Gusir Höyük

Necmi KARUL

Gusir Höyük is one of the prehistoric settlements that will be inundated by the reservoir ofthe Ilısu Dam; with the completion of the Ilısu Project, the site will be covered by 20 m ofwater. The site, discovered in 1989 during The Tigris-Euphrates ArchaeologicalReconnaissance Project of G. Algaze and his team, was published under the name GüzirHöyük1 (Algaze et al. 1991: 189). Our team from the University of Istanbul, Department ofPrehistory, after a short surface study season in 20092 commenced systematic rescue exca-vations in 2010, almost 20 years after its first reconnaissance.

The mound is located beside Gusir Lake, 40 km south of the city of Siirt; 2 km west ofOrmanardı Village in Eruh County (Figs. 1-2) on the southern shore of Kavaközü Creek, atributary of the Botan River. Gusir Lake is a sinkhole fed by the waters of the Kavaközü Creekand by the springs around it. Its western side is covered with flatlands which extend throughthe Botan River bed. In the south the terrain rises rather steeply before descending towardsthe deep canyon of the Tigris River a few kilometers away. Further to the east, after the con-fluence of the Botan with the Tigris, the valley of the Tigris opens up and the river beginsto meander. Along the left bank of the flood plain, there are numerous terraces carved intothe Miocene limestone bedrock during the Quaternary period (Algaze et al. 1991: 189).These terraces, occasionally cut by erosional gullies and rich in fresh water springs, have,from the earliest period, been the most suitable settings for habitation; likewise, the pres-ent villages are aligned along these terraces. Some of the gullies, almost ravines, extendeastwards towards the still-forested mountains and provide relatively fertile farmlands. GusirHöyük thus sits at the foothills of the mountains in a rich environmental setting abundantin water sources and in close proximity to the forests; in easy access to the site, there areother raw materials that must have been exploited by the Neolithic communities.

The site is in an agricultural land, its surface covered with small terraced gardens; the sitehas suffered from the construction of the terraced boundaries of these gardens as well asfrom agricultural practices. The terrace slope on the north falls in terraces towards theKavaközü Creek, the gently sloping western and southern flanks of the mound merge withthe flatlands. The east end of the mound is bounded by the steep drop into Gusir Lake.

Although no soundings have yet been made, the earliest settlement seems to be at the levelof the present surface of Gusir Lake; thus the thickness of the archaeological deposit should

1 The settlements discovered by G. Algaze were re-surveyed and published by J. Velibeyoğlu, A.Schachner and Ş. Schachner in 2000 (Velibeyoğlu et al. 2002: 837). In these publications the set-tlement is referred to as Güzir Höyük. However during the studies by our team in 2009 it wasunderstood that the actual local name of the lake and its surrounding area is “Gusir” and not“Güzir”; thus, from now on we have decided to use its local name.

2 For bureaucratic reasons, the Ilısu Project rescue excavations are being conducted under the umbrel-la of the local museums; the 2010 excavations were under the Mardin Museum; however, as of 2011on they will be under the new Batman Museum which was opened in 2011.

M. Özdo¤an - N. Baflgelen - P. Kuniholm THE NEOLITHIC IN TURKEY, VOL. 1 Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul 2011, pp. 1-17.

be 7 or 8 m. The site covers an area approximately 150 m in diameter and its top is at 535m above mean sea level. Apart from a few Medieval pottery fragments unearthed on thesite, all the archaeological material encountered up to now belongs to different levels ofthe Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, mainly to its earliest horizon. Thus, it seems that the laterdeposits of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic have been extensively destroyed by agricultural activ-ity; our dating is supported by the C14 dates from various layers which cluster between9975 and 9600 BP.

During the first excavation season in 2010, it was possible to work on an area of 900 m2

in total (Fig. 3); two trenches were set on the stepped terraces descending towards GusirLake and another on the terrace above them. Although the stratigraphic correlationbetween them is not fully understood, the presence of at least four different periods in thearea so far excavated is evident.

STRATIGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

Just below the surface soil, a number of buildings of various sizes and displaying circularor almost circular plans have been encountered; evidently representing the uppermostphase of the site. The exposure in that area is over 400 m2, large enough to provide aninsight on the organization of the settlement (Fig. 4). The biggest of these buildings is rec-tangular with rounded corners, and it has an outer diameter of 10 m (Fig. 5); in this par-ticular building, the walls, almost a meter thick, are distinctive in that they have two sur-faces, one behind the other, for at least part of their length. On the inside is a large stone-laid area made with large cobbles from the river. Even though its surface is more or lesseven, it does not seem to have been laid as a flooring; however, its association with thisstructure is evident. Some of the cobbles in the filling have been exposed to heat, showingtraces of burning. In the middle of the building there is a stone slab, seemingly placed ina standing position. The width of the slab is 80 cm, and thickness 20 cm, its corners havebeen intentionally rounded. The height of the slab is not clear; its upper part is missing andthe lower part is still to be excavated; in 2010 only 50 cm of the slab could be exposed.

