The origins of Europe's first farmers: The role of ...

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR

The origins of Europe’s first farmers: The role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, fifty years on

165

The origins of Europe’s first farmers: The role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, fifty years on by Maxime Brami, Liverpool, and Volker He y d, Bristol

Westanatolien; Südosteuropa; Frühneolithikum; Chronologien; keramische Waren; neolithische ‘Pakete’; akeramisches Neolithikum; Impresso. Anatolie de l’Ouest; Sud-est Européen; Néolithique Ancien; chronologies; productions céramiques; ‘bagages’ Néolithiques; Néolithique Pré-céramique; Impresso. Western Anatolia; Southeast Europe; Early Neolithic; chronologies; pottery wares; Neolithic packages; Pre-Pottery Neolithic; Impresso.

Jüngste Entdeckungen im westlichen Teil Anatoliens werfen ein neues Licht auf die Herkunft von Europas ersten Neolithikern. Vor 50 Jahren schlug James Mellaart vor, dass sich frühneolithische Gemeinschaften in Griechenland und auf dem Balkan gemeinsame Vorfahren in Westanatolien und hier besonders in der Fundstelle von Hacılar teilen. Derzeitige Ausgrabungen entlang der ägäischen Küste der Türkei und in der erweiterten Marmara-Region, auf halbem Weg zwischen Hacılar und Europa, bestätigen diese Verbindung und vermitteln jetzt ein deutlich komplexeres und akkurateres Bild der Ausbreitung des Neolithikums nach Südosteuropa. Die nochmalige Evaluierung der absoluten und relativen Chronologien, die in dieser Arbeit vorgeschlagen werden, identifizieren drei chrono-geographische Horizonte (zwei definitive, ein mutmaßlicher), jeder charakterisiert durch ein unterschiedliches neolithisches ‘Paket’. Es sind wiederholte Migrationen aus dem Zentralanatolischen Plateau, und darüber hinaus aus der Levante, die in der zweiten Hälfte des 7. Jahrtausends vor Christus wahrscheinlich die neolithische Lebens- und Wirtschaftsweise nach Europa gebracht haben. Nachweise für noch frühere neolithische Ausbreitungen bleiben hingegen nach wie vor unsicher. Les découvertes récentes en Anatolie de l’Ouest apportent un éclairage nouveau sur l’origine des premiers fermiers européens. Il y a cinquante ans, James Mellaart suggérait que les communautés du Néolithique Ancien en Grèce et dans les Balkans résultaient d’une ascendance commune en Anatolie de l’Ouest, plus précisément à Hacılar. Les fouilles en cours sur les côtes Turques de la Mer Égée et sur le pourtour de la Mer de Marmara, à mi-chemin entre Hacılar et l’Europe, confirment ce lien et donnent une vision plus précise et plus complexe des processus de diffusion du Néolithique dans le Sud-Est Européen. Le réexamen des chronologies absolue et relative proposé dans cet article permet d’identifier trois horizons chrono-géographiques (deux confirmés, un troisième reste à établir), caractérisés chacun par un ‘bagage’ néolithique différent. Des migrations successives à partir du Plateau Central Anatolien et, plus en amont, du Levant, dans la seconde moitié du 7ème millénaire avant J.-C. ont probablement diffusé le mode de vie et de subsistance néolithique à l’Europe. L’existence de diffusions néolithiques plus anciennes reste cependant incertaine. Recent discoveries in Western Anatolia have shed new light on the origins of Europe’s first farmers. Fifty years ago, James Mellaart suggested that Early Neolithic communities in Greece and the Balkans shared a common ancestry in Western Anatolia at the site of Hacılar. Current excavations conducted along the Aegean coast of Turkey and in the broader Marmara region, halfway between Hacılar and Europe, confirm this link and provide a more complex and accurate picture of the spread of farming to Southeast Europe. The re-evaluation of the absolute and relative chronologies proposed in this paper identifies three chrono-geographical horizons (two definite, one tentative), each characterised by a different Neolithic ‘package’. Repeated migrations from the Central Anatolian plateau, and further on from the Levant, probably spread farming to Europe in the second half of the 7th millennium BC. The evidence for earlier Neolithic dispersals remains ambiguous.

PZ, 86. Band, S. 165–206 © Walter de Gruyter 2011

DOI 10.1515/PZ.2011.011



166

Maxime Brami and Volker Heyd

Introduction Fifty years ago, James Mellaart conducted excavations at Hacılar in the southwest of Turkey. At that time, Hacılar was the only site in the Anatolian peninsula that had produced a stratified sequence reaching back to the Neolithic period1; the importance of the site lay in its potential to bridge the gap between Neolithic cultures in Mesopotamia and Europe (Mellaart 1978, 9; 1970, xii). What especially caught the attention of Mellaart and his contemporaries was the extent of the similarities – in almost every aspect of material culture – between Hacılar and Neolithic sites in Greece and the southern Balkans (Mellaart 1960, 92; Schachermeyr 1976, 44). Hacılar – and by extension Western Anatolia – was erected as a model for the Neolithic in Europe and it became a cornerstone for diffusionist theories. Hacılar is an inland site however, located on a high plateau in Southwest Turkey around 200 km from the Aegean Sea, and as such it hardly qualifies as a gateway to Europe. This is one of the reasons why the Hacılar ‘connection’, initially so accepted, lost support over time. Hacılar is no longer the westernmost Neolithic site in Anatolia. Recent fieldwork in the regions of Izmir and Marmara, halfway between Hacılar and Europe, has shed new light on the process of Neolithisation in Southeast Europe. The purpose of this article is to propose a reassessment of the contribution of Western Anatolia to the development of the Neolithic in Southeast Europe. The aims of this paper are threefold: 1. to review an old question: Hacılar; how relevant is this model today and in light of recent discoveries in Western Anatolia? 2. To discuss the value of existing absolute and relative chronologies to establish the potential contemporaneity and the link between farming communities in Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans. 3. To attempt to define the process behind the Neolithisation of Southeast Europe and to clarify the role of western Anatolia in this process. Scholars working in Europe and Turkey use different terminologies. Thus, the Late Neolithic of Anatolia corresponds roughly to the Early Neolithic in Greece, while the Early Chalcolithic of Anatolia synchronizes with the Middle Neolithic in Greece and the Early Neolithic in the Balkans (Lichter 2005, 7).

Hacılar: review of an old question In the First Preliminary Report of the excavations at Hacılar (published 1958), James Mellaart proclaims his “discovery of an early Chalcolithic culture which in nearly all aspects is the nearest known relative of the Sesklo culture in Thessaly and its variants in Central Greece and the Peloponnese” (Mellaart 1958, 153). In another article, Mellaart further suggests parallels between Hacılar and the culture of Starcˇevo in the Balkans (Mellaart 1960, 91–92). 1

Except for two sites in the Cilician plain, Southeast Turkey: Mersin-Yumuktepe and Tarsus-Gözlükule.

These statements, imbued with culture-historical references, betray Mellaart’s ambition to establish Hacılar as a model for the Neolithisation in Europe. How significant is Hacılar to our understanding of early farming communities in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe? Have the discoveries made in the last fifty years contradicted or significantly altered the Hacılar model as proposed by Mellaart? A brief introduction to Hacılar A brief introduction to Hacılar is provided here for the reader who may be unfamiliar with the site. Hacılar is set within Turkey’s Lake District (Göller Bölgesi), a mountainous region in Southwestern Anatolia characterised by a series of big lakes and probably heavily wooded in Neolithic times (Schoop 2005b, 48). Hacılar is located about 10 km south of the lake of Burdur (Burdur Göllü) in a high plain at an elevation of 945 m (Mellaart 1970, xii). The prehistoric site, which is in the middle of the fields, is named after the nearby village of Hacılar (GPS location: 37°34’38N; 30°04’54E). Hacılar is a höyük, a settlement mound formed by the layered accumulation of settlement debris over generations (Fig. 1). Due to alluviation and post-excavation levelling activities, however, the mound is at present almost inconspicuous (Harmankaya et al. 1997). Hacılar was discovered by James Mellaart during his 1956 survey of Anatolia (Mellaart 1978, 11). It was excavated during four short study seasons between 1957 and 1960 (Mellaart 1970, xiii). The stratigraphy of Hacılar as published by Mellaart reached down about 5 m and comprised thirteen superimposed building-levels, labelled I–IX, with subphases marked A–D, ascribed to the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic period in Anatolian chronology (Fig. 2). Three extremely well preserved building-levels deserve mention: the burnt settlement of Hacılar VI, the small enclosed settlement of Hacılar II and the fortress of Hacılar I. The reader should refer to the original publication by Mellaart (1970) for more information on these levels. Seven or more aceramic levels belonging to an even earlier horizon were also discovered in a small sounding west of the site in area Q (Mellaart 1970, 3). In 1985 and 1986, Refik Duru excavated 28 soundings in a 100 m belt encircling the mound (Duru 1989; 1999; 2007). In several trenches, he was able to identify floors made of small pebbles and lime, rubbed with yellow or red pigment and lightly burnished. If this identification is correct, then the aceramic settlement would have spread over a considerable surface – probably much more extensive than the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic town. Additionally, the recovery of six fragments of pottery embedded in house floors led Duru to challenge the interpretation of these early levels as aceramic (Duru 1989, 102). There is currently some dispute regarding this issue2. At the heart of this discussion is the

2

See for example Thissen 2000a, 142.




167

Fig. 1. Plan of Hacılar with the three main building-levels (redrawn after Mellaart 1970, Figs. 8; 20; 35; 42). The original plans by James Mellaart do not overlap exactly. The letters indicate the location of the trenches excavated by James Mellaart

question of whether these levels are contemporary with the Central Anatolian Aceramic Neolithic (here mid 9th to late 8th Millennium BC) or with the Early Pottery Neolithic (late 8th Millennium BC to 6700/6000 BC) (Özbas¸aran/Buitenhuis 2002, 68). Since Duru’s excavations, the site of Hacılar has received little attention. Duru recently published a book, which deals more specifically with the controversies that arose after Mellaart’s excavation at Hacılar, in particular the problems of illegal looting and of fakes (Duru 2010). The (changing) significance of Hacılar Returning to the main issue of this paper, two main assumptions underlie the Hacılar model: 1. Hacılar is the ‘missing link’ between farming communities in Mesopotamia and in Europe; and 2. Hacılar exhibits a material culture that is closely akin to that of contemporary sites in Greece and in the Balkans. We would like to review these two assumptions against the background of, firstly, archaeological enquiries in the 1950s and, secondly, new approaches and discoveries. It is worth emphasising that when Hacılar was discovered in 1956, the Neolithic in Anatolia was virtually terra incognita. Well-established scholars such as Seton

Lloyd, the Director of the British School of Archaeology at Ankara, speculated on the possible absence of Neolithic occupation in Turkey (Lloyd 1956, 53–54; Düring 2000, 1). Obviously, Neolithic exposures had been known in Mersin and Tarsus for some time, but since both sites were in Cilicia, close to the Fertile Crescent, they were regarded as “western outposts of Syria and Mesopotamia” (Mellaart 1978, 9). This is why the discovery of Hacılar on the Anatolian plateau – about 400 km further west than Mersin – initially aroused much attention. Culture-historical accounts already acknowledged that painted pottery cultures in Greece and the Balkans were related to similar cultures in Mesopotamia (Childe 1950, 41). Anatolia was regarded as a landbridge between these widely separated regions (Özdopan 2004; Düring 2011, 195). With Hacılar, Mellaart succeeded in demonstrating that the traditional view of Anatolia as a path of communication rather than as a cultural entity was inaccurate (Mellaart 1966, 2–3). Not only was Hacılar a ‘missing link’ between farming communities in Mesopotamia and Europe, but it also offered a paradigm to apprehend cultural manifestations of the Neolithic in Southeast Europe. As seen in Figure 2, Hacılar spans three periods, each significant in its own respect:



168


Fig. 2. Stratigraphic sequence of the site of Hacılar (adapted from Mellaart 1970, 92). The original radiocarbon dates (uncalibrated BP) from the 1957–1960 excavation (Ralph/Stuckenrath 1962, 145–146; Barker/Mackey 1963, 107–108; Thissen 2006) were re-calibrated using the IntCal09 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2009) in Oxcal 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). The intervals presented here are expressed at two standard deviations (95.4 % probability)

a. The existence of an aceramic phase at Hacılar, if confirmed, proves the anteriority of Western Anatolia vis-à-vis the Neolithic cultures in Europe. Admittedly, the remains of the aceramic town are only known through very small exposures in area Q and there is some controversy as to whether it exists at all (Mellaart 1970, 3; Duru 1989). The only 14C date from Aceramic Hacılar – BM-127: 8700x180 BP (8282–7468 cal. BC at 2) – poses more problems than it solves (Barker/Mackey 1963, 107–108). This date, which was obtained in the early 1960s, has a large standard deviation. It is, however, broadly in agreement with Mellaart’s assessment that occupation at Hacılar started off in the Aceramic Neolithic period.

b. Late Neolithic Hacılar has yielded a material culture that bears striking resemblance with that found in the earliest Neolithic sites in Thessaly, incidentally dated to roughly the same period (c. 6400–6100 cal. BC). Late Neolithic Hacılar thus fits into the framework of the spread of farming into Europe. c. In Early Chalcolithic Hacılar, painted pottery with elaborate motifs is most conspicuous. The red-on-cream painted pots from Hacılar V–II are so similar to Greek prototypes that sherds of the two traditions can be mixed up (Fig. 3) (Schachermeyr 1976, 44). This suggests that there were sustained contacts between Western Anatolia and Greece even after the initial period of contact.




