Reviews of the CANeW book

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) Number 331, August 2003, pp. 67-69, by Jak Yakar, Tel Aviv University.

The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th- 6th Millennia CAL BC: Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Istanbul, 23-24 November 2001, edited by Frédéric Gérard and Laurens Thissen. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2002. vii + 348 pp., 37 figures, 8 tables, 1 map, 5 charts. Paper. $30.00.

This book is a compilation of papers presented during the Central Anatolian Neolithic Workshop held in Istanbul. Prior to their presentation, during the two days of the workshop, 23-24 November 2001, most of the problematic topics were deliberated among members of the discussion groups, and with them, through a series of e-mail exchanges. In scientific meetings held in Turkey, this is a welcome novelty that should perhaps become a norm when organizing problem-oriented colloquia and workshops in the field of Anatolian archaeology.
Reading the proceedings of the CANeW-a total of 27 articles, including transcripts of the discussions that followed each paper-one gets the feeling that the current differences of opinion on various subjects, and in particular those relating to terminology, natural environment, or chronology, are not easy to bridge.
In his paper "On Terminology in Near Eastern Prehistory" (pp. 7-10), J. Perrot rightly points out that archaeology as a discipline suffers from a state of confusion due to the "bulk of archaeological data and simultaneously... big gaps in knowledge." His remarks concerning "the weakness of a poorly structured ensemble of information, the scientific status of which is still tentative; and, perhaps first of all, our vocabulary and terminology [which] remain inadequate" or his declaration that "the archaeological 'reality' is a reality that owes much to the imagination and intuition of the excavator" reflect his skepticism concerning the currently used methods in archaeology. Referring to the value of interdisciplinary scientific research, Perrot expresses his view quite bluntly: "The numerous specialists from various disciplines that the archaeologist invites to scrutinize the 'reality' that he lays before them are not always aware of its limitations; just as the archaeologist is not always conscious of the frailties of the disciplines whose advice he seeks. The equivocal interdisciplinary, not only for archaeology, muddles the reconstruction of 'what really happened,' the nature and turn of events that are the raw materials of historical reconstruction" (p. 7).
The papers in the book cover a variety of topics ranging from terminology and chronology to natural environment, including archaeozoology and archaeobotany; from settlement forms and social structure to aspects of culture and spiritual symbolism.
A total of six papers, including two appendixes, deal with problems of chronology and terminology: L. Thissen, "Time Trajectories for the Neolithic of Central Anatolia" (pp. 13-26) and "Appendix I. The CANeW 14C Databases: Anatolia, 10,000-5000 cal bc" (pp. 299-337); F. Gérard, "CANeW Archaeological Sites Database, Central Anatolia, 10,000-5000 cal bc" (pp. 339-48); C. Cessford, "Bayesian Statistics and the Dating of Çatalhöyük East" (pp. 27-31); P. Kuniholm and M. Newton, "Radiocarbon and Dendrochronology" (pp. 275-77); M. Özbasaran and H. Buitenhuis, "Proposal for a Regional Terminology for Central Anatolia" (pp. 67-77). The regional terminology proposed by M. Özbasaran and H. Buitenhuis, adopting the term "ECA" (Early Central Anatolia), is more or less what is also proposed by R. Matthews (compare the proposed periodization tables 1 and 2, pp. 91-103). Using the term "ECA" for Central Anatolia, or "EA" (Early Anatolia) for the prehistoric and protohistoric sequences of Anatolia, will create harmony with the "Cycladic," "Helladic," or "Cypriote" sequences. Choosing this terminological option one could then assign "Early Anatolian I" with its subdivisions for the entire Neolithic period, starting from its Aceramic phase (as "EA Ia," "EA Ib," "EA Ic," etc.). Then "EA II" with its subdivisions could be assigned for the entire Chalcolithic period, and EA III with its subphases can define the Early Bronze Age. Such a scheme is flexible enough to incorporate cultural subphases yet to be discovered.