There are two adjacent buildings in the south and southeast of the above-mentioned largebuilding. These relatively smaller buildings have thinner walls and a rectangular shape withrounded corners similar to the large building. Besides these, parts of at least five otherbuilding have been recovered, all displaying similar wall construction techniques; however,these are not fully identified since some of them extend beyond the excavation area andothers are destroyed. One of these buildings also has a standing stone slab similar to theone in the large building described above.

Highly burnt adobe remains in the buildings as well as in the layer filling show that adobewas extensively used above the stone foundations. Some adobe pieces have branch impres-sions on them; we surmise that they are from the roof.

To the west of the large building there is an open area possibly functioning as a courtyardsurrounded by other buildings; its fill, as in the buildings, is ashy and there are occasionalclusters of large cobbles; the presence of large fragments of grinding slabs is of interest.Also from this open area, three simple inhumation burials, placed close to each other, havebeen recovered (Figs. 6-7). Only one of them could be fully excavated in 2011; its pit isbordered by an alignment of small stones. In all three, the burials are in the hocker posi-

2 Necmi KARUL

tion, though not tightly bent. In one of the buildings adjacent to the large building, a col-lective burial was recovered; due to its proximity to the surface, the bones had been some-what disturbed, but seemingly there were three individuals tightly compacted. The burialsseem to have been dug into this layer after the buildings were built, as the finds from andaround the burials are different from those of the rest of the area.

In the other trench, set on the lower terrace, the remains of three buildings have beenencountered; for the time being we consider them to be from the second phase; all of themare round in plan and, compared to those in the upper terrace, smaller in size. The walls areconstructed of a single line of stones; even though they are rather destroyed due to slopewash, nevertheless in parts they are preserved several courses high. Two of these buildings areabout 2,5 m in diameter, and the third is 5 m. It is evident that the larger building was atleast partially dug into the ground; otherwise its walls, consisting of a single line of stones,would not have remained standing. The fill in the building is quite homogenous consistingof small stones (Fig. 8), highly suggestive of intentional infilling after the building was desert-ed; however, to verify the presence of this practice at Gusir, further evidence is needed.

In the small trench in the southeastern section of the site another round building wasencountered; with some reservations we consider this building to be of the 3rd phase. Thisround structure has a diameter of 4 m and is preserved to a height of 70 cm. As with thebuildings of the 2nd phase, the building must have been dug into the ground. The part ofthe building nearest the lake has been completely eroded. Parts of the inner face of the wallare coated with large stone slabs (Fig. 9); the upper rows of the wall are constructed of flatstone slabs put on top of each other in a rather disorderly way. Inside the building there isan area of about a square meter that is neatly paved with small flat stones; however, thepaving does not extend to the other parts of the building. There is a low platform in themiddle of the building and a stone slab or a stele has evidently tumbled off it. The platformis rectangular with rounded corners and is approximately 1,3 m long. The upper surface andsides of the platform are carefully smoothed, and, in the center, a hollow with rounded cor-ners, into which the stone slab was probably set, is carved into the platform; the presentposition of the fallen slab is on the same axis as this cavity in the platform. The stone slabis rectangular and flat with rounded corners and measures 100 x 60 cm; as both the upperand the lower ends are missing, it impossible to estimate its original size and shape.

Right below this building, in the 4th phase, the remains of three buildings have beenexposed; although they also have a round plan, there are a number of constructional detailsthat are different from those of the upper layers. The buildings are placed close to oneanother and their external diameters are about 10 m. These buildings were in a better con-dition than the others. In one the walls have been preserved to a height of a meter. Theouter wall of the building is enclosed by another wall adjacent to it; on the inner side, ata distance of 1 m a circular shaped third wall was built (Fig. 10). Our knowledge of thisbuilding is incomplete, as about half of it has been destroyed due to slope erosion, and wehave not yet reached its floor level. However, in a cut by the slope a thin limey layer hasbeen observed, probably marking the floor level of this building.