Fig. 3. Comparison of typical red-on-cream painted sherds from (left) Classic Sesklo, Thessaly and (right) Hacılar (after Schachermeyr 1976, Farbtaf. I; III)

In his First Preliminary Report of the excavations at Hacılar, James Mellaart (1958, 154–156) listed the similarities between Hacılar and the culture of Sesklo in Thessaly (Fig. 4). These similarities, according to Mellaart, cannot be coincidental, because they concern almost every aspect of material culture. The changing significance of Hacılar in our understanding of the origins of Europe’s first farmers typifies the evolutions in the research. We wish to suggest that extensive survey and excavation over the last fifty years on the Anatolian plateau and in regions that can be regarded as gateways to Europe undermine the model of Hacılar as the ‘missing link’ between Mesopotamia and Europe. Likewise, new approaches within archaeology concerning the interpretation of cultural similarity have led to a relative dismissal of the Hacılar model as “the nearest known relative of the Sesklo culture in Thessaly …” (Mellaart 1958, 153). Paradoxically, it is perhaps Mellaart himself who involuntarily inflicted the most severe blow to the Hacılar model. Less than two years after the start of the excavation at Hacılar, he discovered the large village site of Çatalhöyük, near Çumra in the Konya Plain, which was to become a major landmark of Neolithic archaeology in general (Mellaart 1978, 8). It is unsurprising that the closure of the Hacılar dig (1960) coincided with the start of the excavation at Çatalhöyük (1961). Çatalhöyük, with its continuous sequence spanning the entire ceramic Neolithic period, could fill in the gaps (in particular chronological) that Hacılar had failed to resolve. Moreover, the spectacular discoveries made at the site not only obscured those made at Hacılar but also served to establish the uniqueness of the Neolithic phenomenon on the Anatolian plateau. The discoveries made at other sites such as Can Hasan and As¸ıklı Höyük also contributed to putting Hacılar

169

within the framework of highland Neolithic cultures of Central Anatolia. Aside from Hacılar, the western part of Turkey had long remained unexplored. Finds tentatively ascribed to a preTroy date were known from Fikirtepe and Pendik near Istanbul since the 1900s (Schoop 2005a, 213); similarly, painted pottery had been recovered at Agio Gala on the Greek island of Chios, off the coast of Izmir (Hood 1981), and several prehistoric mounds had been identified by David French during his 1959 survey of Northwestern Anatolia (French 1961). However the scarcity of the evidence and the lack of a strong regional chronology hindered the integration of this region within broader culturehistorical schemes. Until recently, Western Anatolia was widely assumed to be devoid of Neolithic sites old enough to have contributed to the spread of a food-producing economy to Europe (Perlès 2003, 105; Thissen 2000a, 222; Whittle 1996, 43). This view is being challenged by recent investigations in the regions of Marmara and Turkish Thrace, the contact point between Turkey and the Balkans, and by excavations of several important Neolithic sites in the Izmir region, a potential place for maritime contacts between Anatolia and Greece (Özdopan/Bas¸gelen 2007; Lichter 2002; 2005; Çilingiroplu et al. 2004). The new sites fill in the gap between Hacılar and Europe and provide a new model for comprehending the Neolithisation in Europe. The erosion of the Hacılar model is also linked to the adoption within archaeology of new approaches that challenge cultural similarity as a meaningful concept. The rise of the New Archaeology in reaction to the traditional Culture-history, has led to the realization that similarities are not always the result of direct historical links but can also be related to a process of convergent adaptation. In other words, one would expect two societies at the same level of development and placed in a similar environment to produce roughly similar elements of material practice. This is why the method that consists in comparing two societies on the basis of one element alone – for instance similarities in pottery traditions (Schachermeyr 1976) – receives heavy criticism (Perlès 2003, 106–107; 2005). Lists of parallels between two cultures, such as the one drawn below by Mellaart (Fig. 4), are also now regarded with circumspection. The argument against this approach relies on the assessment that, while many scholars agree that Hacılar and Sesklo belong to the same network of human interaction, the similarities between these two traditions are too superficial to say anything meaningful about the nature of the historical process at play. Since Neolithic communities are broadly similar from the coast of Syria to the Danube, in this approach there would be no reason to postulate that Western Turkey would be more related to Greece in Neolithic times than Syria for instance. The research shifted instead from searching for similarities to establishing differences between the regions under discussion (Perlès 2005).



170


Fig. 4. List of similarities between the Hacılar and Sesklo cultures after Mellaart 1958 (154–156). While most of these similarities are still relevant today, one or two are no longer valid or have fallen out of fashion. For instance, the parallel between the stone axes at Hacılar and the copper axes in Sesklo appears plainly wrong on the basis of the chronology; those from Sesklo must be later in date, in no way earlier than the 5th millennium BC




The re-birth of the Western Anatolian model Hacılar is a model whose foundations have been shaken for all the reasons mentioned above. New sites provide the opportunity to revitalize the Western Anatolian model. These sites are centred around the three main gateways to Europe: the Bosporus, the Dardanelles and the Aegean islands. This paper will briefly introduce the new evidence. Many of the sites described below were discovered thanks to an increase in rescue excavations in the last 10–15 years. For example, in alluvial plains such as Izmir Bornova, the accumulation of sediments over hundreds of years has led to prehistoric mounds being buried under metres of alluvium. Research surveys, when they target an extensive area, generally fail to identify such sites, which offer little visibility on the ground. What can we expect from recent investigations in Western Anatolia therefore? Firstly, in Northwestern Anatolia, the region of Marmara yielded a tradition known as Fikirtepe, represented by the published or partly published sites of Fikirtepe itself, Pendik, Ilıpınar, Mentes¸e and Demircihöyük further inland (Özdopan 1983; 1999, 213; Roodenberg 1995a). Current excavations also targeting the Fikirtepe question are being conducted in Aktopraklık C (Karul 2009; personal communication) and Barcın Höyük (Gerritsen/Özbal 2009; Gerritsen/Özbal 2010; Gerritsen, personal communication). Results for these investigations are only in a preliminary stage. The discovery of Neolithic houses and graves in Istanbul-Yenikapı also needs to be mentioned, but it lacks detail (Kızıltan 2010). The latest absolute dates for the site of Mentes¸e place the beginnings of the Fikirtepe tradition – the ‘Archaic’ Fikirtepe – shortly after the mid-7th Millennium BC. Additionally, on-going excavation at the site of Asapı Pinar in Turkish Thrace near the Bulgarian border revealed a Pre-Karanovo assemblage at the bottom with features that can be ascribed to the Fikirtepe tradition of Marmara, while the above layers are more typical of the Karanovo culture of Bulgaria (Özdopan 2006). Secondly, on the Aegean coast of Turkey, a number of sites were discovered and excavated (Özdopan/Bas¸gelen 2007), among which Hoca Çesme in the province of Edirne north of the Dardanelles (Özdopan 2005, 22; 1999; Karul/ Bertram 2005), the sites of Ulucak Höyük, Yes¸ilova Höyük and Ege Gübre in the Izmir region (Çilingiroplu/Çilingiroplu 2007; Çilingiroplu et al. 2004; Abay 2005; Derin 2005; 2007; Saplamtimur 2007), and Çukuriçi Höyük near Ephesos (Horejs 2008) are particularly relevant. It is also worth mentioning the site of Dedecik-Heybelitepe further inland at the level of Izmir (Lichter/Meriç 2007). Some of these sites are still under excavation and are not yet fully published. Already, strong parallels have been established between the sites on the Aegean coast of Turkey and that of the Lake District (Hacılar), particularly in terms of material culture (Lichter 2005, 64). Some of these sites, however, also display a different link, characterised by a round architecture and pottery with impressed decoration (Düring

171

2011, 178). The sequence of the site of Hoca Çes¸me can be considered ‘transitional’: in earlier phases IV and III, the material culture of the site is strikingly reminiscent of the late Neolithic culture in the Lake District. However, in phase II, this assemblage is replaced by a more typical Karanovo I assemblage (Thissen 2000a, 131; Özdopan 1999b, 217–218). The latest absolute dates available for the sites of Ulucak and Yes¸ilova suggest that the Aegean coast of Anatolia was settled in the first half of the 7th Millennium BC (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 536; Derin 2007, 383). Additionally, published accounts of recent surveys north of the Anatolian Plateau and in the regions surrounding the Sea of Marmara mention the discovery of aceramic Neolithic sites potentially ascribed to the later phase of the PrePottery Neolithic B. Sites include Keçiçayırı and Kalkanlı in the Es¸kis¸ehir region (Efe 2005, 109–112; Özdopan 1999b, 212), Asarkaya in the Kütahya region (Efe 2005, 112), Çalca, Anzavurtepe and Gavutarla in the Çanakkale-Çan region (Özdopan/Gatsov 1998; Thissen 2000a, 107), Musluçesme in the Balıkesir region (Özdopan/Gatsov 1998), and Küçükçekmece near Istanbul (Aydingün 2009). It is necessary to downplay the significance of these results for the time being: firstly, apart from Keçiçayırı, where excavation started in 2006, these sites are only known through surface survey and not through excavation; secondly, no radiocarbon dates have yet been obtained; thirdly, the evidence consists almost exclusively of scatters of lithics, sometimes in very large quantity, collected on the surface. Some of these lithics may be diagnostic for Central Anatolian and Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, in particular the large flint cores from Küçükçekmece resembling PPNB naviform cores (Aydingün 2009), however this does not necessarily imply that these sites were Neolithic. The interpretation of these sites represents a separate question that we will return to at the end of this paper3. Before discussing the position of the aforementioned sites (see also the Fig. 5 for their geographical locations) within chronological schemes, a few points need to be reasserted: 1. sites as old as the mid-7th Millennium BC, and thus contemporary with the Early Neolithic in Greece and the Balkans, occur on the Aegean coast of Turkey and in the region of Marmara; 2. geographically, these sites fill in the gap between the Lake District – Hacılar –, Central Anatolia and Southeast Europe; 3. a few sites present a ‘transitional’ sequence, allowing us to understand cultural transition for the regions under discussion. It is suggested that recent investigations in Western Anatolia give credence to the theory proposed by Mellaart fifty years ago, of a common ancestry to explain the striking cultural homogeneity between the Neolithic of Western Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans (Mellaart 1960, 90; 1965, 118). However, the exact modalities of this cultural transfer need to be established through absolute and relative chronologies.

3

See the discussion of earlier Neolithic dispersals below in Chapter Defining the Early Neolithic in Southeast Europe.



172


Fig. 5. Map of Western Anatolia, Greece and the Southern Balkans with the sites mentioned in the text: 1. Hacılar; 2. Bademapacı; 3. Höyücek; 4. Suberde; 5. Çatalhöyük; 6. Can Hasan III; 7. As¸ıklı Höyük/Musular; 8. DedecikHeybelitepe; 9. Çukuriçi; 10. Yes¸ilova; 11. Ulucak; 12. Ege Gübre; 13. Agio Gala; 14. Çalca Mevkii; 15. Anzavurtepe; 16. Gavurtarla; 17. Hoca Çesme; 18. Musluçesme; 19. Keçiçayiri; 20. Asarkaya; 21. Kalkanli; 22. Demircihöyük; 23. Barcın; 24. Mentes¸e; 25. Aktopraklık; 26. Ilıpınar; 27. Pendik; 28. Fikirtepe; 29. Istanbul-Yanikapı; 30. Yarimburgaz; 31. Küçükçekmece; 32. Asapı Pınar; 33. Knossos; 34. Franchthi; 35. Halai; 36. Elateia; 37. Achilleion; 38. Sesklo; 39. Argissa; 40. Otzaki; 41. Theopetra; 42. Nea Nikomedeia; 43. Azmak; 44. Karanovo; 45. Kovacˇevo; 46. Krajnici; 47. Cˇavdar; 48. Ga˘la˘bnik; 49. Vrsˇnik; 50. Anza; 51. Koprivets; 52. Mersin; 53. Amuq

Chronological reassessment The integration of new data from Western Anatolia into the ‘wider picture’ is currently hindered by the difficulty in establishing a common chronological framework for the emergence of the Neolithic in Anatolia and Southeast Europe. In particular, radiocarbon dates and the classification of ceramic phases in Greece suggest an anteriority of the Greek Neolithic in relation to that of Western Anatolia. In this section, it is suggested that this discrepancy is linked to biases in the research that developed independently in each of the regions under discussion. The reassessment of existing chronologies will take two forms: firstly, we propose a quality assessment of radiocarbon dates available in Western Anatolia, Greece, Thrace and Macedonia; and, secondly, we offer a brief description of two widely distributed ceramic wares, which are paramount for the study of the relations between Neolithic communities in Anatolia and Europe.

Absolute Chronology Sites in Western Anatolia, Greece and the Southern Balkans (Thrace and Macedonia) produced roughly six hundred radiocarbon dates for the emergence of the Neolithic up to 5500 cal. BC. For the purpose of this analysis the databases compiled by Laurens Thissen and Agathe Reingruber (Thissen/Reingruber 2005; Thissen 2006; see also Thissen 2000b; Gérard/Thissen 2002) on the Central Anatolian E-Workshop (CANeW) website (Thissen et al. 2001) were used, as well as the Radiocarbon CONTEXT Database of the University of Cologne (Böhner/Schyle 2008), and the most recent dates available for the site of Ulucak (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 536). Dates were re-calibrated in a uniform way using the calibration software Oxcal 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al. 2009). It should be noted that, as of 2011, the CANeW databases are no longer available online. In order to establish a coherent absolute chronology, it is essential to sort the dates, since the simple addition and averaging of all absolute dates, whatever their quality, can gener-




ate false patterns (Evin/Oberlin 2005, 105). Before discussing individual sites the suitability of the database as a whole has to be reviewed. It emerges that different regions of Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe did not contribute the same number of absolute dates to the database. Greece itself produced more than 250 dates, Western Anatolia 170 and Thrace and Eastern Macedonia 165. Moreover, the value of the dates is extremely variable from one region to another in both precision and accuracy. In this way, absolute dates from Greece are generally poorer, because many were obtained in the early decades of radiocarbon dating. Significantly, the dates for the earliest Neolithic in mainland Greece – from the key sites of Argissa, Franchthi and Sesklo – that document the so-called ‘Preceramic’ (Theocharis 1973, 35) or ‘Initial Neolithic’ (Perlès 2003, 103) phase, were all processed between the 1950s and early 1970s. As a whole, the bulk of calibrated dates from the Greek side have large standard deviations comprised between 200 and 400 years at 2 (95.4 % probability). In contrast, the majority of dates from Western Anatolia were processed in the last two decades and present small standard deviations of between 100 and 200 years at 2. This bias should be taken into account when comparing the dates (Figs. 6–7). Another difficulty with the database is the almost exclusive use of charcoal as dating material. Charcoal is and will remain an important material for dating, but there are inherent problems that limit its reliability (e.g. Whittle 1990, 299; Zilhão 2001); specifically, the quality of the sample is highly dependant on the stratigraphical context and the identification of the wood. Unfortunately, this information is rarely provided in literature. Unidentified charcoal samples may in fact belong to inner rings of the tree, in which 14C had started to decay well before the tree was felled or burned (Zilhão 2001, 14181). In long-lived tree species, these samples are likely to produce inaccurate older dates (‘old wood’ effect). Additionally, studies of wooden remains at the site of Çatalhöyük indicate that significant wooden structures, posts for example, were often removed and reused in several building phases (Cessford 2001, 720). Such wooden remains will certainly yield dates that are older than the context. In some instances, it is the anthropogenic association of the charcoal sample itself that cannot be firmly demonstrated. To overcome these difficulties, it is possible to define a standard, using dates obtained on short-lived material, for which anthropogenic association and stratigraphical contexts need not be established – i. e. dates on bones or grains of domestic species. However, as an earlier start of the Neolithic may only be documented by dates on charcoal, the results obtained with this method need to be compared with other dates, the reliability of which will be discussed individually. Greece Eight samples of bones and seeds from the site of Nea Nikomedeia in Greek Macedonia were dated using archive

