11th millennium BC

Millennia:	12th millennium BC; 11th millennium BC; 10th millennium BC;
Centuries:	110th century BC; 109th century BC; 108th century BC; 107th century BC; 106th century BC; 105th century BC; 104th century BC; 103rd century BC; 102nd century BC; 101st century BC;

The 11th millennium BC spanned the years 11,000 BC to 10,001 BC (c. 13 ka to c. 12 ka or 12,950 BP to 11,951 BP). This millennium is during the ending phase of the

Epipaleolithic

period. It is impossible to date events that happened during this millennium, and all dates associated with this millennium are estimates based on geological analysis, anthropological analysis, and radiometric dating.

Animals

The ability to sail was not only a

Middle Eastern and Çatalhöyük data.^[2] The first part focuses on the evidence from the Middle East as a whole and discusses the elements involved in the development of established settlements beginning in the 11th millennium BC.^[2]^[3]^[4] The assertion can, however, also be examined in light of the domestication of cattle at Çatalhöyük itself in the 7th millennium BC (c. 9 ka or 8950 BP).^[2]

According to zooarchaeological research, the earliest known domestication of animals took place in the

masculine power and authority.^[7] The oldest known sanctuary dates back to the early 10th millennium BC and is located in Göbekli Tepe in Southeastern Turkey.^[8]

Only archaeozoological research and excavations have revealed the oldest indications of

Argolid.^[9] As early as the 9th millennium BC, the Fertile Crescent's sedentary early food-producing societies served as hubs for "experimental" pre-domestic animal management techniques.^[10] Furthermore, by the end of the 9th millennium BC, morphologically wild cattle had been brought to Cyprus, serving as a terminus ante quem for pre-domestic cow management.^[10] This prompts us to speculate that early sedentary towns from the PPNA and EPPNB, which date to the 10th and early 9th millennium BC, and possibly even the Younger Dryas (11th millennium BC), conducted early cow husbandry in a variety of ways.^[10]

Geographically, we propose that numerous modern communities in the

Tigris valleys, and central Anatolia developed distinct, local management traditions.^[10] Among other things, the island of Lemnos has some of the Aegean Sea's earliest hunter-fisherman villages, dating to the 11th millennium BC.^[11]

Beginnings of agriculture

The

Southeast Turkey in light of the discovery of a native Epipalaeolithic tradition.^[13] While the construction traditions were distinct, the establishment of sedentary populations during the Younger Dryas period here is similar to that of the Levant during the Natufian.^[13] The precise role that the intricate interactions between indigenous advancements and cross-regional cultural interchange played in the surprisingly early flowering of sedentary societies in Upper Mesopotamia in the 11th and 10th millennium BC is still unknown.^[13]

facades, which are also seen in the most researched archeological sites, such as Chermo (7th millennium BC) and Béstan Súr (11th millennium BC).^[15] These climatic and material traits have persisted and are now crucial components of regionally viable adaptation.^[15]

They have characterized archaeological tools from the

Near Eastern sites.^[16] According to scientific research, the Middle Euphrates was most likely the site of wild cereal cultivation in the 11th millennium BC.^[16] Several stages of this change can be identified when considering gloss texture analysis in conjunction with the existing archaeobotanical data.^[17] In Hayonim Terrace (12th millennium BC), unripe harvesting predominates, which suggests that wild grains in natural stands are being exploited.^[17] It is possible that human societies were already taking advantage of partially managed cereal fields that permitted the harvesting of plants in a semi-ripe stage, in addition to harvesting natural stands, based on the discovery of semi-ripe and unripe cereal cutting in the Middle Euphrates during the 11th millennium BC.^[17]

Several stages of this change can be identified by combining the existing archaeobotanical data with gloss texture analysis.[18] The prevalence of immature harvesting in Hayonim Terrace (12th millennium BC) suggests that wild grains were being used in their natural stands.^[18] The finding of semi-ripe and unripe cereal cutting in the Middle Euphrates during the 11th millennium BC implies that human societies may have begun to utilize early managed cereal fields, which permitted the harvesting of semi-ripe plants, in addition to natural stands.^[18] Harvesting near-ripe semi-green wild grains at the 23,000 year old Ohalo II site using the traditional qualitative usewear approach fits well with the evidence for the site's earliest known cereal cultivation, the authors say.^[18] The comparison of the archaeological and experimental gloss, however, does not support the identification of this activity because no trials on harvesting grown wild grains were included in the study's reference collection.^[18]