With the first excavation campaign at Gusir Höyük, four architectural layers have beenexposed; as the architectural remains in each layer differed to the same degree as the tech-niques used in wall construction, with some reservation we considered these layers as dis-

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 3

tinct cultural phases (Fig. 11). It will be possible only with further study to understandwhether different building shapes co-existed in the same period or not.

CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGES

The work on the typology and technology of the chipped stone assemblages is still inprogress3; accordingly, only the results of preliminary analysis will be presented. Eventhough flint dominates the assemblage, obsidian is also present in low amounts. A prelim-inary macroscopic observation suggests the source to be Bingöl - Nemrut in EasternAnatolia. Flint was evidently worked at the site; there are numerous flake and blade cores(Fig. 12:a-c). The blade cores are with a single-platform, while the flake cores have multi-ple platforms; there are also micro blade cores (Fig. 12:d-f).

Among the chipped stone assemblages the number of flakes is higher than the number ofblades. The tool types include points, scrapers, perforators, a few burins, and retouchedblades and flakes. Among the points the presence of “Nemrik points” is of importance asa chronological indicator (Fig. 13:a-b); there are also tanged points (Fig. 13:c-d) and leafshaped points (Fig. 13:e); all of the obsidian arrowheads are tanged (Fig. 13:f). In general,the lithic assemblage is similar to Demirköy Höyük, displaying its characteristic features(Rosenberg and Peasnall 1998: 205).

Among the scrapers, both on flakes and on blades, end scrapers predominate (Fig. 14:a-d),but there is also a significant amount of round scrapers (Fig. 14:e-f). Both types bear sig-nificant similarity to those of the PPNA layers (subphases of Round Building Phase and GrillBuilding Phase) of Çayönü (Altınbilek 2000: figs. 19-21; see also Çayönü in this volume).Also many perforators were encountered among the assemblages (Fig. 15).

SMALL FINDS

The majority of the Gusir Höyük small finds consist of grinding stones and pierced stoneswhich are abundant in all phases. Basalt grinding-stones are particularly large in size andall are heavily worn. Some roughly shaped, pierced limestone artifacts of various sizes havebeen recovered; their functions are not clear. There are also a number of roughly shapedlimestone vessels, pestles shaped as animal heads (Fig. 17), hand stones, mortars (Fig. 16),and stone plugs (Fig. 18); bone awls are also numerous. A stone found on the periphery ofthe excavation site is decorated on one side (Fig. 21) and grooved on the other, bearing aparticular similarity to the Körtik Tepe decorated grooved stones (Özkaya and San 2007:fig. 19; see also Körtik Tepe in this volume).

A rich and varied artefactual assemblage has been recovered in association with the buri-als. Besides the burials in the courtyard described above, remnants of badly disturbed buri-als have also been encountered in the lower terrace, which was previously used by the localsas a pathway. Skeletal parts and finds possibly related to these disturbed burials have beenrecovered as scatter over a considerably large area. Among the significant finds, there areovoid and round stone beads, some with colored serpentine inlays (Fig. 22). These stonebeads, shaped from white coloured hard stone, display excellent craftsmanship; all of them

3 The work on the chipped stone assemblage is being carried out by Dr. Çiler Altınbilek- Algül.

4 Necmi KARUL

have two holes drilled in the centre with inlay in carved sockets on their surface. There isa considerable variety of bead: ones that are ovoid have three inlays, while rectangular oneshave four symmetrically-placed inlays. As a group of them have been recovered by the armof a skeleton, we assume them to be some sort of worn ornament. Such inlaid beads areunique to this site. Besides these there are stone beads with two holes which can certain-ly be associated with the burials (Fig. 19). Also among the burial finds are carefully shapedtooth and bone beads (Fig. 20).

CONCLUSION

Our first season at Gusir has clearly revealed the importance of this site for understandingthe earliest stages of Neolithization in the region; since the site will be inundated soon, theprocurement of data from this site is critical. The sites providing information on this impor-tant time period in this region are still too few for us to reach conclusions. The short-termexcavations at Hallan Çemi and Demirköy and our later excavations at Körtik Tepe bothprovide important results and give an indication of how much we have still to learn. Weconsider that our work at Gusir and the newly commenced excavations at Hasankeyf Höyükwill be helpful for developing an understanding of this region.

The architectural evidence of the first season, the round-plan structures with subterraneanfloors—in time developing into rectangular forms—is in accord with the results from othercontemporary sites in the region. The recovery of adobe with impressions of wood andbranches, and the presence of heavily burned layers, should yield much-needed answers tothe questions of wall construction and roofing systems. Likewise, we anticipate that bymaking larger exposures, we will understand better such issues as settlement organizationand the use of space.