173

material from the excavations in 1988 and 1993 (Pyke/ Yiouni 1996; Thissen/Reingruber 2005). The samples were processed by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. To test their reliability, seed samples were dated twice, using humin acid in one case. The results obtained are presented in the Appendix. A first series of dates (OxA-1605; OxA-3876; OxA-3874; OxA-1606 and OxA-1604) cluster shortly after 6450 cal. BC at 2. Two dates obtained on bone samples of sheep (Ovis) and pig (Sus) fall within the same statistical range at 2 (OxA-3873; OxA-3875). One sample of wheat (Triticum monoccocum) yielded a slightly younger date (OxA-1603). This series of dates is very consistent and suggests that the site was occupied shortly after 6450 cal BC at 2. This horizon may correspond to the introduction of farming and herding practices in Greek Macedonia. Archaeologically, the Early Neolithic in this region is considered somewhat younger than that in Thessaly, in Central and Southern Greece (van Andel/Runnels 1995; contra Wilkie/Savina 1997; see also Roodenberg 1995d, 170). To test the hypothesis of an earlier start of the Neolithic in other regions of Greece, and in the absence of reliable bone or seed samples, the proposed horizon ca. 6450 cal. BC at 2 was compared to the dates obtained on charcoal for various sites from these regions. From Thessaly, eight internally consistent dates from early Neolithic levels Ia and Ib in Achilleion and two dates with a large standard deviation from the site of Halai are in broad agreement with the dates from Nea Nikomedeia. Six dates obtained from early Neolithic I level in Sesklo are slightly older, but fall within the same statistical range at 2. The dates of Elateia and of a coring in Franchthi Koilada Bay place the start of the Neolithic in Central and Southern Greece to circa 6450–6200 cal. BC at 2 . All this suggests a simultaneous start of the Neolithic in various regions of Greece shortly after 6450 cal. BC. It has been suggested, however, that a number of early Neolithic settlements were preceded by an aceramic, or more appropriately termed, ‘preceramic’ phase, where Neolithic economy was already developed but pottery was absent (Theocharis 1973, 35). This phase – generally dated to 7000–6500 cal. BC – is documented by fourteen dates from four sites: Argissa, Sesklo, Knossos and Franchthi. The value of these dates, however, is highly questionable. The two earliest dates from the site of Argissa Magoula in Thessaly (UCLA-1657A; UCLA-1657D) are very old (~ 7100–6900 cal. BC). They seem to be part of a series of four dates (cf. also UCLA-1657 B; UCLA-1657E) obtained on a single bone sample of sheep (Ovis) that are internally inconsistent. Furthermore, the samples were processed in the early 1970s before the introduction of AMS dating (Reingruber 2005, 165; Thissen/Reingruber 2005). The dating method being highly imprecise, these dates should be rejected. The site of Argissa also produced two dates (H-896–3082; H-889–3080) on charcoal with large standard deviations from the EN I “Preceramic” and EN I “Early Ceramic” levels which fall outside the horizon 6450



174


Fig. 6. Distribution of all the radiocarbon dates (calibrated, at 2 sigma) for the earliest Neolithic in Greece regardless of their quality. The dates are arranged in chronological order

Fig. 7. Distribution of the radiocarbon dates (calibrated, at 2 sigma) for the earliest Neolithic in Greece, this time excluding all the dates with standard deviations superior or equal to 100 years BP and those obtained on unreliable charcoal samples (eg. charcoal and sediment). Compare with Table 1: the quality assessment suggests that the first Neolithic occupation in Greece can be consistently dated to shortly after 6450 cal. BC at 2. The dotted line indicates the standard provided by the dates of Nea Nikomedeia. The dates that fall statistically below this threshold stem from Theopetra and Franchthi caves, two sites where both Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations are attested, and where errors in the stratigraphical attribution of the levels cannot be formally ruled out




cal. BC at 2. As no information is provided on the nature of the samples, ‘old wood’ effect cannot be ruled out to explain this discrepancy. For the site of Sesklo, three dates were obtained on charcoal and sediment from the ‘Preceramic’ level as it is known. In samples of charcoal and sediment, carbon of unknown provenance from the sediment often is mixed up with carbon from the charcoal during the dating process. Dates obtained with this material are thus highly unreliable (Evin/Oberlin 1998, 102) and should be discarded. Knossos, on the island of Crete, produced two early dates (BM-124; BM-278) on carbonised oak stakes from aceramic level X. Oak is a long-lived tree species and therefore ‘old wood’ effect is likely to have affected the dates. A third sample (BM-436) with a large standard deviation falls statistically within the proposed horizon at 2. Aceramic level X, which sits directly on the bedrock and roughly 8.5 m below the Minoan Palace (Efstratiou et al. 2004, 39) was found in several trenches (A–C; X; ZE) excavated by John Evans in the Central Court and southern part of the Palace in 1957–1960 and 1969–1971 (Evans 1964; 1971). The deposit varies in size from a few centimetres to nearly two metres (Evans 1971, 101–102). Since sherds were found in the first 15 cm of the deposit as recalled by Evans4, the existence of a true aceramic phase beneath that level remains controversial. Recent re-excavation by Efstratiou et al. has not yielded any more sherds, but has produced an additional date on Quercus evergreen charred acorns from the base of the mound (OxA-9215), which seems to confirm Evans’ original assessement5. Franchthi Cave in Argolis yielded three absolute dates for Interphase 0/1 considered as ‘Preceramic’. These dates are internally consistent and significantly older than the proposed horizon circa 6450 cal. BC. One of these dates (P-2094: 7930x100 BP) was obtained on charcoal and sediment and should therefore be discarded. More generally, there is an on-going debate in Franchthi concerning ‘intrusive’ sherds from this level, which suggest that the level may be disturbed (Vitelli 1993, 37–38; Perlès 2001, 71; 87–88; 1990, 94; Thissen 2000a, 186–187). Significantly, the dates from Interphase 0/1 are identical to that of late/final Mesolithic layers (Perlès 2003, 103) and cluster at ~ 7100–7000 cal. BC. It is possible to identify a hiatus of some six hundred years between this series of dates and other dates from FCP 1 and FCP 2 levels. Chipped stone tools from Interphase 0/1 suggest a continuity with the Me-

4

5

“… In the excavation itself, which was meticulously conducted, no single sherd was found below the first 15 centimetres of the deposit. The sherds found in sieving were all small scraps, and one was of Minoan type. For these reasons some kind of contamination of the sieved deposit seems to me a more likely explanation in this instance” (Evans 1971, 102 note 2). Efstratiou et al. 2004. Please note that the anthropogenic association of this date needs to be formally established.

175

solithic (Perlès 1990, 136)6, while the economy here changed markedly in this period (Hansen 1991, 21). This hiatus may be explained by two different scenarios: Interphase 0/1 either represents an isolated and short-lived phenomenon of early Neolithisation, maybe by some Near Eastern settlers (Demoule 1993, 4)7 or, alternatively, there is a problem of attribution of the levels and Interphase 0/1 documents the end of Mesolithic occupation in Franchthi. Recent research has attributed a continuous sequence spanning the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition to Theopetra Cave in Thessaly (Séfériadès 2007, 183; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2003). Its stratigraphy, however, is known to be disturbed by both natural and human factors (Facorellis et al. 2001, 1040; 1044) and there is, as in Franchthi, a chronological gap between two groups of dates, one clustering at ~ 7000 cal. BC (CAMS-21773; DEM-576; DEM-583; DEM-360; DEM-918) and the other at ~ 6300 cal. BC (DEM-919; DEM-917), which falls within our proposed horizon. From this discussion, it is clear that the existence of a ‘Preceramic’ phase earlier than 6450 cal. BC at 2 relies on only a handful of dates, the quality of which have been shown to be poor in most instances. This result needs to be confirmed by relative chronology. The Southern Balkans Concerning the sites of the Northern Aegean and Southern Balkans (Fig. 8), several Early Neolithic sites produced dates on grains – some identified as wheat (Triticum dicoccum, Triticum monococcum) – useful to build a chronology. These are the sites of As¸apı Pınar in Turkish Thrace, Azmak, Ga˘la˘bnik and Slatina in Bulgarian Thrace, and Vrsˇnik-Tarinci in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Thissen/Reingruber 2005). Interestingly, the dates from these different regions (Bln-292; Bln-4093; GrN-19783; Bln-3438; Bln-3441; Bln-3439; Bln-339; H-559/485; Bln-4996) all cluster circa 5800 cal. BC with no date earlier than 6100 cal. BC at 2 (Bln-4093). This suggests an almost simultaneous start of the Neolithic throughout the Northern Aegean and Southern Balkans. This result is confirmed by radiocarbon dates on charcoal from the earliest levels of the sites of Cˇavdar, Elesˇnica, Kovacˇevo and Karanovo. Only the site of Anzabegovo yielded one date on charcoal (LJ-2519) older at 2 than this horizon. As no information is provided on the nature of the sample, ‘old-wood’ effect cannot be ruled out to explain this discrepancy. As a whole, the sequence of radiocarbon dates from sites north of the Aegean and in the Southern Balkans is very coherent. These regions appear to have been neolithised only in a second step.

6

7

“… Persistence d’une tradition du Mésolithique local sur laquelle viennent se greffer des ‘emprunts’ techniques” Perlès 1990, 136. See the discussion of earlier Neolithic dispersals in Part III.



176


Fig. 8. Distribution of the radiocarbon dates (calibrated, at 2 sigma) for the earliest Neolithic in inland Thrace and Macedonia. The dotted line indicates the 6100 cal. BC standard provided by the dates of As¸apı Pınar, Azmak, Ga˘la˘bnik, Slatina and Vrsˇnik-Tarinci. Not included are the dates which have been rejected in the text or which present large standard deviations (≥ 100 years BP). Most of the dates cluster circa 5800 cal BC. LJ-2519, which stems from Anza appears too old. This discrepancy may be linked to ‚old-wood‘ effect

Western Anatolia Western Anatolia lacks dates on bones or grains. Thus, a chronological standard for the region cannot be formally established. Radiocarbon dates obtained on charcoal can be used to suggest a chronological trend (Fig. 9); however, it must be understood that it is only a preliminary result, which will need to be confirmed by further dating programs. In the western part of the Turkish Lake District, the Late Neolithic sites of Hacılar, Höyücek and Bademapacı seem to have been settled circa 6450–6200 cal. BC at 2. Two very early dates for aceramic level v at Hacılar (BM-127) and Bademapacı EN I/8 (Hd-22340) are conspicuously old and should be treated with caution. Radiocarbon dates from the basal level of the site of Mentes¸e place the beginning of the Neolithic in the region of Marmara shortly after 6450 cal. BC at 2. The three dates from lower stratum 3 are internally consistent at 2. Moreover, this result is corroborated by four dates from level IV at Hoca Çes¸me near the Dardanelles. Recently, the site of Ulucak Höyük in the Izmir region produced a coherent chronological sequence, starting at about 6450 cal. BC at 2. Further dates from level VI may place the beginnings of this site even earlier ≈ 7000–6500 cal. BC (Beta-250265; Beta-250266). Interestingly, level VI is virtually aceramic, meaning that not a single sherd of pottery was recovered (Ç. Çilingiroplu, personal communication). Current excavations at Ulucak are targeting this level and should prove or disprove the existence of an aceramic phase. Although more dates will be needed, it seems that the whole of West-

ern Anatolia was settled by Neolithic groups shortly after 6450 cal. BC at 2 and maybe earlier. When comparing the dates from Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe (Figs. 7–9), it emerges that Neolithic sites appeared more or less simultaneously shortly after 6450 cal. BC at 2 on both sides of the Aegean, while regions north of the Aegean and in the Southern Balkans were only neolithised in a second step after 6100 cal. BC at 2. The contemporaneity of sites in Western Anatolia and Greece is suggestive of a common horizon of expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Can relative chronology add a further argument to this discussion? A brief note on the relative chronology In this section, we would like to briefly review two ceramic wares with a wide distribution (from the Near East to Europe), which are paramount for the study of the relations between Neolithic communities in Anatolia and Southeast Europe. Despite the risk of oversimplification and to avoid confusion, they will be referred to in this section as the Dark-faced Burnished Ware8 and the Red-slipped Burnished

8

This ware is often referred to as the Dark Burnished Ware (thereafter ‘DBW’) in Central Anatolia. We are aware of the differences between the Dark-faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) of the Amuq and Mersin and the Dark Burnished Ware (DBW) of Central Anatolia pointed out by Francesca Balossi Restelli in her thesis (Balossi Restelli 2006). The concept of DFBW is used here, not to define a cultural entity, but to investigate the wide-




177

Fig. 9. Distribution of the radiocarbon dates (calibrated, at 2 sigma) for the earliest Neolithic in Western Anatolia. Not included are the dates which have been rejected in the text or which present large standard deviations (≥ 100 years BP). The dates that fall statistically below 6450 cal. BC at 2 stem from Bademapacı in the Lake District and Ulucak in the Izmir region. The younger Groningen dates stem from Ilıpınar X

Ware. There is abundant literature dealing with these two issues. The more recent works by Mehmet Özdopan (2006, 25–26), Çiler Çilingiroplu (2009a; 2009b), Martin Godon (2008) and Francesca Balossi Restelli (2006) are particularly worth mentioning. These studies, from which this chapter borrows ideas, deserve credit for refocusing on dynamic interpretations of pottery production. The original description of the Dark-faced Burnished Ware (hereafter ‘DFBW’) was made by Robert and Linda Braidwood (1960, 49), following their investigations on the Plain of Antioch. According to their research, the two main characteristics of this ware are 1. a black or dark burnished surface and 2. a mineral-tempered paste. As vague as this description may be, it is meaningful because both attributes listed above are indicative of an advanced knowledge of the firing system (Balossi Restelli 2006, 45; 203): homogeneously black or dark surfaces are difficult to achieve – a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere is generally postulated (Balossi Restelli 2006, 103) – and mineral-tempered paste involves a complicated and carefully followed chaine opératoire. Marie Le Mière and Maurice Picon observe that the paste of DFBW sherds is often non-calcareous (Le Mière/ Picon 1999, 19). Vessels made with this kind of clay are not too rigid when fired and can thus handle thermal stress quite effectively. This and the presence of mineral inclusions in the clay strongly suggest that at least some DFBW vessels may have been used as cooking-pots, hence their spread changes in ceramic technology evidenced at various sites from the Levant to Europe shortly after 6500 BC.