Two articles cover the topic of natural environment: C. Kuzucuoglu, "The Environmental Frame in Central Anatolia from the 9th to the 6th Millennia cal. bc" (pp. 33-58), and H. Woldring, "Climate Change and the Onset of Sedentism in Cappadocia" (pp. 59-66). Both emphasize the well-known fact that continuity or change was dictated primarily, though not solely, by the degree of environmental stability or instability. They explain the palaeoenvironmental differences between the Konya Plain and Cappadocia as the consequence of macro- and microclimatic variations due to spells or cycles of change in the seasonality of winds, temperatures, and precipitation. Thus, they reaffirm the conviction of some of us that at the core of chronological differences in the emergence of similar patterns of settlement (subsistence oriented, trade oriented, long or short duration, seasonality, large versus small villages, clusters versus isolated villages, organization) lays the environmental factor guiding the subsistence-related activities of hunter-gatherers. Such scientific explanations make even the most skeptical among archaeologists begin to realize that even a relatively short-term instability in climatic conditions could have affected the living conditions in a particular environmental niche by affecting the growth and migratory patterns of food resources and the subsistence requirements of those dependent on them.
Three papers provide a detailed overview on the state of archaeozoological and archaeobotanical research and findings relating to the subsistence strategies of Neolithic Anatolian communities: Eleni Asouti and Andrew Fairbairn, "Subsistence Economy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic: The Archaeobotanical Evidence" (pp. 181-92); Louis Martin, Nerissa Russell, and Denise Carruthers "Animal Remains from the Central Anatolian Neolithic" (pp. 193-216); and Hijlke Buitenhuis, "Two Annotated Charts of the State of Archaeozoological Research in Central and Western Anatolia, 10,000-5000 cal bc" (pp. 217-18). On the origins of agriculture in Central Anatolia, Asouti and Fairbairn consider the possibility that it may have been introduced by colonizing agriculturalists from the southeast (p. 189). As for faunal patterning at principal Neolithic sites in Central Anatolia, Martin, Russell, and Carruthers draw our attention to the fact that Asikli Höyük shows evidence for the "appropriation" of sheep and goat by human groups, but no full domestication, whereas at Çatalhöyük East there is evidence for full mixed farming and domestication of sheep and goat from the earliest known deposits (p. 203).
Two papers contribute to the general topic of settlement forms, locations, and environmental contexts: Geoffrey Summers, "Concerning the Identification, Location and Distribution of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlements in Central Anatolia" (pp. 131-37); and Douglas Baird, "Early Holocene Settlement in Central Anatolia: Problems and Prospects as Seen from the Konya Plain" (pp. 139-59). Summers dwells on the likely reasons for the elusiveness of Neolithic and Chalcolithic settlements, which in turn can explain their sparse distribution in the central Anatolian plateau. Baird's paper focuses on the importance of combining geomorphological and geoarchaeological approaches in designing intensive field surveys. He suggests that evidence collected through such an interdisciplinary approach can go a long way in explaining changes in the social landscape of settlement during the early Holocene. In the Konya Plain, he believes that fluctuations in population aggregation and dispersal were quite independent of specific environmental developments. His findings in a certain way may challenge the assessments of Kuzucuoglu and Woldring.
Two papers deal with the question of social structure: F. Gérard, "Transformations and Societies in the Neolithic of Central Anatolia" (pp. 105-17); and I. Caneva, "Ethnicity as a Form of Social Relationship between Neolithic Cilicia and Central Anatolia" (pp. 119-28). Gérard tries to define the nature of sociocultural transformations in Central Anatolia between 7500 and 5500 b.c. His briefly presented suggestions triggered a long debate that made very little headway on the subject. Caneva's paper focuses on the notion of ethnicity in ancient societies and proposes a more complex approach in explaining the reasons for the emergence of cultural variability "even within a circumscribed, homogeneous territory and limited time span."