The large building of 10 m diameter surrounded by other smaller constructions, in ouruppermost layer, seems to be of special importance, possibly a central building. Likewise, thepresence of stone slabs- reminiscent of the standing-stones of other early PPN sites, sug-gest the presence of special function cult buildings at Gusir Höyük. However, the recoveryof other similar slabs in some of the smaller buildings, makes this “special, cult building”identification somewhat dubious. What is clear is that these stone slabs are in different sizesand shapes and they occur in a number of different buildings. Their presence in differentlayers indicates a continuity of the tradition. We anticipate that the work at Gusir Höyük inthe coming seasons will contribute to the problems of symbolism in the early PPN.

The big structure in the uppermost horizon of Gusir Höyük resembles the “Public Building”of Hallan Çemi layer 1 (see Hallan Çemi in this volume); although we have no evidence forthe function of this building—whether it was for any special function or for domestic use—the similarity with Hallan Çemi is noteworthy. Likewise, the round-plan building with the“stone slab coated wall” in our phase 3 reflects a tradition known from Hallan Çemi(Rosenberg 2007a: fig. 8). The tradition of round plan buildings with sunken floors, asrevealed in our phase 2, is analogous to that of Körtik Tepe (Özkaya and San 2007: fig. 4)and Hasankeyf Höyük, the similarities extending to all architectural features.

Some of the graves found in Gusir Höyük are heavily destroyed because of the slope andother factors. As noted above, some of the burials we have exposed in our uppermost layermight actually be from a younger destroyed phase. The similarities in burial traditions

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 5

between Gusir Höyük and Demirköy are evident, in particular with the positioning of thehocker burials. On the other hand there are major differences from Körtik Tepe burials interms of burial gifts and other details; many of the typical elements of Körtik Tepe, suchas ornamented stones, stone vessels, grinding stones, and pestles have not yet been seenat Gusir Höyük.

As mentioned above the studies on chipped stone assemblages are limited to preliminaryassessments on a few samples. The arrowheads constitute an important part of the assem-blages, which are common findings in PPNA settlements; in general, similarities with theDemirköy assemblage are evident. There are a number of other similarities with Körtik Tepesuch as ornamented stones and beads with double holes. Previously, pestles with sculptedanimal heads were considered to be typical of the Nemrik assemblage of the PPNA; butrecent work in early Southeastern Turkey, including Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg and Redding2000: fig. 6) and Körtik Tepe, have indicated that they have a rather wide distribution area,both in the Upper Tigris and Upper Euphrates Basins. Accordingly, the recovery of similarfinds at Gusir is no surprise. On the other hand the oval or round ornaments with coloredinlays seem so far to be specific to Gusir.

The analysis of faunal and botanical material has just begun, and at present even a pre-liminary presentation is not possible; however, both the architectural remains and the cul-tural deposition suggest that the settlement was in use through the entire year and con-tinuously for a long period of time with no apparent interruption. The relative abundanceof arrowheads implies that hunting was common. Thus we assume that the settlement atGusir should be classified as a “sedentary hunter-gatherers” habitation as is the case withHallan Çemi, Demirköy, and Göbekli Tepe.

The five C14 dates (KIA44178 4 GSR: 9975±50 BP; KIA44179 5 GSR: 9935±40 BP; KI-A44176 2 GSR: 9920±40 BP; KIA44177 3GSR: 9900±40 BP; KIA44180 6GSR: 9590±45BP) obtained from the site place Gusir Höyük in the early 10th millennium BP. These datesare in accord with the other PPNA settlements from the Upper Tigris Basin, and are con-firmed by the similarities in the composition of the assemblages. Accordingly, it is possibleto state that Gusir Höyük belongs to approximately the same period as Hallan Çemi (10,200BP) (Rosenberg et. al. 1995: 3); Demirköy (10,000 BP) (Rosenberg 2007b: 14); Körtik Tepe(10,000 BP) (Özkaya and San 2007: 22) and Çayönü settlement’s Round Building Phase(10,200-9400 BP) (Özdoğan 1999: 41). From the similarities and differences between thesemore or less contemporaneous settlements, a new picture is now emerging. The four build-ing levels, occurring in the period 9975-9600 BP, suggest that there is great potential inthis site. The site, along with the others in the area, helps to clarify the role played by theUpper Tigris Basin in the development of the first settled villages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Gusir Höyük excavations are supported by funding from the Ministry of Culture andTourism, General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums. We would like to extendour thanks to our colleagues for their contribution in organizing the Ilısu Dam rescue exca-vation. We owe thanks to Assistant Professor Dr. Haluk Sağlamtimur and his team for mak-ing their resources available and for their friendship.