wide distribution over a long period of time (Le Mière/ Picon 1999, 19). Incidentally, it is believed that dark mineral-tempered vessels took over the role of cooking from clay balls at Çatalhöyük after level VII (Hodder 2006, 53; Yalman 2006, 37–38). Latest science-based research on lipid residues from pottery vessels has now added a further argument to this discussion: it is now established beyond reasonable doubt that some thinner-walled, mineral-tempered vessels from the region of Marmara were used to process – perhaps boil – milk (Evershed et al. 2008; Thissen et al. 2010). Ceramic is very abundant in DFBW assemblages. The pots generally have thin walls. Their surface is carefully burnished both on the inside and outside; however, it is hardly ever slipped. The shape of the vessels is rather simple. Hole-mouth and globular jars tend to be idiosyncratic of the DFBW horizon. Deep bowls without sharp carinations such as the ones recovered at Mersin (XXIII– XXVIII) are also typical (Balossi Restelli 2006, 39). Some jars have ledge handles. Decoration is prone to regional variations. On the Syro-Cilician coast of the Levant, for instance, decoration in the form of fingernail or dot impressions and, to a lesser extent, incisions is common (Cauvin 1994, 208). Some impressed DFBW vessels may have been made to look like wooden vessels. The Red-Slipped Burnished Ware (thereafter ‘RSBW’) was originally identified in Western Anatolia by David French and James Mellaart (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 86). Like the DFBW, the RSBW is characterised by fine mineral inclusions (Godon 2008, 442). However, RSBW sherds generally



178


have a slip in shades ranging from yellow to red. As emphasised by Martin Godon (2008, 272–273; 497), the production of red-slipped pots also requires a specific chaîne opératoire; however, it is different from that of the DFBW in the acquisition of raw material (ochre), its process, application and the creation of an oxidizing atmosphere during the firing phase. RSBW vessels often have remarkably thin walls (2–3 mm thick). They are burnished, sometimes lustrously. It is worth stressing the near-complete absence of coarse utilitarian wares in RSBW assemblages. One has the impression that RSBW vessels were primarily used for storing and serving food, or they were used in rituals, as it has been postulated for Greece (Vitelli 1993, 216). In other words, the vessels were hardly ever used for cooking food, which is a major contrast to the DFBW horizon9. The repertoire of shapes supports this view. Hole-mouth jars are absent; jars with a swung profile or with a neck, bowls with a sharp carination and everted lips are typical of RSBW assemblages. Lug handles, especially pierced and unpierced knobs, are widespread. Flat, disc and ring bases are the most common types of bases. As for the DFBW, RSBW decoration is prone to regional variations. Pottery with appliqué decoration in the forms of animals, humans or symbols is ascribed to the RSBW horizon – however, it does not occur everywhere. Likewise, there is a variety of RSBW with impressions, which occurs for instance at Ulucak (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 88). However, the main development of the RSBW horizon is the adoption of red and, to a lesser extent, white paint, perhaps in a second phase. On various sites, painted sherds occur in very small quantity along with the monochrome RSBW ones from the earliest levels onwards, and their relative proportion to the rest of the ceramic assemblage simply increases with time. The origins of painted ceramics and their role in the Neolithisation of Europe are questions in themselves, which are beyond the scope of this paper (see Schubert 1999). Suffices to say that Hacılar, with its rich repertoire of painted motifs, may have been influential in the development of painted pottery traditions throughout Anatolia and Southeast Europe. In that respect, the possibility of a backflow of ideas from west to east should not be ruled out10. Hacılar has yielded both red-on-cream and whiteon-red painted sherds. This last category, which only includes a few sherds, is significant a minority, because it appears as early as level VI (rare) and also in level I (Mellaart 1970, 108). Since white painted sherds are an iconic marker for the Karanovo tradition of Bulgaria, the link with Hacılar, especially at such an early date, would need further investigation.

9

10

Incidentally, there are few traces of secondary firing on RSBW vessels, as was noted at Hacılar (Özdopan 2006, 26). Our study admittedly focuses more on ceramic technology than on decoration style as a marker for culture change and interaction. Had we decided to adopt an alternative framework centred on style, results generated through the analysis would perhaps be different in some aspects.

The next step in this analysis is to map the distribution of the two paramount wares and to discuss regional varieties. We are not suggesting that pots from these two traditions made their way from one region into another – this hypothesis would require further testing – nor that they should be taken as evidence for human migrations. The DFBW and RSBW horizons should be seen as trends of pottery production suggesting a transfer of technology at one given time, perhaps followed by sustained contacts between Neolithic communities. The Dark-faced Burnished Ware horizon The main area of distribution of the DFBW is the SyroCilician coast sensu stricto. However, pottery akin to the DFBW horizon is also found in Central Anatolia at Çatalhöyük (Cauvin 1994, 214). The swift replacement of the thick-walled, chaff-tempered ware found at the bottom of the sequence by mineral-tempered wares in levels VIII–VI is particularly noteworthy (Çilingiroplu 2009b; Yalman/ Özdöl 2003). Hole-mouth pots predominate the assemblage (Thissen 2000a, 116–117; Fig. 11), and although the colour of the vessels is generally light in tone, dark coloured sherds are also conspicuous in the assemblage (Fig. 10). The impressions seen on the typical DFBW sherds from Mersin-Yumuktepe (see here Fig. 11,1–5) and from the Amuq (Judaidah, Dhahab, Kurdu) are altogether absent at Çatalhöyük (see for example Fig. 11,6–15). In the Lake District, the basal levels of Bademapacı-Kızılkaya (ENI 9–8) have yielded dark gray sherds with mineral inclusions, occasionally thin walls and light burnishing that led Mehmet Özdopan to compare them with the DFBW (Çilingiroplu 2009b with reference to M. Özdopan; see also Duru 2008, 54). It is worth stressing that James Mellaart, who first described the Kızılkaya ware in the 1960s, observes that small hole-mouth jars predominate in the assemblage (Mellaart 1961b, 169–171; see here Fig. 11,16–26). In the region of Izmir, the earliest ceramic levels at Ulucak (V) have yielded brown burnished ware sherds, described by Çiler Çilingiroplu as dark-coloured sherds with medium-fine mineral inclusions, burnished, with thin walls (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 88). Çiler Çilingiroplu observes that the sherds were moderately fired. The brown burnished ware is especially associated with hole-mouth jars (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 88; 484). Considering its definition, it is tempting to ascribe this ware to the DFBW horizon (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 327). In Northwest Anatolia, the region of Marmara is characterised by the Fikirtepe tradition (Fig. 12). In its earlier phase – the ‘Archaic’ Fikirtepe – pottery strongly resembles the dark burnished wares of Central Anatolia, suggesting a transfer of technology from this region (Thissen 2000a, 116–117; Özdopan 1999b, 216–217). The latest radiocarbon dates from sites in Northwest Anatolia, for instance Mentes¸e and Barcın, place the beginnings of the Fikirtepe tradition shortly after the mid-7th Millennium BC, which is in line with this assessment




179

Fig. 10. Fine Dark-faced Burnished Ware sherds from Mersin XXVII–XXV (0.2–0.5 cm thick) in the Institute of Archaeology, University College London (photo taken by M. Brami)

(Thissen et al. 2010). ‘Archaic’ Fikirtepe pottery is found in the earlier levels of Fikirtepe, Pendik, Mentes¸e and Barcın (Özdopan 1999b, 213; Thissen et al. 2010). It is generally dark in tone, grey or light brown. The clay has mineral inclusions. Sherds are thin-walled and well burnished (Thissen et al. 2010). Hole-mouth vessels with simple profiles predominate in the assemblage (Özdopan 1999b, 213). The vessels are handled by means of heavy horizontal lugs and vertically pierced knobs (Thissen 2000a, 116–117) and are sometimes decorated with simple incised geometric patterns (Özdopan 1999b, 213). In subsequent layers – ‘Classic’ Fikirtepe phase – pottery becomes more abundant and can be very coarse; with its function as kitchenware becoming obvious (Özdopan 2006, 25–26; Thissen 1995, 110). On the whole, the Fikirtepe tradition seems to be another regional variety of the DFBW. Whether elements of the DFBW horizon can be identified in Europe remains a matter of discussion. The fact that As¸apı Pınar in Turkish Thrace, close to the border with Bulgaria, has yielded dark coloured coarse kitchen wares in the lower level 6, while red-slipped sherds are altogether absent, suggests that elements of the DFBW horizon had already spread into the Balkans (Özdopan 2006, 26). Likewise, Mehmet Özdopan argues that the ceramic assemblages of the sites of Krainitsi, Koprivec and Polyanitsa Plateau in Bulgaria, which do not contain red-slipped nor painted sherds, indicate links with the Dark-faced Burnished tradition of Anatolia (Özdopan 2005, 21; 2006, 23). There is a dispute, however, concern-

ing the dating of these sites (see for instance Thissen 2000a, 232). An independent additional argument for the close relationship between DFBW, Fikirtepe tradition and its identification in the most Southeastern part of Europe may come from the already mentioned recently published results of lipid residues analysis from pottery sherds and vessels from the Near East and Southeast Europe (Evershed et al. 2008; and Evershed, personal communication). Not only are vessels from Çatalhöyük and Barcın linked by the processing of milk for which they seem to have been used, but also a cluster of the Marmara Fikirtepe sites – Toptepe, Yarımburgaz, Hoca Çesme, Pendik and Fikirtepe itself – shows the same pattern of milk use. This now also includes sherds from the early levels of As¸apı Pınar, and some other sites in Bulgaria, all located in Europe. Most strikingly, however, the same milk remains and traces can seemingly not be found on sherds that belong to or stand in tradition of the second large pottery ware group, the RSBW, discussed below. This implies perhaps cultural (and subsistence) differences between those people using DFBW and Fikirtepe tradition pottery on the one hand and those using RSBW pottery on the other hand that go beyond the making of different sorts of pottery and other components of material culture.



180


Fig. 11. Selected shapes from Mersin-Yumuktepe (1–5), Çatalhöyük (6–15) and Bademapacı-Kızılkaya (16–26) modified after Mellaart (1961b, Figs. 2; 4; 6)

The Red-Slipped Burnished Ware horizon Although Mellaart interpreted the RSBW as a local invention in the Turkish Lake District (Mellaart 1961b, 169–171), new evidence from the sites of Akarçay Tepe and Mezraa-Teleilat on the western loop of the Euphrates suggests that, chronologically, the RSBW also originates from the Northern Levant (Godon 2008, 464). These sites are beyond the scope of this paper. The point, however, is that pottery traditions akin to the RSBW horizon then emerge in Central Turkey. In Cappadocia, the sites of Kös¸k Höyük and Tepecik Çiftlik document the gradual adoption of the RSBW. An interesting feature, which seems to be largely restricted to the Nipde region of Cappadocia, is the development of elaborate appliqué scenes on RSBW pots, representing domestic and wild animals, mainly cattle, sheep, goats and deer, as well as human figures involved in domestic activities, such as hunting and harvesting (Godon 2008, 444). Occasionally, a thick white paint (resembling lime plaster) is added to enhance some details of the scene or to create curvilinear motifs (Godon 2008, 448).

The expansion of the RSBW is likewise documented in the Konya Plain, for instance on the East Mound at Çatalhöyük, where red-slipped sherds are first seen in level V (Last 2005). The red-on-cream painted wares seemingly appear in level III and they predominate then in the West Mound sequence (Çilingiroplu 2009b). The sites of Bademapacı and Höyücek document the adoption of the RSBW in the Lake District (Özdopan 1999b, 214–216). This region gradually becomes something of a centre for Neolithic pottery production as the ceramic assemblages from Hacılar and Kuruçay would suggest. At Hacılar, from the level VII onwards, virtually all the pottery follows the RSBW tradition. The vessels have fine mineral inclusions and thin walls; their surface is usually slipped and burnished, often lustrously, which gives them a shiny, almost glazed appearance. The vertical tubular lugs are a somewhat distinctive feature in this region. According to Mellaart, these probably played the same role as the vertically pierced knobs; to attach a string to maintain in place a piece of cloth or skin serving as lid for the vessel (Mellaart 1961a, 69). Special shapes such as the oval vessels and the theriomorphic and anthropomorphic vessels also deserve mention. However, the distinctive identity of the Lake District tradition finds its expression in the painted pottery production of the Early Chalcolithic period. For instance, the ‘fantastic’ style with its exuberant curvilinear and naturalistic representations, which is typical for Hacılar V–II, so far remains unmatched in other regions (Mellaart 1960, 103; 1970, 109). The Aegean coast of Turkey has yielded pottery traditions akin to the RSBW horizon. In the region of Izmir, there is a regional variety, which occurs even in the earliest ceramic levels of Ulucak (V) alongside the brown burnished ware discussed above (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 2009b). Çiler Çilingiroplu suggests strong parallels with the Lake District (Çilingiroplu 2009a; see also Thissen 2000a, 131). For instance, the vertical tubular lugs found at Hacılar are ubiquitous at sites like Ulucak IV–V, Yes¸ilova III Early-MiddleLate and Ege Gübre (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 250). Oval vessels are another common feature. In contrast, however, with the Lake District, Çilingiroplu notes that painted pottery is marginal in the ceramic assemblages of these sites (Çilingiroplu 2009b, 246). Instead, there is a small class of RSBW sherds decorated with impressions. These are conspicuous at Ulucak IV, Yes¸ilova III Late and Ege Gübre meaning that they are a somewhat later phenomenon (Çilingiroplu 2009b, 247; Derin 2005; 2007; Saplamtimur 2007). It is worth noting here that pottery with impressed decoration has also been recovered at Hoca Çesme (level III), north of the Dardanelles on the European side of Turkey. However its presence here lacks detailed description so far (Karul/ Bertram 2005, 125). Altogether, for Western Turkey, the Impresso phenomenon seems to be confined to coastal regions. In Thessaly, the emergence of a pottery tradition akin to the RSBW horizon coincides with the first Neolithic settle-




Fig. 12. Main vessel shapes of the Archaic and Classical Fikirtepe assemblages (after Özdopan 1999b, 174)


181


182


ment. Re-excavation at Achilleion by Marija Gimbutas has established that there was no pre-pottery phase contrary to what was previously assumed (Gimbutas et al. 1989, 25–26; contra Theocharis 1973, 35). Catherine Perlès has further pointed out inconsistencies in some archaeological reports of Thessalian sites where pottery sherds are indeed mentioned for the pre-pottery phase and discarded as intrusive (Perlès 2001, 66–72; see also Demoule/Perlès 1993, 368). The pottery found in the basal levels of Achilleion (levels Ia–Ib) has been described as grey, tan or pinkish (Winn/ Shimabuku 1989, 76). It is produced using local clay tempered mainly with small or medium grits (Winn/Shimabuku 1989, 78). The surface of the sherds is well burnished and often slipped. Fine red-slipped sherds with thin walls are present from the start of the sequence, but their relative proportion to the rest of the ceramic assemblage increases over time (Winn/Shimabuku 1989, 76). Initially, forms are rather simple. Bowls with carination are conspicuous from level III onwards (Winn/Shimabuku 1989, 101). Small perforated knobs are frequently applied to the body of the pots. While the first series of vessels may be monochrome, red-on-red and red-on-cream painted vessels with motifs such as triangles, chevrons and zigzags are soon in evidence (Winn/Shimabuku 1989, 94). The emergence of impressed wares in Thessaly is a somewhat later phenomenon (Perlès 2001, 219; Theocharis 1973, 47). Impressed pots from Achilleion IV and Argissa are known. However, in spite of obvious similarities with the impressed wares known from the Izmir region, Çilingiroplu notes that the continuous impressions made with a comb-like instrument at Argissa MN are not matched on the other side of the Aegean (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 247; 472). The picture in Greek Macedonia is roughly similar. In Nea Nikomedeia, most of the sherds are burnished and slipped (73 %); red-brown and pink colours stand out (Pyke/Yiouni 1996, 84). Perhaps a significant contrast with Thessaly is that the traditional RSBW, as defined above, has been well established from the start (Çilingiroplu 2009b). Red-on-cream painted pottery amounts to less than 10 % of the assemblage. The motifs, when compared with that at Hacılar, fall into the same basic categories, namely solid (triangles, squares and bands) and linear (straight, zig-zag, wavy lines and simple curved lines) (Mellaart 1970, 103; 108; Pyke/Yiouni 1996, 87). Only the ‘fantastic’ style motifs have no clear parallels at Nea Nikomedeia. White-onred painted sherds are a distinctive feature, although they represent a very small minority (Pyke/Yiouni 1996, 86). Perhaps more importantly, one notes the presence of impressed sherds, amounting to about 9 % of the bulk of decorated pottery, as well as the presence of sherds with appliqué decoration, sometimes in the form of animal and human heads (Pyke/Yiouni 1996, 81; 89). Pottery technology in the south of Greece is taken to represent a slightly more advanced stage of technical development than that in Thessaly (Alram-Stern 2005, 188). The absence of a true monochrome phase preceding the appearance of painted pottery has been noted at Franchthi in