Furthermore, it is impossible to determine the exact type of plant that was harvested from the archeological artifacts because to the poor development of the use-wear polish.^[18] At Ohalo II, wild cereal extraction is well-documented.^[18] However, other well-known ethnographical methods of collection, including as hand plucking, beating, and uprooting, could have been employed instead of sickle harvesting.^[18] Sickles are an indicator of the intensification of cereal exploitation that, as far as we currently know, started during the Natufian period, when glossed tools are relatively common in archaeological sites, and allow for the quick collection of cereals in the field (given close spacing of the stems and fairly similar stage of maturity).^[18]

Pottery

Since diagnostic artifacts from the

North-eastern Asian archaeology.^[19] With the use of shellfish, fish, nuts, and roots, the subsistence pattern can instead be thought of in more generic terms as Mesolithic.^[19]

Other cultural developments

Fertile Crescent wood sones 11,000 BC (in Norwegian)

Near East

There are several later

peralkaline obsidian coming as cortical nodules.^[21]

Neolithic Anatolian sites in the Tigris basin, may offer helpful analogies for some of the behaviors at Direkli.^[22] The earliest levels at Körtiktepe date to the late 11th millennium BC (10,400–10,200 cal BC, through the transition to the Holocene),^[23]^[24]^[25] and Güsir is also likely to be equally early based on similarities to Körtik.^[22] Both of these sites date to the Epipalaeolithic/very early Neolithic.^[22] The number and variety of Körtiktepe's ornaments are noteworthy; some were mass-produced in the tens or hundreds of thousands and frequently included the funeral assemblage at the site.^[22]^[26]

6000 BC is reinforced by the recent discovery of a longitudinally grooved stone at Kiçik Tepe, which is an artifact otherwise known only in the Middle Euphrates and Zagros foothills from the 11th millennium BC, and a small number of painted pottery sherds at Haci Elamxanlı Tepe.^[28]

There is evidence that neighboring

northern Mesopotamia.^[29] It is evident that there is a substantial correlation between intensive usage of copper minerals and agriculture, which has been explained by the significance of copper's green color in relation to agricultural productivity.^[29] The research conducted by Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat also demonstrated that the Near Eastern (Pre)Neolithic communities were not limited to copper minerals as they also desired decorations made of apatite, turquoise, amazonite, or serpentinite for their aesthetic qualities.^[29]

There is evidence that the

northern Mesopotamia.^[30] Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat (2008) have suggested that the high correlation between excessive usage of copper minerals and agriculture can be attributed to the potent symbolism of the color green in relation to agricultural fertility.^[30]

Their research also revealed that the Near Eastern (Pre)Neolithic communities did not only value copper minerals; ornaments crafted from apatite, turquoise, amazonite, or serpentinite were also produced, and these materials were probably prized for their aesthetic qualities.

Europe and Russia

Although this is the earliest Melian obsidian that we have found on Crete, the use of these raw materials for distant labor has a longer history, having been used by populations from mainland Greece in the Upper Palaeolithic period of the 11th millennium BC.^[31] The Kazachka site provides a unique collection of data spanning the era between 10,000 and 1000 BC.^[32] Data from the 11th millennium BC are available from the Ust-Karenga site.^[32] Mehmet Özdoğan summarizes new findings made around Anatolia. Previously seen of as the recipient of ideas from the south-eastern Neolithic, Anatolia is today recognized as a social-economic hub that inspires its neighbors.^[33] There is a plethora of convincing evidence pointing to a Neolithic that began to emerge at the end of the 11th millennium BC, spanning several locations, and developed into unique identities.^[33] These areas are represented by unique structures, shrines, artwork, and artifacts that reflect their various economic and religious systems.^[33] The Epipalaeolithic site of Ouriakos, which dates to approximately the middle of the 11th millennium BC, was found in the southeast of the island in 2006.^[34] This discovery fundamentally altered our understanding of the oldest occupation of this region of the Aegean.^[34]