6 Necmi KARUL

REFERENCES

Algaze, G., R. Breuninger, C. Lightfoot and M. Rosenberg

1991 “The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A PreliminaryReport of the 1989-1990 Seasons”, Anatolica XVII: 175-240.

Altınbilek, Ç.

2000 Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Çayönü Yerleşmesi'nin Doğalcam Kazıyıcılarınınİncelenmesi (Kazıyıcıların Biçimsel Özelliklerine Göre Sınıflandırılması veİşlevlerinin Mikroskopla Kullanım İzi Analizi Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi).Unpublished M.A. Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Özdoğan, A.

1999 “Çayönü”, M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey. TheCradle of Civilization, New Discoveries: 35-63 (text), 20-35 (plates).Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Özkaya, V. and O. San

2007 “Körtik Tepe: Bulgular Işığında Kültürel Doku Üzerine İlk Gözlemler”, M.Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds.) Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu veAvrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: yeni kazılar, yeni bulgular:21-36 (text), 14-28 (plates). Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Rosenberg, M.

2007a “Hallan Çemi”, M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds.) Anadolu’da UygarlığınDoğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: yeni kazılar,yeni bulgular: 1-11 (text), 1-8 (plates). Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

2007b “Demirköy”, M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds.) Anadolu’da UygarlığınDoğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: yeni kazılar, yenibulgular: 13-19 (text), 9-11 (plates). Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Rosenberg, M. and B. L. Peasnall

1998 “A Report on the Soundings at Demirköy Höyük: An Aceramic Neolithic Sitein Eastern Anatolia”, Anatolica 24: 195-207.

Rosenberg, M. and R. W. Redding

2000 “Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia”, I. Kuijt (ed.)Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, anddifferentiation: 39-61. Plenum, New York.

Rosenberg, M., R. M. A. Nesbitt, R. W. Redding and T. F. Strasser

1995 “Hallan Çemi Tepesi: Some Preliminary Observations Concerning EarlyNeolithic Subsistence Behaviors in Eastern Anatolia”, Anatolica 21: 1-12.

Velibeyoğlu, J., A. Schachner and Ş. Schachner

2002 “Erste Ergebnisse eines Surveys im Botan-Tal und in Çattepe (Tilli)”, N. Tunaand J. Velibeyoğlu (eds.) Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage ofthe Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2000: 802-857.Middle East Technical University, TAÇDAM, Ankara.

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 7

8 Necmi KARUL

Fig.

1 -

Vie

w o

f G

usir

Höy

ük a

nd G

usir

Lake

fro

m t

he e

ast.

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 9

Fig. 2 - Upper Tigris Valley Pre-Pottery Neolithic period sites and the location of Gusir Höyük.

Fig. 3 - Topographic plan of Gusir Höyük and the 2010 trenches.

10 Necmi KARUL

Fig. 4 - Buildingremains of phase 1.

Fig. 5 - The large building with the stone-slab in phase 1.

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 11

Fig. 8 - Phase 2, the round building with the stone-slab.

Fig. 6 - Phase 1, burial in the open

court-yard.

Fig. 7 - Phase 1, burial in the open

court-yard.

12 Necmi KARUL

Fig. 9 - Phase 3,

round pit-building

with the stone-slab.

Fig. 10 - A general view of phases 3 and 4.

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 13

Fig.

11

- Ae

rial v

iew

of

area

s ex

cava

ted

in 2

010.

14 Necmi KARUL

Fig. 12 - Flint flakes and blade cores.

Fig. 13 - Flint and obsidian points. a-b: Nemrik points; c-d: tanged points; e: leaf-shaped point; f: obsidian tanged point.

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 15

Fig. 14 - Scrapers on flakes and blades. a-d: end scrapers; e-f: semi-circular scrapers.

Fig. 15 - Flint perforators. Fig. 16 - Handstone and ground stone.

16 Necmi KARUL

Fig. 17 - Sculpted pestle. Fig. 18 - Stone plugs.

Fig. 19 - Stone beads.

Fig. 20 - Bone beads.

GUS‹R HÖYÜK 17

Fig. 21 - Ornamented stone.

Fig. 22 - An ovoid bead with inlays.