Argolid (Alram-Stern 2005, 188; Vitelli 1993, 100). Early Neolithic vessels at Franchthi have been described as “low-fired” and “heavily-gritted” (Vitelli 1989, 22). Their low thermal shock resistance when placed on a cooking fire and the absence of traces of secondary firing mean that these vessels were probably not used for cooking at all (Vitelli 1993, 213). The vessels, which are rather dark in colour, were burnished and frequently mottled. Research has attributed a monochrome phase to Elateia in east-central Greece (Theocharis 1973, 57). At Elateia, the monochrome assemblage is dominated by polished and rather light coloured sherds. Painted pottery is a rather late feature and impressed pottery is almost absent (Schachermeyr 1976). Ceramic assemblages in Central and Southern Greece display a certain variety. Red-slipped and burnished wares do occur, as part of a larger repertoire of wares including white-slipped, painted and black-burnished ware (Çilingiroplu 2009b). Surprisingly, in Northwestern Anatolia the Fikirtepe tradition was nearly spared by the RSBW phenomenon. Fine red-slipped sherds are only integrated in the Fikirtepe assemblages at a later date, in the ‘Classic’ Fikirtepe phase, in which they generally amount to between 6–10 % (Özdopan 1999b, 213). In parallel, RSBW shapes such as carinated bowls and oval vessels appear, but their development remains marginal. It appears as though local Neolithic communities decided not to adopt RSBW pottery production, instead retaining the cooking-ware tradition, which was already in evidence in the earlier phase of the Fikirtepe. The sites of Hoca Çesme and As¸apı Pinar both document the adoption of the RSBW in Turkish Thrace. At Hoca Çesme, pottery from the phase IV is exclusively fine (Karul/ Bertram 2005, 120). Red-slipped sherds dominate the assemblage in phases IV and III and are virtually identical to those of Central Anatolia (Karul/Bertram 2005, 121; 127). Other wares such as brown-coloured and a lustruous blackblackish coloured ware are also worth a mention (Karul/ Bertram 2005, 122). Vessels painted white on a red background, which is characteristic of the Karanovo culture, first appear in phase II (Karul/Bertram 2005, 124–125). One also notes an increase in coarse ware. This development can be traced in Bulgarian sites as well. At Kovacˇevo in the Middle Struma Valley, Early Neolithic pottery was painted white on a red-slipped and well polished background (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006, 86). Several motifs on painted vessels from Kovacˇevo have clear parallels in Anatolia, as for instance at Hacılar (Fig. 13). Pottery is frequently incised and impressed in Thrace, even at the idiosyncratic site of Karanovo itself (Çilingiroplu 2009b). Vertical tubular knobs resembling those from the Lake District and Aegean coast of Turkey are found at Pernik in Western Bulgaria (Thissen 2000a, 228). While red-slipped and burnished sherds are well-known from Starcˇevo assemblages in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there is evidence that local pottery traditions departed from the RSBW model. A clear indication of this is the discrimination of different wares – fine, medium




fine and coarse – in the site of Anza (Gimbutas 1976, 37). Coarse ware refers to a category of large ‘storage’ vessels with thicker walls tempered with grits, pebbles or chaff (Thissen 2000a, 228). The finer vessels have small mineral inclusions and thin walls. Their surface is carefully burnished and frequently slipped. Vessel shapes are rather simple and range from deep open bowls with straight or slightly S-shaped walls to globular jars. Bottom sherds display a greater diversity. Particularly remarkable are hollow pedestal bases and small feet (Thissen 2000a, 227). Handles are rather uncommon and consist mainly of horizontally and vertically pierced knobs at Anza (Gimbutas 1976, 37). We can summarize the evidence as follows: 1. Neolithic societies emerge more or less contemporaneously in Western Anatolia and Greece after c. 6450 cal. BC; 2. with few albeit remarkable exceptions11, pottery seems to be present from the start, and it is immediately characteristic of an advanced stage of pottery production akin to either the DFBW or the RSBW horizon; 3. although absolute chronology does not offer a degree of precision such that one can distinguish between the two ceramic horizons, the sequence at Çatalhöyük confirms that the DFBW horizon is stratigraphically older than the RSBW horizon; 4. each of these horizons is characterised by a rather different conception of pottery production and use; 5. within a same horizon, widely distributed sites display “similar attitudes toward ceramic use” (Çilingiroplu 2009b); 6. diversity should not be overlooked, although it is to a certain extent a product of chronological discrepancy. For example, regions to the north of the Aegean Sea, where farming emerged only at a later date (after c. 6100 cal. BC at 2), have yielded rather different ceramic assemblages; 7. differences in ceramic wares between Greece and the Balkans also follow, to some extent, Western Anatolian internal division in RSBW in the south and the coast, and Fikirtepe (resembling the DFBW, even in the ‘Classic’ Fikirtepe phase) in the north.

Defining the Early Neolithic in Southeast Europe This discussion of radiocarbon dates and ceramic wares has brought to light dynamic interactions between Neolithic communities in Western Anatolia and Europe in the second half of the 7th Millennium BC. As far as ceramic wares are concerned, a broadly east to west trajectory can be postulated. The question remains whether these cultural interactions can be correlated with the spread of farming, which is already well established by ancient DNA studies of domestic animals (Larson et al. 2007; Fernandez et al. 2006; Beja-Pereira et al. 2006; Götherström et al. 2005; Brudford et al. 2003). If pottery technology can be shown to be part of an integrated ‘package’ of Neolithic innovations, the elements of 11

Knossos X, Franchthi Int 0/1 and Ulucak VI as seen in the absolute chronology section.

183

Fig. 13. Selected painted vessels from Hacılar IIA–B (1–9) (after Mellaart 1970, pl. 311; 341); Kovacˇevo (10–16) (after Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006, pl. 2); and Nea Nikomedeia (17–26) (after Pyke/Yiouni 1996, 134)

which can be traced from Anatolia to Europe, then potential routes may be inferred. Furthermore, the nature of the anthropological process, that is to say colonisation or acculturation, can be assessed. In this section, we would like to outline key areas of enquiry, still in a preliminary stage, which underlie current research into the origins of Europe’s first farmers. Two Neolithic ‘packages’ We have suggested that the parallelism in ceramic types between North and Southwestern Anatolia is the result of two independent processes: 1. northwestern expansion of the DFBW horizon to the region of Marmara (Fikirtepe tradition); and 2. westward expansion of the RSBW horizon to the Aegean coast of Turkey. Mehmet Özdopan suggests that each of these horizons is coupled with a different Neolithic ‘package’ (Özdopan 2005; 2006; see also 2007a, 666). The first movement was accompanied by wattle-anddaub architecture, few figurines, pressure-flaking technology, large blades, arrow points, bone hooks and spoons, celts and a pottery resembling the DFBW of Syro-Cilicia. The second movement was characterised by mudbrick architecture, a preference for alluvial plains, steatopygious figurines, sling missiles, pintaderas, ear studs and fine red slipped pottery. The difficulty in defining the exact contours of the two traditions stems from the fact that they merge into each other over time. Mehmet Özdopan’s approach in terms of Neolithic ‘packages’ provides an interesting framework within which



184


to address the differences between the Neolithisation of Greece and that of the Balkans. Greece was mainly affected by the second movement marked out by the RSBW; to give an example, the absence of pointed arrowheads in Greece (Perlès 2005, 277) can be ascribed to their replacement by sling missiles in Southwestern Anatolia. According to the chronological reassessment, there is a gap of around 500 years between the emergence of Neolithic societies in Greece and in regions north of the Aegean (Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Whether this is a true pattern or a bias linked to a lack of good radiocarbon samples for the earlier periods will need to be investigated more thoroughly. New evidence from the basal levels at As¸apı Pinar in Turkish Thrace, near the border with Bulgaria, will add further arguments to this discussion. For now, the salient point is that regions north of the Aegean show a mix of different influences from several traditions. The horizon marked out by the RSBW seems to be the main contributor. However, it is possible to surmise that some elements of the Fikirtepe tradition, which remained mostly off the main stream of the RSBW expansion in the region of Marmara and around the Bosporus, filtered through Thrace. This is strongly supported by the archaeological sequence of the site of Hoca Çes¸me, north of the Dardanelles, which integrates elements of the Fikirtepe tradition (Özdopan 1999b). The emergence of cultures such as Karanovo and Starcˇevo may have been the result of the interesting recombination of elements of the Fikirtepe tradition with the RSBW of Anatolia and Greece in a phase of consolidation. Interactions in this phase took place in several directions. At Hoca Çesme, for instance, the seemingly Anatolian assemblage of levels IV–III was gradually superseded by a typical Karanovo assemblage in levels II–I with white-on-red painted pottery (Özdopan 1999b, 219; Karul/Bertram 2005, 127). Two reservations need to be made here. The first concerns one of the elements of the ‘package’ – architecture – for which the pattern of distribution is linked to the ecological conditions in which the settlement is found (Rosenstock 2005; Roodenberg 1995b; 1995c; 1995d). One may not expect to find mudbrick architecture in wet and humid climates. Likewise, wattle-and-daub is not a feature one might expect to see in arid and bare landscapes. Another reservation concerns the respective importance and balance of the two horizons. While the horizons marked out by the DFBW and RSBW are both significant in their own respect, it appears that Southeast Europe was mainly affected by the second horizon – far more important in scale. It is perhaps worth stressing that red-slipped pottery, which could be decorated with an almost infinite range of painted motifs (Schubert 1999), may itself have acted as a vehicle for culture. Three main Neolithic routes can be recognized for the spread of the Neolithic ‘packages’ to Southeast Europe: the Aegean islands, the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. None of these represents a real environmental barrier. The Aegean itself can be crossed by ‘leaping’ from island to island (Broodbank 1999, 15) and there is ample evidence to sug-

gest that journeys across the Aegean took place in the preceding Mesolithic period. This is proven by the recovery of obsidian from Melos in the caves of Franchthi in Argolis (Perlès 2001, 18) and Cyclops in Youra (Sampson 1998, 17). Eustatic rise in sea level – five meters or so in the Neolithic (Perlès 2001, 13) – needs to be taken into account to understand a possible crossing of the Aegean Sea. Although the existence of a landbridge between Greek and Anatolian mainlands can be categorically rejected (van Andel 1989, 742), many Aegean islands became separated from the mainland only at a late date (Broodbank 1999, 22). If one adds to that the fact that islands in the Cyclades and at the level of Izmir are distributed in chains at relatively short distance and intervisible from one another, it is clear that crossing the Aegean was feasible in Neolithic times provided that sufficient planning was carried out (Broodbank/ Strasser 1991, 237). The introduction of domesticated animals and plants alien to the local flora and fauna in Knossos (Efstratiou et al. 2004, 44; Broodbank/Strasser 1991, 235–236) indicates that animals and plants were involved in these early movements across the Aegean (McGrail 2001, 105). The evidence found so far from the Aegean coast of Thrace does not support the hypothesis of a spread of the Neolithic from Western Anatolia to Greece along the southern coasts of the Balkans, since the oldest Neolithic site in this region – Nea Makri – is dated to the very end of the 7thearly 6th Millennium BC (Efstratiou 2006, 76). More research would be necessary to prove or disprove the existence of this route. A third potential Neolithic ‘package’ Whether or not the occurrence of impressed sherds in coastal regions marks out a third horizon of Neolithic expansion outside of Anatolia is a question in itself. The significance of this phenomenon must be understood in the broader framework of the emergence of similarly impressed pottery traditions in the Adriatic (Impresso) and Western Mediterranean (Cardial). The main assumption is that impressed pottery (Fig. 14) is mainly associated with coastal sites – few or no sherds occurring in the ceramic assemblages of inland sites such as Çatalhöyük or Hacılar. This in itself suggests that we may be dealing with a consistent cultural horizon skirting around Central Anatolia and the Lake District. As Mehmet Özdopan has stated, “accordingly, with some reserve, we are inclined to suggest a hypothetical koiné in the very west of Anatolia along the Aegean littoral (Özdopan 1999b, 218)”. Nevertheless, the evidence remains equivocal. The discovery of a great number of impressed sherds at MezraaTeleilat on the western loop of the Euphrates (Güldopan 2008 – unpublished PhD thesis and personal communication; Karul et al. 2001, 173; Özdopan 2007b; 2007c), circa 150 km away from the littoral, shows, perhaps, that the tradition, which consists in decorating vessels with impressions, was not a purely maritime one.