A total of seven papers deal with various cultural aspects of the Central Anatolian Neolithic: Roger Matthews, "Homogeneity versus Diversity: Dynamics of the Central Anatolian Neolithic" (pp. 91-104); Didier Binder, "Stones Making Sense: What Obsidian Could Tell Us about the Origins of the Central Anatolian Neolithic" (pp. 79-90); Clemens Lichter, "Central Western Anatolia-A Key Region in the Neolithisation of Europe?" (pp. 161-69); Günes Duru, "Some Architectural Indications for the Origins of Central Anatolia" (pp. 171-80); Bleda Düring, "Cultural Dynamics of the Central Anatolian Neolithic: The Early Ceramic Neolithic-Late Ceramic Neolithic Transition" (pp. 219-35); Mehmet Özdogan, "Defining the Neolithic of Central Anatolia" (pp. 253-61); and Harald Hauptmann, "Upper Mesopotamia in Its Regional Context during the Early Neolithic" (pp. 263-71). Matthews examines the likely role of internal and external dynamics in the establishment of the Neolithic cultural identity in Central Anatolia. Taking into consideration the currently available lithic and radiometric data, Binder proposes a four-stage development in the Neolithization process in Central Anatolia that lasted between prior to 8600 and 6700 cal b.c. Özdogan, using his advantage of detailed knowledge of the field and archaeological data, provides a brief but very important overview of the Central Anatolian Neolithic. He proposes "to try to see Central Anatolia as a frontier zone, or as a bridge, representing a different model of neolithisation" (p. 258). Hauptmann, focusing mainly on southeastern Anatolian Aceramic Neolithic sites, draws our attention to the possibility that "the spread of farming during the neolithisation of the Anatolian highlands from a common source in Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant may have influenced also the symbolic world of Neolithic Central Anatolia, materialized in the art of Çatalhöyük" (p. 267).
The paper of Damien Bischoff, "Symbolic Worlds of Central and Southeast Anatolia in the Neolithic" (pp. 237-51), speculates on the spiritual world of hunter-gatherer and farming communities. Bischoff rightly points out that in the shamanistic cosmos of the hunter-gatherers, with its telluric and chthonic forces, hunters could have tried to attain a mystical symbiosis with the animal world. Changes in the cosmic order would have occurred, according to Bischoff, during the "Achieved Neolithic" stage when farmers are supposed to have mastered their environment (p. 238). Mystical solidarity with vegetation, periodic world renovation through chthonic fertility, and social order are perceived as the basis of the new cosmic order.
Finally, "Appendix II: The CANeW Central Anatolian sites Database, 10,000-5000 cal bc" by Frédéric Gérard (pp. 339-48) is a useful addition to this book.
The discussion sessions that followed the papers demonstrate the divergence of views concerning certain topics. On the question of terminology, the necessity for an alternative nomenclature to replace the currently used cultural periodizations, such as Epipalaeolithic, Aceramic or Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Early and Late Neolithic, or Early, Middle, and Late Chalcolithic, is understandably not shared by all. Nevertheless, the view that cultural periods should not be defined according to single material-culture elements stands a good chance of obtaining a broader consensus. Since archaeology investigates the social, economic, technologic, and spiritual aspects of a culture through their artifactual and nonartifactual assemblages, cultural definitions should be more descriptive. For instance, the term "Aceramic Neolithic" does not really define the subsistence strategy of hunter-gatherer communities settled in permanent villages, involved or not yet involved in food-plant cultivation and animal domestication. By the same token, this term is hardly appropriate to describe the culture of hunter-gatherers whose high technological achievements in monumental architecture and plastic art, or economic activities and social complexity were in many ways more impressive than anything observed in the "Pottery Neolithic" period. In the absence of a clear consensus for an alternative terminology, it is certain that this traditional nomenclature is bound to remain in use for some time to come. In my opinion, the term "Prehistoric Village Culture" as a general definition for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic entities and their particular cultural frameworks could be an appropriate alternative. This term then could be either preceded by a reference to the level of technology (e.g., "Pre-Pottery Stage," "Pottery Stage," "Painted Pottery Stage"), and/or followed by a time-scale reference (e.g., "Prehistoric Village Culture of the Sixth Millennium b.c."). It is important to point out that the hunting and gathering mode of subsistence, which was sometimes accompanied by selective cultivation of wild food-plants and perhaps by local attempts to keep certain wild food-animals in captivity, continued to be pursued at different levels of intensity by most village communities-even by those already involved in broad range cultivation and domestication, in other words, in mixed farming. As for the use of the term "Chalcolithic" in reference to painted pottery-producing early village communities of the late sixth/early fifth millennium b.c., it remains a misnomer in view of the fact that a basic copper metallurgy existed in parts of Anatolia long before the introduction of pottery. One can argue that this know-how at such an early time was not applied to the manufacture of household implements, but mainly trinkets. Nevertheless, it still indicates that some sedentarized hunter-gatherer communities in Anatolia were successfully experimenting with a technology complex enough that it required at least some familiarity with mineral identification, as well as cold working, annealing, and smelting procedures.