The site's links with the

northern Aegean throughout the Younger Dryas period due to a shared cultural ancestor.^[35] These techno-typological resemblances lead us to hypothesize that Kocaman lived in the late 11th millennium BC, making him roughly contemporaneous with Ouriakos.^[35]

Our understanding of the PPNA's features is primarily based on evidence gathered from the Upper Tigris Basin, where the earliest settlements date back to the late 11th millennium BC.^[36] After removing the samples with significantly larger deviations, radiocarbon dates from the towns of Hallan Çemi and Körtik Tepe indicate that the earliest settlements appeared between the late Younger Dryas and the early Holocene.^[36] Çemka and Boncuklu Tarla are also mentioned as having an analogous early stratum.^[36] Furthermore, the bedrock has not yet been reached at Hallan Çemi and Gusir Höyük, and the phases that have been excavated in the majority of the villages have not yet undergone rigorous dating.^[36] Moreover, it is challenging to establish a precise site chronology for sites that have a similar location but have moved over short distances, as is the case with Gusir Höyük (Qermez Dere) and Nemrik 9 to the south.^[36]

Despite all of these issues, the excavated sites in

Southeast Anatolia show that about the 10th millennium BC, groups that have begun to settle year-round or for the majority of the year, start to form.^[36] The PPNB and the period following 8800 cal BC saw the continuation of this occurrence, as evidenced by the instances of Çayönü and Gusir Höyük.^[36] The early sedentary populations are the main focus of this discussion since they produced a number of artifacts and a comparatively more sophisticated building that have no known predecessors in the area.^[36] Even while layers in Körtik Tepe, Boncuklu Tarla, and Çemka Höyük reach the Epipaleolithic, this period cannot yet be thoroughly discussed as a distinct historical period.^[36]

Çemka Höyük and Boncuklu Tarla are the southern sites in this group.^[36] At Boncuklu Tarla, there are layers referred to as Epipaleolithic, though detailed publications of these periods are still pending.^[36] Nonetheless, certain layers date back to the PPNA and change to the PPNB.^[36] In the PPNA layer, two silos with a diameter of 1.5–2 meters and a circular structure with a diameter of 5 meters were discovered.^[36] The building has a relatively shallow floor level and sturdy walls, resembling those seen in the higher levels of Gusir Höyük.^[36] This stratum comes from the early to middle of the 11th millennium BC.^[36] An 8–10 × 2.5 m public building with curved corners is located in the transition layer.^[36] Its flooring is made of a mixture of clay, marl, earth, and ash.^[36]

Although Çemka Höyük has not yet been explored, walls from two-meter-tall structures were discovered in the areas where the perimeter of the damage caused by the road construction was cleaned.^[36] These underground homes have walls made of medium-sized stones.^[36] For this site, the Late Epipaleolithic period is also significant, yet no published dating has been done to determine the exact period of occupation.^[36] Gusir Höyük was also explored for a short time, much like other rescue excavations.^[36] Although there are significant discrepancies, the radiocarbon dates and early reports on chipped stone demonstrate a coherent picture with the contemporaries.^[36] The location is close to the striking Gusir Lake, which is also featured in the excavation plan.^[36]

The site of Hayonim in Israel yields the earliest evidence of the creation of lime-based mortars, dating back to the 11th millennium BC.^[37] Subsequent evidence from other Near and Middle Eastern sites dates to the 8th or 7th millennium BC.^[37] The main purpose of mortars in these situations was to revet walls and floors.^[37]

Environmental changes

The light brown

Carpathian Basin.^[39]