185

Fig. 14. Impressed sherds from: 1. Mezraa-Teleilat IIB2 (after Özdopan 2007b, 189 Fig. 54); 2. Mersin-Yumuktepe (after Caneva 2007, 198 Fig. 7); 3. Ilıpınar (after Roodenberg 1995a, 101); 4. Ege Gübre (after Saplamtimur 2007, 364 Fig. 9); and 5. Otzaki-Magoula (modified from Otto 1985, Taf. 2)

Another reserve concerns the identification of impressed pottery as a separate ceramic ware, in much the same way as we did earlier on for the DFBW and RSBW. Çiler Çilingiroplu shows convincingly in her thesis that there was no Impresso ware as such at Ulucak (Çilingiroplu 2009a). On the contrary, impressions represent a form of decoration frequently applied to the surface of red-slipped and burnished pots. We are thus dealing here with a stylistic trend more than with a technological phenomenon. The making of the impressions implies a specific step in the chaîne opératoire – the use of a pointed tool or of fingernails when the pottery was still moist or leather hard, the use of a comb or a mollusc shell on some Greek sites (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 100; 248) – and a common understanding of the syntax of decoration, however there is no indication that impressed pots were made in a completely different way or that they served a different purpose. As a matter of fact, we also wish to stress that, although impressed pottery has a wide distribution throughout Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe, it always represents a minority within decorated pottery assemblages. The origin of the impressed pottery tradition may be sought in Cilicia or on the Syrian coast, where sherds decorated with fingernails or dots and, to a lesser extent, incisions are common among Dark-faced Burnished Ware assemblages in the Amuq and Mersin-Yumuktepe (Caneva 1999, 110; Cauvin 1994, 208). Impressed pottery is also a well-known feature on the Aegean coast of Anatolia, particularly at the level of Izmir, where the sites of Ulucak, Yes¸ilova and Ege Gübre have yielded ceramic assemblages in which impressed pottery amounts to around 5–10 % (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 305). In the northern half of Eastern Thessaly, impressed/incised sherds become conspicuous in the Early Neolithic III period (Otto 1985; Theocharis 1973, 47; Perlès 2001, 147–148). Western Macedonia has also yielded impressed sherds, as for instance at Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke/Yiouni 1996, 89). Although impressed pottery is

uncommon in Central and Southern Greece, a few sherds have been recorded at Elateia and Nea Makri (Theocharis 1973, 57; Schachermeyr 1976). Interestingly, the Marmara region is also part of this phenomenon. Impressed and incised sherds are conspicuous at Ilıpınar IX–VIII and have also been found at other Fikirtepe sites, although they are a feature of the ‘Developed’ Fikirtepe phase (van As/Wijnen 1995, 86; Roodenberg 1995d, 167; Özdopan 1999b, 213). In Thrace, impressed pottery is not only found at Hoca Çesme on the coast, but also at the idiosyncratic site of Karanovo itself, in levels I and II (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 407–408). Even Krainitsi I near Kyustendil in Western Bulgaria has yielded impressed sherds (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 430–431). Likewise, impressed pottery is found in the earliest levels of Anza in the FYROM (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 444), but, as for all sites mentioned, always in lower percentage rates. This situation only changes when entering the Adriatic. Here, at sites along the southern coast on both east and west Adriatic sides, shell, fingernail and other stamp-like impressions soon became the major ceramic decoration, occurring in abundance and giving such a distinct flavour that a whole early Neolithic branch is named after it: the Impresso (Forenbaher/Miracle 2005; Müller 1994). Progressing afterwards into the north of the Adriatic, and also transmitted over to the Tyrrhenian Sea, the Impresso and its Western Mediterranean relative, the Cardium Early Neolithic, then become the iconic carriers of the wider Southwestern European Neolithisation. An obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the above discussion is that there is a chronological aspect to the impressed pottery tradition. We agree with Çiler Çilingiroplu (2009a, 431), that impressed pottery in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe is a later phenomenon, which only emerges at the end of the 7th Millennium BC (c. 6100 BC). The fact that impressed pottery is found in the basal levels of sites like Karanovo and Anza is a further confirmation that the Southern Balkans were only neolithised at a later



186


date, as our section on the absolute chronology has conclusively shown. The only problematic site in that respect is Nea Nikomedeia, where impressed pottery is found in all the levels, but which has yielded dates c. 6450 cal. BC. For now, we are not yet able to explain this discrepancy, although we see no reason why the radiocarbon dates, which provide an independent mean of assessment, should be erroneous. There is a subsidiary question, which needs to be addressed here: was impressed pottery one of the components of a third ‘package’ of Neolithic innovations? If so, we would expect some features to be at odds with the main stream of developments taking place in Central Anatolia and the Lake District. The scarcity of the evidence calls for caution. The existence of round houses in Ege Gübre (Saplamtimur 2007, 373; see here Fig. 15) and in the lower levels of Hoça Çes¸me (IV–III) – alien to the Late Neolithic in inland Anatolia – led Mehmet Özdopan to postulate a Near Eastern origin for these structures (Özdopan 1999b, 218). It is worth emphasizing that tholoi-like structures are known from Halaf sites in inland Syria. Examples of these are now also known from sites closer to the littoral, elKerkh 2 (levels 4–2) in the Rouj Basin for instance (Miyake/ Tsuneki 1996, 111; Tsuneki 2003, 45). There is also some speculation as to whether Cypriot houses may have served as a model for the round structures at Ege Gübre (Çilingiroplu 2009a, 391 with reference to M. Özdopan). For now, it may be too early to call. In Ege Gübre, houses were built in mudbrick on a massive stone socle (Saplamtimur 2007). Round houses seem to have been integrated into larger architectural compounds, which also included rectilinear structures. In Hoça Çes¸me IV and III, round houses with wooden posts sunk into the bedrock were uncovered (Özdopan 1999b, 217). The floors of these houses were paved with small pebbles, coated in plaster and then painted. The settlement was enclosed by a fortification wall, 1.20 metres wide, reinforced on the outside by large stones and on the inside by posts sunk deep into the bedrock, which may have supported a wooden palisade (Özdopan 1999b, 217–218). Although the round houses in Hoca Çes¸me IV–III differ in major ways from the ones in Ege Gübre, they are no less substantial. It should be noted that round houses are also conspicuous in the Marmara region at sites like Fikirtepe, Pendik, Aktopraklık C and perhaps also Yenikapı (Roodenberg 1995d, 167; Karul 2009). However, these circular or oval shelters, slightly dug-in, with a wattle-and-daub superstructure are comparatively light and insubstantial. Therefore, they are usually seen as reflecting a local tradition (Özdopan 1999b, 217). It will be the task of future research to clarify the situation of the impressed pottery horizon within the framework of the origins of Europe’s first farmers. For the time being, all that can be said, is that there was most likely a direct route from the Near East to Europe in Neolithic times following the Mediterranean and Aegean coastlines. Perhaps other proxies, such as lithic traditions, animals or

plant remains should be targeted, to see whether impressed pottery was indeed part of a Neolithic ‘package’. To summarise, we would like to suggest three main phases in the Neolithisation of Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe (Fig. 16a–c). Phase I corresponds to the spread mainly in a north-westward direction of the DFBW and of its distinct Neolithic ‘package’. As a result, the ‘Archaic’ Fikirtepe culture emerged in the region of Marmara. For the time being, it is not possible to say whether some elements of the first tradition had already spread to Europe. However, the current distribution of the ‘Archaic’ Fikirtepe with sites approaching the Bosporus makes it likely that this first Neolithic ‘package’ had already reached Europe. Phase II corresponds to the westward spread of the RSBW and of its Neolithic ‘package’ to the Aegean coast of Turkey, the Dardanelles and Greece. This episode is important in scale and seems to have been short-lived. The region of Marmara remained mostly off the route and developed into a local tradition (‘Classic’ Fikirtepe). Finally, Phase III is a phase of consolidation. The different traditions merged in Turkish Thrace and, following the rivers, the Neolithic spread from Greece and Anatolia into inland Thrace and Macedonia. Impressed pottery could potentially serve as a marker for this phase, which started circa 6100 cal. BC. Evidence for earlier Neolithic dispersals? A further question needs to be raised: has the chronological reassessment attempted in this paper succeeded in identifying earlier Neolithic dispersals? There are hints that Neolithic sites such as Ulucak, Knossos and Franchthi were initially settled in the first half of the 7th Millennium BC. Such a date would suggest that the onset of farming in Europe coincided with the Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B phase in the Near East, when pottery was still exceedingly rare. The aforementioned sites are too isolated from one another to contemplate the existence of aceramic Neolithic dispersals. It is worth reminding the reader that sites ascribed to the aceramic Neolithic period were recently discovered in Northwestern Anatolia. In Part I, their significance was downplayed on the bases that: 1. their knowledge stems mostly from survey; 2. they have not produced any radiocarbon dates; and 3. the evidence consists mostly of scatters of lithics. The chronological reassessment in Part II was based on radiocarbon dates stemming from stratified deposits and pottery, and consequently these sites were not included. The evidence will be reviewed briefly in this section. Figure 17 shows the distribution of potential aceramic Neolithic sites in Northwestern Anatolia. Of these sites, only Keçiçayırı, Çalca and Küçükçekmece can be compared so far, and they are striking in their diversity. Keçiçayırı seems to be a flat settlement site or a small mound, located on a high plateau in the eastern Phrygian Highlands (Efe 2005, 109–110; Efe/Türkteki 2007). The excavations that started at the site in 2006 produced evidence for oval houses with stone foundations. These houses have yielded




Fig. 15a. Aerial photograph of the flat settlement of Ege Gübre (after Saplamtimur 2007, 361 Fig. 2a)

Fig. 15b. Aerial photograph of the flat settlement of Ege Gübre (after Saplamtimur 2007, 361 Fig. 2b)


187


188


Fig. 16a. Expansion of the DFBW horizon to the region of Marmara leading to the emergence of the ‚Archaic‘ Fikirtepe tradition

Fig. 16b. Expansion of the RSBW horizon to the Aegean coast of Turkey, Greece and Turkish Thrace. The ‚Classic‘ Fikirtepe tradition in the Eastern Marmara region remains mostly off the route




Fig. 16c. Maritime interaction marked out by the impressed pottery horizon and Neolithisation of the Balkans from various centres in Western Anatolia and Greece

Fig. 17. Distribution of known and potential aceramic Neolithic sites in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe


189


190


Fig. 18. Flint scrapers and points from Keçiçayırı (after Efe 2005, Fig. 9)

large scrapers, as well as points neatly shaped by pressure flaking, some of these from tubular flints (Fig. 18) (Efe 2005, 111). A recently excavated trench (b88) in the ‘northwestern fields’ has yielded, besides other flints, a core stone similar to the naviform cores of Central Anatolia (Efe/ Türkteki 2007, res. 3). Likewise, the site of Çalca in the Çan district of Çanakkale province (a small mound on the summit of a hill overlooking the valley of the Karlıdere stream) has yielded a complex chipped stone assemblage of 2572 items (Fig. 19), including cores (0.6 %), flakes (81.7 %), blades (11.9 %) and retouched tools (5.8 %) (Özdopan/Gatsov 1998, 215). A distinction can be drawn between two different chaînes opératoires, one related to flake production, the other one to the production of blades and bladelets (Özdopan/Gatsov 1998, 221). High quality flint of local origin was used. However, a few obsidian pieces were recovered (10 items), including micro-cores for blades, bladelets and flakes (Özdopan/Gatsov 1998, 221). Although the source of the obsidian is unknown, a Cappadocian origin seems likely. If confirmed, it would provide a direct link to aceramic Neolithic sites in Central Anatolia. Küçükçekmece is so far the most northerly site to have yielded an aceramic Neolithic flint inventory. Likewise, it is also the only site of this kind that is located on the European side of Turkey, about twenty kilometres west of the Bosporus entry (Aydingün 2009). The flints and other finds discussed below (Figs. 20; 22) have been recovered between 2007 and 2009, from the western side of the Küçükçekmece Lake, today a shallow lagoon attached to the Sea of Marmara. They come from a limited area at the foot of a peninsula protruding into the lagoon and east of the current mouth of the Es¸kinoz River. Here, two small tributary streams, deriving from two different small springs, which provide water throughout the year, spill into the bay (Fig. 21). The site continues into today’s lagoon, or – more likely – the settlement core has to be located under today’s lagoon, even at some distance from its shore, and the discovered flint scattering represents only a sort of peripheric

distribution around it. This means that there is a possibility of waterlogged preservation of organic materials. The collection consists of a uniform assemblage of yellowish flints, which originate, according to geologists from the University of Istanbul, from the local Eocene formation. The flints from Küçükçekmece represent both finished tools and flint flakes. Among the latter are large pressure flakes with remains of cortex (Aydingün 2009), demonstrating that pressure technology was in use and that on-site tool working must have taken place. Three flint cores, which are strikingly reminiscent of naviform cores from the later PrePottery Neolithic B in Central Anatolia and the Levant (Aydingün 2009), are exceptional. Further evidence for the existence of an early Neolithic community here comes from two amorphous obsidian pieces, found not far away from the flint scattering, in addition to a stone “vessel”, made of local limestone and hollowed out in order to create a vessellike depression probably for preparing or processing (cereal) food (Fig. 22). Similar stone “vessels” are known from both PPNB and early ceramic Neolithic sites in Anatolia. Beside pressure-flaking technology, the lack of microlithic implements, large blades and arrow projectiles/points as a common background, it seems that the whole story is unequal and heterogeneous when comparing the flint inventories from Keçiçayırı, Çalca and Küçükçekmece. However, one should take into account the wide geographical distance between these three sites, with one being situated in the Çanakkale province, another in the Es¸kis¸ehir province, and finally with Küçükçekmece on the European side of the Istanbul province. These sites may even be separated in time by several centuries. Although we know next to nothing of their economy, their different locations and environmental settings suggest different modes of subsistence. While Keçiçayırı, and similarly Çalca, must have assumed a stock-based economy due to their rather marginal setting (Özdopan 2005, 21), Küçükçekmece is different, insofar as it shows a micro-environment and habitat plentiful of resources, in particular sea-foods and water birds, suggesting a rather diverse economy and robust hunter-gathering components. For the time being, we know nothing of the interaction between these aceramic sites and local Epi-Palaeolithic groups. However, the close geographical proximity of Küçükçekmece to Epi-Palaeolithic sites of the Apaclı group (Gatsov/Özdopan 1994), which cluster around the Bosporus, rules out, a-priori, the idea of a parallel development without any form of contact. The relation between aceramic sites and Early Neolithic sites of the Fikirtepe tradition is equally problematic. There is as yet no conclusive evidence for continuity between aceramic and ceramic Neolithic traditions. The small number of aceramic sites discovered to date (despite extensive surveys that have brought to light numerous Epi-Palaeolithic/Mesolithic sites) rules out the hypothesis of a big ‘wave’ of Neolithic immigrants coming from the Central Anatolian plateau as early as the late PrePottery Neolithic B. This initial movement, as pointed out by Mehmet Özdopan, is likely to have been sparse and ran-




Fig. 19. Selection of different flint types from Çalca (after Özdopan/Gatsov 1998)


191


192


Fig. 20. Large flint cores from Küçükçekmece resembling PPNB naviform cores (after Aydıngün 2009)




193

Fig. 21. Photograph of Küçükçekmece showing the peninsula and the location of the flints where two streams spill into the bay (photo taken by V. Heyd)

dom (Özdopan 1999b, 212). It does not seem to have had a significant impact on the ceramic Neolithic, hence the idea of ‘failed’ attempts to introduce Neolithic economy, lifestyle and culture in regions outside the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B interaction zone. A number of reasons may be put forward to explain this failure, in particular a lack of consistency and continuity, due to too few people involved, or an unsuitable package too heavily reliant on stock; it may simply be the case that in the environment were still plenty of resources, making it a useless task to continue as herders and farmers if a living could be achieved more easily by hunting-andgathering. Colonisation or acculturation? Or both? The identification of three Neolithic ‘packages’ (two definite, one tentative) enables us to postulate a common ancestry in Anatolia to account for the great homogeneity in Southeast Europe at the start of the Early Neolithic. What was the driving force behind the Neolithisation of Greece and the Balkans? And, more importantly, who were the agents for change? The transmission of a Neolithic way of life cannot be reduced to the casual introduction of objects, animals and plants, and to the passive acceptance of these new elements

by pre-existing populations. It is an active process, which requires 1. learning new techniques and skills and 2. conforming to a Neolithic mode of thought. Alan Barnard suggests that a foraging lifestyle is, by nature, resilient and resistant to the Neolithic, because foraging ideology differs in almost every aspect to that of farming populations; examples include consumption and saving, decision-making and political hierarchy, universal kinship and degree of kin, etc. (Barnard 2007, 15). In a model where indigenous populations are the main agents for change, it is anticipated that the transition to farming will be slow and gradual with some form of convergence between Mesolithic and Neolithic lifestyles. Repeated interactions and exchanges between foraging and farming groups operating as two independent units during a phase of availability, leads to a rapid substitution of resources followed by a phase of consolidation (Zvelebil 1998, 10–11; Kotsakis 2003, 217). What is striking, however, in the Early Neolithic in Southeast Europe, and particularly Greece, is the seeming lack of transitional phases and the instantaneous adoption of a Neolithic economy and identity (Perlès 2003, 101; 2001, 302). As expressed by Catherine Perlès, “the breadth of knowledge this implies is quasi-encyclopaedic” (Perlès 2003, 105). The complete change in subsistence strategies (Hansen 1991, 163) and the marked cultural differences be-



194


ment pattern (Alram-Stern 2005, 186; Cavanagh 2004, 180; Johnson 1996, 258), a different orientation of settlement on the coasts rather than on the hinterland (Talalay 1993, 59), etc., suggesting a potential continuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic traditions. However, even here, the argument is weak and further evidence is required.

