4: Neolithic Building at Uğurlu Phase V;
Figure 4A: Bone fish hook; Figure 4B: Bone figurine head.
shapes. Bases are either flat or have a low pedestal.
Vertically-placed tube-like and knob-like perforated
tubular lugs, as well as small crescent shaped lugs, are
characteristic. A human-faced sherd and a sherd with a
human motif in relief are unique. A comparison of the
results of the thin section analysis and the chemical
composition of the sherds and clay samples indicates
that the Neolithic pottery of Uğurlu is composed of
local clays (Erdoğu, 2014). Only one type of clay could
be distinguished and it is non-calcareous of andesitic/
dacitic composition. The minerals consist of quartz,
alkali and plagioclase feldspars, amphiboles and titan-
iferous minerals, especially magnetite and titaniferous
magnetite. Organic temper is almost absent. Only a
very small number of organic inclusions were identi-
fied and they were probably not deliberate additions.
A very small number of bone fragments were identi-
fied in a few samples.
Conclusion
3 AMS radiocarbon dates confirm that phase
VI at Uğurlu began rather early, at least as early as
the Preceramic or Initial Neolithic layers of Ulucak
VI and Çukuriçi XIII in Western Anatolia (Horejs
et al., 2015; Çevik and Abay, in press). The radio-
carbon dates from Knossos X and Franchthi “Initial
Neolithic” indicate the existence of the Preceramic
phase in the Aegean between 7000 to 6600 cal.
BC. (Perlès et al., 2013; Reingruber, 2015). Possible
Mesolithic/Epi Palaeolithic finds indicate an indig-
enous population on the island. Future studies may
reveal whether the indigenous populations played a
role in the process of Neolithization. The Preceramic
site near the Salt Lake is also important. The absence
of pottery and the presence of obsidian and especially
pressure blades are noteworthy. Phase V at Uğurlu
demonstrates that permanent settlement on the island
was achieved by people with an agricultural economic
base, including cultivated plants and domesticated
animals. Settlers were agriculturalists and they intro-
duced domestic sheep, goats, cattle and pigs to the
island. Strong parallels to Uğurlu V pottery were
found in Western Anatolian Neolithic sites as well as
at the Marmara region sites and at Hoca Çeşme IV-III
in Turkish Thrace (Bertram et Karul, 2005; Figure 1
and 3). Neolithic Gökçeada (Imbros) is characterized
by the striking evidence of long-distance commu-
nications. The distribution of Melian and Central
Anatolian obsidian suggests long-distance exchange
mechanisms, and travel must have involved seafaring
for at least part of the journeys.
93
Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée
Acknowledgements
The Uğurlu Archaeological project is supported by
the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the
University of Trakya, Edirne (BAP 2014-25). I thank
Levent Atıcı, Soultana Valamoti and Denis Guilbeau
for sharing their data.
References
BERTRAM J.-K., KARUL N., « From Anatolia to Europe:
The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeşme in Turkish Thrace »,
in Lichter C. (ed.), Byzas 2 – How Did Farming Reach
Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second
Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium
Cal BC, Istanbul, 2005, p. 117-130.
BROODBANK C., An Island Archaeology of the Early
Cyclades, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
ÇEVIK Ö., ABAY, E., « Neolithisation in Aegean Turkey:
Towards a More Realistic Reading », in Yalçın Ü. (ed),
Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor 10.000 Jahren (in press).
EFSTRATIOU N., « The last forager camp of Ouriakos on
the island of Lemnos: Human groups on the move at the
turn of the Holocene in the Northern Aegean », Eurasian
Prehistory, 11, (1-2), 2014, p. 75-96.
DAWSON H., Mediterranean Voyages. The Archaeology of
Island Colonisation and Abandonment, Walnut Creek,
CA, Left Coast Press, 2014.
ERDOĞU B., « Gökçeada Uğurlu Archaeological Project: A
Preliminary Report from the 2011-2013 Field Seasons »,
Anatolica, XL, 2014, p. 157-179.
ERDOĞU B., «  Whither The Aegean Neolithic  », in
Tsirtsoni Z., Reingruber A., Nedelcheva P. (eds.), Going
West? The spread of farming between the Bosporus and the
Lower Danube Region (in press).
HOREJS B., MILIÇ M., OSTMANN F., THANHEISER
U., WENINGER B., GALIK A., « The Aegean in the
early 7th Millennium BC. Maritime Networks and
94
Erdogu
Colonization », Journal of World Prehistory, 28, 2015,
p. 289-330.
KNAPP B.A., Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. Identity,
Insularity, and Connectivity, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2008.
KURTULUS C., IRMAK T.S., SERTCELIK I., « Physical
and mechanical properties of Gökçeada: Imbros (NE
Aegean Sea) island andesites », Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, 69 (2), 2010, p. 321-324.
LAMBECK K., PURCELL A., «  Sea-level change in the
Mediterranean Sea since the LGM: Model predictions for
tectonically stable areas », Quaternary Science Review, 24,
2005, p. 1969-1988.
MILIÇ M., « PXRF characterisation of obsidian from central
Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe », Journal of
Archaeological Science, 41, 2014, p. 285-296.
ÖNER E., « Yeni Bademli Höyük Çevresinde Jeoarkeolojik
Arastirmalar (Gökçeada-Imroz)  », 15, Arkeometri
Sonuclari Toplantisi, 2000, p. 19-32.
ÖZBEK O., EROL K., « Étude pétrographique des haches
polies du Hamaylitarla et Fenerkaradutlar (Turquie) »,
Anatolia Antiqua, 9, 2001, p. 1-7.
ÖZBEK, O., ERDOĞU, B., «  Initial occupation of the
Gelibolu Peninsula and the Island of Gökçeada (Imbroz)
in the Pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic  », Eurasian
Prehistory, 11, (1-2), 2014, p. 97-128.
PERISSORATIS C., CONISPOLIATIS N., « The impacts
of sea-level changes during latest Pleistocene and Holocene
times on the morphology of the Ionian and Aegean seas (SE
Alpine Europe) », Marine Geology, 196, 2003, p. 145-156.
PER LÈS C., QUILES A., VALLADAS H., «  Early
seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds
in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid,
Greece) », Antiquity, 87(338), 2013, p. 1001-1015.
R EINGRUBER A., «  Preceramic, Aceramic or Early
Ceramic: The radiocarbon dated beginning of the
Neolithic in the Aegean », Documenta Praehistorica XLII,
2015, p.147-158.