Notes

^ ^a ^b Forenbaher & Miracle 2006, pp. 89–100.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hodder 2011, pp. 111–122.
^ Benz, M., Deckers, K., Rössner, C., Alexandrovskiy, A., Pustovoytov, K., Scheeres, M., Fecher, M., Coşkun, A., Riehl, S., Alt, K. W., & Özkaya, V. (2015). Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. Paléorient, 41(2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2015.5673
^ Siddiq, A. B., Şahin, F. S., & Özkaya, V. (2021). Local trend of symbolism at the dawn of the Neolithic: The painted bone plaquettes from PPNA Körtiktepe, Southeast Turkey. Archaeological Research in Asia, 26, 100280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2021.100280
^ ^a ^b Al-Araimi et al. 2017, pp. 88–94.
^ ^a ^b Lancelotti & Madella 2012, pp. 953–963.
^ Endoltseva 2017, pp. 128–142.
^ Dietrich, O., Heun, M., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K., & Zarnkow, M. (2012). The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. New evidence from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey. Antiquity, 86(333), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047840
^ ^a ^b Panagiotopoulou 2018.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Arbuckle & Kassebaum 2021, pp. 10–19.
^ Triantaphyllou et al. 2023, p. 143.
^ ^a ^b ^c Wiśniewski et al. 2012, pp. 308–321.
^ ^a ^b ^c Benz et al. 2015, pp. 9–30.
^ ^a ^b ^c Jagusiak & Kokoszko 2016, p. 41.
^ ^a ^b Rostam 2017, pp. 9–19.
^ ^a ^b Clemente Conte et al. 2018, p. 193.
^ ^a ^b ^c Ibáñez-Estévez et al. 2021.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Ibáñez-Estévez et al. 2021, p. 105502.
^ ^a ^b Pearson 1978, pp. 21–27.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Avner 2006, pp. 51–55.
^ ^a ^b Carter et al. 2013, pp. 556–569.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Baysal & Erek 2018, pp. 591–603.
^ Benz, M., Deckers, K., Rössner, C., Alexandrovskiy, A., Pustovoytov, K., Scheeres, M., Fecher, M., Coşkun, A., Riehl, S., Alt, K. W., & Özkaya, V. (2015). Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. Paléorient, 41(2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2015.5673
^ Emra, S., Benz, M., Siddiq, A. B., & Özkaya, V. (2022). Adaptions in subsistence strategy to environment changes across the Younger Dryas—Early Holocene boundary at Körtiktepe, Southeastern Turkey. The Holocene, 32(5), 390–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836221074030
^ Siddiq, A. B., Şahin, F. S., & Özkaya, V. (2021). Local trend of symbolism at the dawn of the Neolithic: The painted bone plaquettes from PPNA Körtiktepe, Southeastern Turkey. Archaeological Research in Asia, 26, 100280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2021.100280
^ Özkaya, V., & Siddiq, A. B. (2023). Körtiktepe in the origin and development of the Neolithic in Upper Mesopotamia. In T. Richter & H. Darabi, The Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic in the Eastern Fertile Crescent (1st ed., pp. 138–168). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003335504-11
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Emra et al. 2022, pp. 390–413.
^ Baudouin 2019, pp. 115–150.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Archaeopress Archaeology 2021, p. 13.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Radivojević & Roberts 2021, pp. 195–278.
^ Carter et al. 2016, pp. 87–102.
^ ^a ^b Nachasova, Burakov & Pilipenko 2015, pp. 44–50.
^ ^a ^b ^c Malone 2017, p. Bd. 94 (2016).
^ ^a ^b Areti 2018.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Çilingiroğlu et al. 2020, pp. 479–497.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w Karul 2020, pp. 76–95.
^ ^a ^b ^c Dilaria & Secco 2022, pp. 113–126.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Wickham-Jones & Hardy 2004, pp. 1–79.
^ Revista Transilvania 2015.

Bibliography

Webpages

Ibáñez-Estévez, Juan José; Anderson, Patricia C.; Arranz, Amaia; Urquijo, González; E., Jesús; Jörgensen-Lindahl, Anne; Mazzucco, Niccolò; Pichon, Fiona; Richter, Tobias (8 January 2021). "The Evolution of Plant Harvesting at The Dawn of Agriculture: Perspectives from Sickle Gloss Texture Analyses". Research Square.
hdl:10261/226283
. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

"Neolithic and Eneolithic copper artifacts in the area of the Lower Mureş and Crişul Alb Valleys". Revista Transilvania. 3 December 2015. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

Millennia:	12th millennium BC 11th millennium BC 10th millennium BC
Centuries :	110th century BC 109th century BC 108th century BC 107th century BC 106th century BC 105th century BC 104th century BC 103rd century BC 102nd century BC 101st century BC

v t e Millennia
CE / AD	1st 2nd 3rd 4th and later
BC	1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th and earlier