Archaeologist, specialist of Near Eastern Prehistory and Neolithisation. Fourteen years of works in Turkey, participation to excavation projects from Southern Syria, Upper Euphrates to Azerbaijan.
Currently in charge of the IFEA’s Archaeology Unit, and collaborating to Tepecik-Çiftlik excavation with Istanbul University' Prehistory Department.
2002-2008 : PhD in Prehistory, Paris X University
2000/2001 : DEA in Prehistory, Paris X University
1999/2000 : Master in Prehistory, Paris X University
1998/1999 : Licence Art History and Archaeology, Paris X University
Collaborations and associate Researcher
Cépam-CNRS UMR 7264, Nice-France
Technologie et Préhistoire UMR 7055, MEA CNRS- Paris X France
Istanbul University, Prehistory Department
Archaeological excavations and Surveys
1998-2001 : Abri Pendimoun (Mésolithic, Néolithic, Alpes-Maritimes, France, dir. D. Binder)
2001 : Kömürcü-Kaletepe obsidian workshop (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia, Turkey, dir. N. Balkan-Atlı & D. Binder)
2001-today : Tepecik-Çiftlik (Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic, Cental Anatolia, Turkey, dir. E. Bıçakçı)
2004 : Dja'de (Neolithic PPN, Euphrates, Syria, dir. Eric Cocquegniot)
2009-2010 : Supervision of the Qarassa North Tell excavations (Mission Franco-syrienne du Leja, dir. M. al-Maqdissi & F. Braemer)
Ceramic Productions , Technological traditions and cultural interractions during Neolithic in Anatolia
For a long time, the issue of Neolithic expansion into Europe was examined in the light of diffusion models based on archaeological evidence from the Levant and Mesopotamia, compared with evidence found in the Western Mediterranean, thus favouring the hypothesis of a direct corridor of diffusion linking the Near East to Europe, in keeping with the pioneering work of G. Childe.
Over recent decades, the development of these models focused on the pace of this diffusion, theorised in terms of continuous “waves” prompted by environmental factors or demographic stresses within the Levant and Mesopotamian populations.
Although the idea of continuous diffusion has recently been called into question, counterbalanced by a vision in which the environmental and demographic determining factors are analysed within a dynamic system, where social phenomena form part of the process, the fact nevertheless remains that the archaeological evidence in Anatolia is still surprisingly neglected.
Yet the blame does not lie with the fieldwork which, for over thirty years, has demonstrated that Anatolia cannot be considered a geographical transit zone between the two continents and that the relationship between the Near East and Europe was not only one-way, but rather made up of a system of physical and cultural exchanges which were far more atomised, and these parameters are all too often excluded from synopses explaining Neolithisation processes.
The study of ceramic production is symptomatic of the above, with typological classifications often replacing cultural identities, thus creating confusion between the concept of ceramic style and the concept of culture. Hence it is the very notion of a ceramic cultural marker which has to be reassessed, and we are keen to define common denominators based on chaînes opératoires and not solely on typologies if we wish to gain an understanding of the issue of Neolithic expansion into Europe as well as Anatolia’s role in the related cultural processes.
Regional Focus: Anatolia, Upper Mesopotamia, Eastern Mediterranea and Aegea.
Thematic: Neolithisation, Technical practices and Social Transmission, Ceramic technologies.
Methodological Key-Words: Techno-cultural Approach, Pottery Technology, Chaînes opératoires, Pottery experimentation.