This book is certainly an important addition to the long list of scientific publications on the subject of prehistoric Anatolia. It will be consulted by students and researchers alike, and not only for updating purposes but also to understand the scientific limits imposed on interpretation of archaeological data. After all, it is the interpretation of archaeological data that causes the frequent divergence of views concerning almost every possible aspect of the Neolithic culture of Central Anatolia.

__________________________

Paléorient number 28/2, 2002, p. 155, by Alain Le Brun, CNRS Lyon.

GERARD F. and L. THISSEN (eds). 2002. The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde Istanbul, 23-24 November 2001. Istanbul : Ege Yayinlari.

Le regain de l'activité archéologique en Anatolie centrale, tant en Cappadoce, - fouilles de Asikli Höyük, Musular, Güvercinkayasi, Tepecik Çiftlik, programme franco-turc sur l'obsidienne -, que dans la plaine de Konya, - Çatalhöyük Project -, a accru de façon spectaculaire les données sur les sociétés qui se sont succédé dans cette région entre les 9e et 6e millénaires cal BC, ouvrant ainsi de nouvelles perspectives à la recherche et permettant de formuler de nouvelles hypothèses. Pour en débattre, un forum électronique, intitulé le " Central Anatolian Neolithic e-Workshop ", ou CANeW, fut ouvert auquel prit part, entre janvier et juin 2001, un nombre volontairement limité de chercheurs. Cet échange s'accompagna de la création d'un site accessible à tous et toujours consultable (www.chez.com/canew/index.htm), de la constitution d'une base de données rassemblant les datations radiométriques et de l'établissement de cartes géoarchéologiques et géomorphologiques. De ces cartes, C. Kuzucuoglu présente dans ce volume (p. 34-58) une lecture dynamique établissant des corrélations entre les événements géomorphologiques et environnementaux et les données archéologiques. L'aboutissement de cet effort remarquable fut l'organisation en novembre de la même année d'une table ronde. Et, dès mai 2002, c'est-à-dire seulement six mois après, en paraissaient les actes accompagnés de deux appendices, versions papier des bases de données réunissant, l'une les datations radiométriques connues pour l'Anatolie, mise à jour et consultable sur le site http:/www.chez.com/canew/carbondatabase.htm, l'autre les sites archéologiques d'Anatolie centrale, consultable sur le site de CANeW. La lecture de ce volume est vivifiante : le contenu en est frais, comme on dit que les nouvelles sont fraîches, grâce au tour de force que représente une publication aussi rapide ; le ton est vivant, car le texte des contributions est accompagné et enrichi par la publication des discussions que chacune d'elles a suscitées. L'ensemble y gagne en spontanéité et en simplicité, qualités trop souvent absentes des publications archéologiques. L'ouvrage reflète l'esprit dans lequel le forum électronique a été conduit : échanger des idées sur des problèmes généraux et rassembler la documentation existante. Aussi, tout au long de l'ouvrage un mouvement de balancier est-il sensible entre, d'une part, la peinture de larges fresques visant à déceler les différentes dynamiques, internes et externes, à l'oeuvre et les différentes trajectoires suivies, à expliquer les ruptures observées (vers 7 500 cal BC avec l'abandon des établissements de Cappadoce et la réoccupation de la plaine de Konya ; vers 6 500 entre les niveaux VII-VIA - Early Ceramic Neolithic - et les niveaux V-II - Late Ceramic Neolithic - de la séquence de Çatalhöyük ; vers 6 000 entre le Late Ceramic Neolithic et le Early Chalcolithic), et, d'autre part, la prise en compte du caractère fragmentaire et incomplet de la documentation dont l'illustration la plus éclatante est, dans sa sécheresse, la contribution de H. Buitenhuis sur l'état de la recherche archéozoologique (p. 217-218). En effet, malgré l'intensification de l'activité archéologique, des lacunes importantes existent. " ...We have streetlights shining partially on Çatalhöyük, on Asikli Höyük, and in various other places, but much of the streets is actually still very dark and mysterious... ", pour reprendre les termes de R. Matthews (p. 296). Il n'en reste pas moins que, même vu par ces " petites fenêtres ", le Néolithique d'Anatolie centrale apparaît comme une entité originale tant en ce qui concerne l'architecture, l'organisation des établissements, l'utilisation de l'espace, les différents assemblages que les modes de vie, les structures sociales, les " technologies culturelles ", ou sa dynamique interne. Il représenterait un modèle de néolithisation différent de ceux du Proche-Orient (M. Özdogan, p. 257). Spécificité qui serait à mettre au compte de la position périphérique de cette région. Cette spécificité soulève deux questions d'ordre différent. La première est celle de la terminologie : les contributions hésitent entre une terminologie traditionnelle : Néolithique pré-céramique, Néolithique céramique, Chalcolithique, et une terminologie neutre, propre à l'Anatolie centrale, qui a été formulée à l'occasion du forum électronique et dont une version révisée est présentée (p. 67-77), où la séquence est divisée en Early Central Anatolian I ou ECA I, ECA II... La seconde question est celle de l'origine de ce Néolithique, son origine géographique et le processus de son émergence, question qui traverse l'ensemble de l'ouvrage et qui constitue le thème central de deux contributions. La réponse au premier volet de la question que donne l'utilisation, comme critère déterminant, l'emploi dans les constructions de la brique crue est indécise (G. Duru, p. 171-80), en revanche c'est clairement l'Anatolie du Sud-Est que désignent les données archéobotaniques (E. Asouti et al., p. 189), le processus suggéré étant " ...dispersal via exchange or population movement is the only credible agent for the spread of cereal crops in Central Anatolia " (E. Asouti, p. 212). Et si les données archéozoologiques indiquent une origine étrangère avec comme candidat vraisemblable l'Anatolie orientale, cela ne concerne que les " ideas of herd management ", car " there is little doubt that they (the ideas of animal management) were carried out on local wild stock " (L. Martin et al., p. 198). On remarquera à ce propos que la domestication des plantes s'est produite très tôt en Anatolie centrale alors que la domestication des animaux a apparemment pris des millénaires. Pour sa part, D. Binder (p. 79-90), s'appuyant sur la diffusion et l'échange de l'obsidienne, envisage l'existence de processus d'interaction entre le Néolithique levantin et l'Anatolie centrale. On aurait donc affaire à un phénomène d'acculturation, modèle qui est loin d'être accepté par tous. Lui est opposé, entre autres, un modèle qui tout en reconnaissant la réalité de contacts, dénie toute influence d'une communauté sur l'autre (M. Özdogan, p. 85-86). La question de l'origine de Çatalhöyük, bien que souvent évoquée, est moins discutée, une sorte d'accord s'étant fait au cours du forum électronique sur le caractère composite de la communauté, " people of a mixed constellation founding Çatalhöyük " (F. Gerard, p. 108). Établi sur une cône d'alluvions, dans une zone sujette à des inondations régulières, Çatalhöyük, dont la taille ne cesse d'intriguer, ne paraît pas occuper l'emplacement le plus favorable à la pratique de l'agriculture, tout au moins pour un observateur du 21e siècle. Les sols plus légers et plus caillouteux étaient-ils, en l'absence de charrues lourdes tirées par des animaux, plus faciles à cultiver que les lourdes terres rouges et argileuses ? Ce qui aurait pour conséquence de nous amener à modifier stratégies de prospection et lectures de cartes. Ces remarques sont loin d'épuiser la richesse de ce volume qui constitue un instrument de travail et de réflexion précieux. Et l'on ne peut que souhaiter que les rencontres bâties sur le même modèle dont l'éventualité est suggérée et qui traiteraient de la Haute-Mésopotamie ou de l'Anatolie occidentale et l'Egée, se tiennent. On ne peut aussi que souhaiter que le succès d'une telle démarche soit une incitation pour d'autres chercheurs à entreprendre pour d'autres régions des projets similaires.

__________________________

European Archaeology - Online, by Alexandru Dragoman (Archaeological Institute, Bucharest, Romania), http://www.archaeology.ro/rad_canew_en.htm

Frédéric Gérard and Laurens Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th-6th Millennia CAL. BC., Proceedings of the International Central Anatolian Neolithic e-Workshop Table Ronde, Istanbul, the 23rd-24th of November 2001: Istanbul 2002, Ege Yayinlari, ISBN 975-807-052-5, Paperback, 348 pages. Distributed by Ege Yayinlari (30 EUR) and by Oxbow Books (33.95 GBP).

"CANeW, however, is an interesting sort of conference. Unlike the annual symposium in Ankara for instance, where the body of knowledge gets its passport picture taken, so to speak, in order to be presented to the bureaucracy along with its official I.D. card, CANeW is more like a family picture. Yet, not a snapshot. It is a formal family dinner let's say, where the young and the old, uncles and aunts and cousins meet, speaking within the family, yet not necessarily all too sincerely. The gathering is among people that are closely related, but it is not necessarily a cozy one. The less so, perhaps, for this dinner party is a first of its kind - gathering around the same table, the young and the old, the youthful and the wise, the closer and the more distant, the joyful and the resentful, and so on." (Oguz Erdur, p. 285). It all began after a discussion among a few archaeologists travelling to a common destination, in a hot summer day of June 2000 on the way from Istanbul to Asagi Pinar, in Turkish Thrace. Taking into account the new data gathered from vast researches started at the end of the '80s and the beginning of the '90s (for instance, Ufuk Esin at Asikli Höyük, Ian Hodder at Çatalhöyük), they decided to initiate a project dedicated to the Neolithic in Central Anatolia. Consequently, in November of the same year Frédéric Gérard and Laurens Thissen formed a closed door group, made up of 12 researchers (Americans, English, Dutch, French, Italians and Turks), who, via the Internet, were supposed to exchange opinions, ideas and data likely to contribute to a new understanding of the Central Anatolian Neolithic societies from the 9th-6th millenia CAL. BC. At the same time with the discussion group was created also an extremely flexible and dynamic website, open to all those interested in the theme proposed, where were published the preliminary results of the project: syntheses of the on-line dialogues, geo-archaeological maps with the site distribution, radio-carbon databases, etc. (www.chez.com/canew/). A year since the project started, the initiators have decided to transform the discussion group into a free debate in which anyone who wishes can take part. That resulted in the organizing on the 23rd-24th of November 2001 of a "round table" in Istanbul. It was not by chance that a city in Turkey has been chosen for the event, as the organizers wished all the students and researchers in the country about which they speak to be present. At the same time, in order to make it easier for all the participants to attend this "round table" admission was free, while the cheapest accommodation in Istanbul was sown on site, as well as the best transport offers. Due to this policy, the number of the participants was very hugh (over 100, 50 of whom Turks) and varied (Americans, Australian, Belgian, British, Bulgarians, Germans, Greeks, Israelis, Italians, Japanese, Dutch and Polish). Best represented was the young generation of British, Dutch, French, German, Italian and Turkish archaeologists. In order to prevent this event from becoming a formal one, enhancing the participants' bibliographical list (namely to strengthen their professional/social status), the organizers decided to lay emphasis not on the presentation of the papers (for which 20 minutes were allowed), but on the debates brought about by each paper separately (for which 40 minutes were allowed). Meanwhile, only those papaers tackling really important matters were accepted, not the excavations report type. The topics approached were varied, encompassing the following themes: proposals regarding the absolute chronology of the Central-Anatolian Neolithic (Craig Cessford; Peter Ian Kuniholm and Maryanne Newton), the importance of geo-archeological maps related to the distribution of Neolithic sites (Catherine Kuzucuo?lu), methodological discussions regarding the field walking in the region (Douglas Baird; Geoffrey Summers), the creation of a useful regional terminology (Mihriban Özba?aran and Hijlke Buitenhuis; Jean Perrot), new perspectives regarding the man-environment relation in Neolithic societies (Eleni Asouti and Andrew Fairbairn; Louise Martin, Nerissa Russell and Denise Carruthers; Henk Woldring), hypotheses regarding the origin of the Neolithic in Central Anatolia (Didier Binder; Güne? Duru), aspects of the cultural and homogeneity and transformations of social systems in the region (Bleda Düring; Frédéric Gérard; Roger Matthews; Laurens Thissen), ethnicity (Isabella Caneva), the evaluaiton of the extent and intensity of contacts between Central Anatolia and the contiguous regions: South-East Anatolia, northern Levant, Cilicia, the Lakes Region, the Egeean Sea and north-western Anatolia (Harald Hauptman; Clemens Lichter; Mehmet Özdo?an), and an attempt at explaining the social representation by analysing the symbolic repertoires from two important stations of the Neolithic in Anatolia- Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük (Damien Bischoff). In the annex of the volume are published two databases comprising the radiocarbon data (Laurens Thissen) and, the Neolithic stations in Central Anatolia, respectively (Frédéric Gérard). Everyone was invited to join the debates, irrespective of the hierarchy - students and teachers as equal participants. Both for the papers and the debates only one international language was used - English. All the debates were recorded on tape, and then transcribed on paper, as later the texts were presented on site in integrum. At the end of this workshop the tapes were offered to Oguz Erdur for him to make a "sociological evaluation" of the conference. His evaluation materialized in one of the most intriguing articles of the volume: Pages from the secret memoirs of a tape-transcriber: a Nitzschean note on knowledge. These transcriptions were also printed in a book only six months after the completion of the project, owing to an independent publishing house. For the printed volume, each participant was invited to speak once again. As well understood, while presenting this volume I did not insist upon the "scientific" content itself in the least. That not only out of competence reasons. I just wanted to point out the story of this volume, the debates, critical arguments and opinions, often contrary, that are present in it. The papers, far from being simple statements of solutions, become pretexts and starting arguments for a type of debate understood as a series of questions whose answers become questions in their turn expecting answers: a number of readings of the past; a round table justified by debates only, not by the position in the academic hierarchy or the appurtenance to an age group. After having read this volume one cannot fail to remark that in Romania, unfortunately, we keep on showing the same apathy towards the issueing of an archaeological work, lack of interest in various archaeological issues, especially those linked to the theoretical background of our discipline Today's Romanian archaeology is a series of monotonous, parallel discourses rarely intersecting. I have read this volume with pleasure, as a play in which one regrets being just a spectator gradually turns, while reading, into the joy of taking part - be it even post factum - in a beautiful discussion next to Frédéric Gérard, Laurens Thissen and their guests.