Conclusion

Fig. 22. Stone ‚vessel‘ recovered in the same field where the flints were found (after Aydıngün et al. 2010; photo taken by H. Aydıngün)

tween Mesolithic and Neolithic productions (Perlès 2001, 4) suggest that colonisation acted either as a direct cause or as an impetus for the Neolithisation of Southeast Europe. Exogenous settlers carried their own integrated Neolithic ‘package’ and recreated, to a large extent, their original environment (Perlès 2003, 106). This is reflected by the creation of landscapes, particularly in Thessaly. The choice of settlement location – preferably in alluvial plains –, the size of settlements – usually one or two hectares – and the use of space – clustered, permanent villages, opposition between a small permanent exploitation territory and a large procurement area (Perlès 2003, 106) – are comparable to the pattern on the Aegean coast of Anatolia (Thissen 2000a, 194), particularly in the region of Izmir. Acculturation of hunters-and-gatherers is rather a secondary process in this scenario. Despite several decades of intensive survey to search for Mesolithic sites in Greece (e.g. Galanidou/Perlès 2003) and in the Southern Balkans (e.g. Gatsov/Schwarzberg 2006), the evidence for Mesolithic activities is limited to a handful of sites, none of which has a continuous Mesolithic-Neolithic sequence (Perlès 2003, 103). The possibility that most Mesolithic sites clustering on coastal locations were destroyed by sea level rise cannot be ruled out to explain this pattern (Perlès 2001, 22). In any case, Mesolithic influence on the Neolithic remains slight: it may be reflected by distinct burial practices on some sites, cremations in Soufli Magoula for example (Andreou et al. 1996, 553), and by a different category of transverse arrowheads (Perlès 2005, 283). Moreover, it may be possible to identify regions where Mesolithic influence was more important by the reduced, transformed or delayed penetration of the Neolithic. The Early Neolithic in Southern Greece, for example, exhibits certain features, such as a more hierarchical and less densely packed settle-

Since James Mellaart’s excavations at Hacılar fifty years ago, research into the Neolithic of Western Anatolia is closely entangled with the question of the origins of Europe’s first farmers. In his early writings, Mellaart assumed a ‘common ancestry’ of Southeast European Neolithic communities in Western Anatolia (Mellaart 1960, 90). This paper has shown that this view still has relevance today. Hacılar itself may no longer be a useful ‘model’ for the Neolithisation of Greece and the Balkans due to its remoteness from the three main gateways to Europe (the Aegean islands, the Dardanelles and the Bosporus). Yet, its role has been overtaken by numerous sites, excavated mainly over the past 10–15 years, which cluster along the Aegean coast of Turkey, in the Marmara region and in Thrace. Ulucak, Hoca Çesme, As¸apı Pinar, Aktopraklık, and many other sites serve as the new ‘missing link’ and provide the opportunity to revitalize the ‘Western Anatolian model’, with which to compare Southeastern European material culture. Hacılar remains important to understand the development of the discipline and to evaluate the significance of the new evidence. Chronology is frequently used in support of arguments for or against a Near Eastern origin of European farmers. For instance, there is a long-lived debate as to whether Early Neolithic societies in Greece emerged before those of Western Anatolia. The new sites in Turkey were integrated into broader chronological schemes to show that Neolithic societies emerged more or less contemporaneously on both sides of the Aegean shortly after c. 6450 cal. BC. The evidence for earlier, possibly aceramic Neolithic settlements, remains conjectural and their existence is, so far, only confirmed on the Anatolian mainland. Interestingly, Neolithic societies north of the Aegean, in inland Thrace and Macedonia, seem to have emerged only in a second step after c. 6100 cal. BC. This result perhaps matches similar observations of periods of ‘progress halt’ or ‘contemplation’ that have also been observed elsewhere in Europe in the context of the Neolithisation process (Adriatic basin: Forenbaher/ Miracle 2005; Transdanubia and the Rhineland: e.g. Whittle/Cummings 2007). The discussion of the two paramount ceramic wares and of their regional and temporal varieties in Anatolia and Europe, while still in a preliminary stage, has brought to light cross-cultural interactions with structural implications. It emerges that the technology involved in making each of these wares, as well as their function and meaning, may have been part of a ‘package’ of Neolithic innovations ex-




changed, or, more likely, brought, by migrant agriculturalists travelling from Anatolia to Europe. Two Neolithic ‘packages’ can be tentatively distinguished beyond these distinct pottery wares. Their distribution broadly follows an east to west trajectory across the Anatolian Plateau and the Aegean. Impressed pottery, if considered a separate ware, may serve as a marker to identify yet a third horizon running exclusively along the coasts of the Mediterranean and Aegean. The evidence for this remains, however, unclear and a comprehensive study of this group would be needed to prove whether or not this is the case. The reasons for such migrations were not explored in this article, but the widespread shifts in settlement occupation and changes in material practice at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Northern Levant provide a clue as to why farming started to spread outside the boundaries of the Near East in the 7th Millennium BC (Özdopan 2005, 19; 1999a, 42; Sagona/Zimansky 2009, 76; Brami 2009). Western Anatolia stands between areas of primary and secondary Neolithisation and, as such, it offers the ideal conditions to study not only the reception, but also the transmission of newly invented Neolithic ‘ways of life’.

Acknowledgements This paper has benefited from discussions with many people during the course of this study. In particular, we would like to thank Mehmet Özdopan. Not only did he invite us to see reference collections from Western Anatolia and As¸api Pinar in his Department at the University of Istanbul and in his fieldwork camp at Ahmetce (Kırklareli), but our views certainly profited from the many discussions we had with him on the Early Neolithic. We are greatly indebted to J. Zilhão from the University of Barcelona, on whose method we drew upon to build our discussion of the absolute chronology. We are also grateful for helpful information and comments from (in alphabetical order): S. and H. Aydıngün, D. Baird, Ö. Çevik, Ç. Çilingiroplu, Z. Derin, R. Evershed, F. Gerritsen, E. Güldopan, R. Harrison, I. Ivgin, N. Karul, J. Last, H. Saplamtimur, H. Schwarzberg, D. Shankland and P. Warren. Not to forget is the indication of the constructive and valuable feedback of the anonymous reviewers that has enabled us to further improve our manuscript. Maxime Brami’s research has benefitted from a scholarship of the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg. He is, in particular, grateful to the British Institute at Ankara, the Deutsche Archäologische Institut in Istanbul, the Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes and to their Directors, L. Vandeput, F. Pierson and N. Seni ¸ respectively, for letting him stay there and use their research facilities; to the Çatalhöyük Project, I. Hodder, S. Farid and all the members of the 2007, 2009 and 2010 excavation seasons; to K. Knight and E. Lindo, for proofreading an earlier draft of this manuscript; and to his parents, N. Kerschen and J. Brami, for their continuous support and encouragement throughout his research.

195

Bibliography Abay 2005: E. Abay, Neolithic Settlement at Ulucak Höyük and its cultural relations with neighbour regions in Western Anatolia. In: C. Lichter (ed.), How did Farming reach Europe? AnatolianEuropean relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th Millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 75–84. Alram-Stern 1996: E. Alram-Stern, Die Ägäische Frühzeit. 1. Band. Das Neolithikum in Griechenland: mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern (Wien 1996). – 2005: –, The Early Neolithic settlement in Central and Southern Greece. The actual state of research. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 183–194. van Andel 1989: T. H. van Andel, Late Quaternary sea-level changes and Archaeology. Antiquity 63, 1989, 733–45. van Andel/Runnels 1995: T. H. van Andel/C.N. Runnels, The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69, 1995, 481–500. Andreou et al. 1996: S. Andreou/M. Fotiadis/K. Kotsakis, Review of Aegean Prehistory V: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. American Journal Arch. 100, 1996, 537–597. van As/Wijnen 1995: A. van As/M.-H. Wijnen, The Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery from Ilıpınar’s phases X–V: a technological study. In: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91 (Istanbul 1995) 77–107. Aydıngün 2009: S. ¸ Aydıngün, Early Neolithic discoveries at Istanbul. Antiquity 83(320), 2009. Aydıngün et al. 2010: S. ¸ Aydıngün/E. Güldopan/V. Heyd/H. Öniz, 2008 Yılı I˙ stanbul Tarih Öncesi Çaplar Yüzey Aras¸tırması. In: 27. Arass¸tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. 3. Cilt (XXXI. Uluslararası Kazı, Arass¸tırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu, Denizli, 25.–29. Mayis 2009) (Ankara 2010) 273–288. Balossi Restelli 2006: F. Balossi Restelli, The Development of ‘Cultural Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East: The ‘Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon’. BAR Int. Ser. 1482 (Oxford 2006). Barker/Mackey 1963: H. Barker/J. Mackey, British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements IV. Radiocarbon 5, 1963, 104–108. Barnard 2007: A. Barnard, From Mesolithic to Neolithic modes of thought. In: A. Whittle/V. Cummings (eds), Going over the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in North-west Europe. Proc. British Acad. 144 (Oxford 2007) 5–19. Beja-Pereira et al. 2006: A. Beja-Pereira/D. Caramelli/C. LaluezaFox/C. Vernesi/N. Ferrand/A. Casoli/F. Goyache/L. J. Royo/ S. Conti/M. Lari/A. Martini/L. Ouragh/A. Magid/A. Atash/ A. Zsolnai/P. Boscato/C. Triantaphylidis/K. Ploumi/L. Sineo/ F. Mallegni/P. Taberlet/G. Erhardt/L. Sampietro/J. Bertranpetit/ G. Barbujani/G. Luikart/G. Bertorelle, The origin of European cattle: evidence from modern and ancient DNA. Proc. Nat. Acad. Scien. United States America [PNAS] 103,21, 2006, 8113–8118. Böhner/Schyle 2002–2006: U. Böhner/D. Schyle, radiocarbon CONTEXT database. In: http://context-database.uni-koeln.de – visited 04/12/10. Braidwood/Braidwood 1960: R. J. Braidwood/L. S. Braidwood, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. I. The earlier assemblages, Phases A–J. Oriental Inst. Publ. 61 (Chicago 1960). Brami 2009: M. Brami, To what degree do empirical data actually support current interpretations of the PPN-PN transition in the Northern Levant as a long-term process with a great deal of regional variation? Is this scenario really accurate? (Unpublished Master thesis, University College London 2009).



196


Broodbank 1999: C. Broodbank, Colonization and configuration in the insular Neolithic of the Aegean. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Stud. in Aegean Arch. 2 (Sheffield 1999) 15–41. Broodbank/Strasser 1991: C. Broodbank/T. F. Strasser, Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonization of Crete. Antiquity 65, 1991, 233–245. Bronk Ramsey 2009: C. Bronk Ramsey, OxCal 4.1. Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. In: http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk – visited 04/12/10. Brudford et al. 2003: M. W. Brudford/D. G. Bradley/G. Luikart, DNA Markers reveal the Complexity of Livestock Domestication. Nature Rev. 4, 2003, 900–910. Caneva 1999: I. Caneva, Early farmers on the Cilician coast: Yumuktepe in the seventh millennium BC. In: M. Özdopan/ N. Bas¸gelen (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Ancient Civilization ser. 3 (Istanbul 1999) 105–114. – 2007: –, Mersin-Yumuktepe: Son Veriler Is¸ıpında MÖ Yedinci Binyıla Yeni Bir Bakıs¸. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 203–216. Cauvin 1994: J. Cauvin, Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l’agriculture. La Révolution des symboles au Néolithique (Paris 1994). Cavanagh 2004: W. G. Cavanagh, WYSIWYG: settlement and territoriality in Southern Greece during the Early and Middle Neolithic periods. Journal Mediterranean Arch. 17,2, 2004, 165–189. Cessford 2001: C. Cessford, A new Dating Sequence for Çatalhöyük. Antiquity 75, 2001, 717–725. Childe 1950: G. Childe, Prehistoric migrations in Europe (Oslo 1950). Çilingiroplu 2009a: Ç. Çilingiroplu, Central-West Anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th Millennium BCE in the light of pottery from Ulucak (Izmir). In: http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/voll texte/2009/4278/pdf/Diss_Cilingiroglu_1.pdf – visited 18/03/10. – 2009b: Neolithic red slipped and burnished wares: recognizing their broad distribution. In: H. Saplamtimur/E. Abay/Z. Derin/ A. Erdem/A. Batmaz/F. Dedeoplu/M. Erdalkıran/M. B. Bas¸türk/ E. Konakçı (eds), Altan Çilingiroplu’na Armapan, Yukarı Denizin Kıyısında Urartu Krallıpı’na Adanmıs¸ Bir Hayat (Istanbul 2009) 203–216. Çilingiroplu/Çilingiroplu 2007: A. Çilingiroplu/Ç. Çilingiroplu, Ulucak. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 361–372. Çilingiroplu et al. 2004: A. Çilingiroplu/Z. Derin/E. Abay/H. Saplamtimur/I. Kayan, Ulucak Höyük. Excavations conducted between 1995 and 2002. Ancient Near Eastern Stud., Suppl. 15 (Louvain 2004). Demoule 1993: J.-P. Demoule, Anatolie et Balkans: la logique évolutive du Néolithique égéen. Special issue on Anatolia and the Balkans Symposium. Anatolica 19, 1993. Demoule/Perlès 1993: J.-P. Demoule/C. Perlès, The Greek Neolithic: a new review. Journal World Prehist. 7,4, 1993, 355–416. Derin 2005: Z. Derin, Yes¸ilova Höyük. Neolithic in Izmir. In: http://www.yesilova.ege.edu.tr/ – visited 17/03/09. – 2007: –, Yes¸ilova Höyüpü. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 377–384. Düring 2000: B. Düring, Places, privacy patterns, and social identities in the architecture of Neolithic Çatalhöyük. A diachronic study (unpublished Masters thesis, Leiden University). – 2011: –, The Prehistory of Asia Minor. From Complex HunterGatherers to Early Urban Societies (New York 2011). Duru 1989: R. Duru, Were the earliest cultures at Hacılar really aceramic? In: K. Emre/M. Mellink/B. Hronda/N. Özgüç (eds),

Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç (Ankara 1989) 99–105. – 1999: –, The Neolithic of the Lake District. In: M. Özdopan/ N. Bas¸gelen (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Ancient Civilization ser. 3 (Istanbul 1999) 165–191. – 2007: –, Göller Bölgesi Neolitipi: Hacılar – Kuruçay Höyüpü – Höyücek – Bademapacı Höyüpü. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 331–360. – 2008: –, From 8000 BC to 2000 BC. Six thousand years of the Burdur-Antalya region (Antalya 2008). – 2010: –, Elli yıllık bir arkeoloji öyküsü. Hacılar. Monogr. Dizisi 6 (Antalya 2010). Efe 2005: T. Efe, Neolithization in Inland Northwestern Anatolia. In: C. Lichter (ed.), How did Farming reach Europe? AnatolianEuropean relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th Millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 107–115. Efe/Türkteki 2007: T. Efe/M. Türkteki, Keçiçayırı (Seyitgazi-Eskisehir) 2007 Yılı Kurtarma Kazıları. Colloq. Anatolicum 6, 2007, 75–84. Efstratiou 2006: N. Efstratiou, Looking for the early prehistory of Greek Thrace: research problems, prospects and first results. In: I. Gatsov/H. Schwarzberg (eds), Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea: the present state of research on the Early Neolithic. Proceedings of the session held at the EAA 8th annual meeting at Thessaloniki, 28th September 2002 (Langenweissbach 2006) 69–82. Efstratiou et al. 2004: N. Efstratiou/A. Karetsou/E. S. Banou/ D. Margamenou, The Neolithic settlement of Knossos: new lights on an old picture. In: G. Cadogan/E. Hotzaki/A. Vasilakis (eds), Knossos: Palace, City, State. Proceedings of the Conference in Herakleion organised by the British School at Athens and the 23rd Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Herakleion, in November 2000, for the Centenary of Sir Arthur Evans’s Excavations at Knossos. British School Athens Stud. 12 (London 2004) 39–49. Evans 1964: J. D. Evans, Excavation in the Neolithic settlement of Knossos, 1957–60. Annu. British School Athens 59, 1964, 132–240. – 1971: –, Neolithic Knossos; the growth of a settlement. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 37, 1971, 95–117. Evershed et al. 2008: R. P. Evershed/S. Payne/A. G. Sherratt/ M. S. Copley/J. Coolidge/D. Urem-Kotsu/K. Kotsakis/M. Özdopan/A. E. Özdopan/O. Nieuwenhuyse/P. M. M. G. Akkermans/ D. Bailey/R.-R. Andeescu/S. Campbell/S. Farid/I. Hodder/ N. Yalman/M. Özbas¸aran/E. Bıçakcı/Y. Garfinkel/T. Levy/ M. M. Burton, Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding. Nature 455,25, September 2008, 528–531. Evin/Oberlin 2005: J. Evin/C. Oberlin, La methode de datation par le radiocarbone. In: J. Evin/A. Ferdière/G.-N. Lambert/L. Langouët/P. Lanos/C. Oberlin (eds), Les methodes de datation en laboratoire (Paris 2005), 77–119. Facorellis et al. 2001: Y. Facorellis/N. Kyparissi-Apostolika/ Y. Maniatis, The Cave of Theopetra, Kalambaka: radiocarbon evidence for 50,000 years of human presence. Radiocarbon 43 (2B), 2001, 1029–1048. Fernández et al. 2006: H. Fernández/S. Hughes/J.-D. Vigne/ D. Helmer/G. Hodgins/C. Miquel/C. Hänni/G. Luikart/P. Taberlet, Divergent mtDNA lineages of goats in an Early Neolithic site, far from the initial domestication areas. Proc. Nat. Acad. Scien. United States America [PNAS] 103,42, 2006, 15375– 15379. French 1961: D. French, Late Chalcolithic pottery in North-West Turkey and the Aegean. Anatolian Stud. 11, 1961, 99–141.



The origins of Europe’s first farmers: The role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, fifty years on Forenbaher/Miracle 2005: S. Forenbaher/P. T. Miracle, The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity 79, 2005, 514–528. Galanidou/Perlès 2003: N. Galanidou/C. Perlès (eds), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and perspectives (London 2003). Gatsov/Özdopan 1994: I. Gatsov/M. Özdopan, Some Epi-Paleolithic sites from NW Turkey. Apaclı, Domalı and Gümüs¸dere. Anatolica 20, 1994, 97–120. Gatsov/Schwarzberg 2006: I. Gatsov/H. Schwarzberg (eds), Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea: the present state of research on the Early Neolithic. Proceedings of the session held at the EAA 8th annual meeting at Thessaloniki, 28th September 2002 (Langenweissbach 2006). Gérard/Thissen 2002: F. Gérard/L. Thissen (eds), 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 2002). Gerritsen/Özbal 2009: F. Gerritsen/R. Özbal, Barcın Höyük Excavations, 2007. 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, 2009, 457–464. – 2010: –, The NIT excavations at Barcın Höyük, 2010. Annual Report NINO and NIT 2010 (Leiden 2010). Gimbutas 1976: M. Gimbutas (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yougoslavia. Mon. Arch. 1 (Los Angeles 1976). Gimbutas et al. 1989: M. Gimbutas/S. Winn/D. Shimabuku (eds), Achilleion: a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400– 5600 BC. Mon. Arch. 14 (Los Angeles 1989). Godon 2008: M. Godon, Les productions céramiques d’Anatolie Centrale. Developpements culturels et phénomènes d’expansion du Néolithique céramique entre 7000 et 5500 bc cal. (unpublished PhD thesis, Université Paris X – Nanterre). Götherström et al. 2005: A. Götherström/C. Anderung/L. Hellborg/R. Elburg/C. Smith/D.G. Bradley/H. Ellegren, Cattle domestication in the Near East was followed by hybridization with aurochs bulls in Europe. Proc. Royal Soc. 272, 2005, 2345–2350. Güldopan 2008: E. Güldopan, Mezraa-Teleilat Tarak-Baskı “Impresso” Bezemeli Çanak Çömlepin Köken ve Dapılımı (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Istanbul). Halstead 1999: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Stud. in Aegean Arch. 2 (Sheffield 1999). Hansen 1991: J. M. Hansen, The palaeoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave (Bloomington, Indianapolis 1991). Harmankaya et al. 1997: S. Harmankaya/O. Tanındı/M. Özbas¸aran, Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerles¸meleri – 2. Neolitik (Istanbul 1997). Hodder 2006: I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük. The leopard’s tale (London 2006). Hood 1981: S. Hood, Excavations in Chios 1938–1955: prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Vol. 1. Suppl. Vol. = British School Athens 15 (London 1981). Horejs 2008: B. Horejs, Erster Vorbericht zu den Kampagnen 2006 und 2007 am Çukuriçi Höyük bei Ephesos. Jahresh. Österr. Arch. Inst. Wien 77, 2008, 91–106. Johnson 1996: M. Johnson, Water, animals and agricultural technology: a study of settlement patterns and economic change in Neolithic Southern Greece. Oxford Journal Arch. 15, 1996, 267–295. Karul 2009: N. Karul, Bursa Aktopraklık Höyük’te Tarik Önce˙ sinin Ilk Tarımcıları Kes¸fediliyor. Aktüel Ark. 10, 2009, 54–68. Karul/Bertram 2005: N. Karul/J.-K. Bertram, From Anatolia to Europe: the ceramic sequence of Hoca Çes¸me. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 117–129.

197

Karul et al. 2001: N. Karul/A. Ayhan/M. Özdopan, 1999 Excavations at Mezraa-Teleilat. In: N. Tuna/J. Öztürk/J. Velibeyoplu (eds), Salvage Projects of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 1999 (Ankara 2001) 162–174. Kızıltan 2010: Z. Kızıltan, Excavations at Yenikapı, Sirkeci and Üsküdar within Marmaray and Metro Projects. In: U. Kocabas¸ (ed.), Istanbul archaeological museums. Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro salvage excavations 5th–6th May 2008 (Istanbul 2010), 1–16. – 2003: –, From the Neolithic side: the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface in Greece. In: N. Galanidou/C. Perlès (eds), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and perspectives (London 2003) 217–221. Kyparissi-Apostolika 2003: N. Kyparissi-Apostolika, The Mesolithic in Theopetra Cave: new data on a debated period of Greek Prehistory. In: N. Galanidou/C. Perlès (eds), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and perspectives (London 2003) 189–198. Larson et al. 2007: G. Larson/U. Albarella/K. Dobney/P. RowleyConwy/J. Schibler/A. Tresset/J.-D. Vigne/C. J. Edwards/ A. Schlumbaum/A. Dinu/A. Ba˘la˘çsescu/G. Dolman/A. Tagliacozzo/N. Manaseryan/P. Miracle/L. van Wijngaarden-Bakker/ M. Masseti/D. G. Bradley/A. Cooper, Ancient DNA, pig domestication, and the spread of the Neolithic into Europe. Proc. Nat. Acad. Scien. United States America [PNAS] 104,39, 2007, 15276–15281. Last 2005: J. Last, Pottery from the East Mound. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995–99 seasons. Monogr. McDonald Inst. Arch. and British Inst. Arch. Ankara 39 (Ankara 2005) 101–138. Le Mière/Picon 1999: M. Le Mière/M. Picon, Les débuts de la céramique au Proche-Orient. Paléorient 24,2, 1999, 5–26. Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006: M. Lichardus-Itten/J.-P. Demoule/ L. Pernicheva/M. Grebska-Kulova/I. Kulov, Kovacˇevo, an Early Neolithic site in South-West Bulgaria and its importance for European Neolithization. In: Gatsov/H. Schwarzberg (eds), Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea: the present state of research on the Early Neolithic. Proceedings of the session held at the EAA 8th annual meeting at Thessaloniki, 28th September 2002 (Langenweissbach 2006) 83–94. Lichter 2002: C. Lichter, Central Western Anatolia – a key region in the Neolithization of Europe? In: F. Gérard/L. Thissen (ed.), 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 2002), 161–169. – 2005: –, Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of research. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 59–74. Lichter/Meriç 2007: C. Lichter/R. Meriç, Dedecik-Heybelitepe. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 385–386. Lloyd 1956: S. Lloyd, Early Anatolia (Harmondsworth 1956). McGrail 2001: S. McGrail, Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval Times (Oxford 2001). Mellaart 1958: J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacılar: First Preliminary Report. Anatolian Stud. 8, 1958, 127–156. – 1960: –, Excavations at Hacılar: Third Preliminary Report. Anatolian Stud. 10, 1960, 83–104. – 1961a: –, Excavations at Hacılar: Fourth Preliminary Report. Anatolian Stud. 11, 1961, 39–75. – 1961b: –, Early cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau. Anatolian Stud. 11, 1961, 159–184. – 1965: –, Earliest civilizations of the Near East (London 1965). – 1966: –, The Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Ages in the Near East & Anatolia (Beirut 1966).



198


– 1970: –, Excavations at Hacilar (Edinburgh 1970). – 1978: –, The archaeology of ancient Turkey (London, Sydney, Toronto 1978). Miyake/Tsuneki 1996: Y. Miyake/A. Tsuneki, The earliest pottery sequence of the Levant: new data from Tell El-Kerkh 2, Northern Syria. Paléorient 22,1, 1996, 109–123. Müller 1994: J. Müller, Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum: Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prähist. Arch. Südosteuropa 9 (Berlin 1994). Otto 1985: B. Otto, Die verzierte Keramik der Sesklo- und Diminikultur Thessaliens (Mainz am Rhein 1985). Özbas¸aran/Buitenhuis 2002: M. Özbas¸aran/H. Buitenhuis, Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia. In: Gérard/ Thissen (eds), 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 2002) 67–78. Özdopan 1983: M. Özdopan, Pendik: A Neolithic site of Fikir Tepe Culture in the Marmara region. In: R. M. Boehmer/H. Hauptmann (eds), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Kurt Bittel (Mainz 1983) 401–412. – 1999a: –, Çayönü. In: M. Özdopan/N. Bas¸gelen (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Ancient Civilization ser. 3 (Istanbul 1999) 35–64. – 1999b: –, Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia. In: M. Özdopan/N. Bas¸gelen (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Ancient Civilization ser. 3 (Istanbul 1999) 203–224. – 2004: –, Heritage and nationalism in the Balkans and Anatolia: what has happened since Hasluck. In: D. Shankland (ed.), Archaeology, anthropology and heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: the life and time of F. W. Hasluck, 1978–1920. Vol. 2 (Istanbul 2004) 389–406. – 2005: –, The expansion of the Neolithic way of life: what we know and what we do not know. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 13–27. – 2006: –, Neolithic Cultures at the contact zone between Anatolia and the Balkans – diversity and homogeneity at the Neolithic frontier. In: I. Gatsov/H. Schwarzberg (eds), Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea: the present state of research on the Early Neolithic. Proceedings of the session held at the EAA 8th annual meeting at Thessaloniki, 28th September 2002 (Langenweissbach 2006) 21–28. – 2007a: –, Coastal changes of the Black Sea and Sea of Marmara in archaeological perspective. In: V. Yanko-Hombach/A. S. Gilbert/N. Panin/P. M. Dolukhanov (eds), The Black Sea flood question: changes in coastline, climate, and human settlement (Dordrecht 2007) 651–670. – 2007b: –, Mezraa-Teleilat. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 189–202. – 2007c: –, Mezraa-Teleilat. In: N. Bas¸gelen (ed.), 12,000 Yil Önce. “Uygarlıpın Anadolu’dan Avrupa’ya Yolculupunun Bas¸langıcı”. Neolitik Dönem (Istanbul 2007) 99–100. Özdopan/Bas¸gelen 1999: M. Özdopan/N. Bas¸gelen (eds), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Ancient Civilization ser. 3 (Istanbul 1999). – 2007: –, Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılar-yeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007). Özdopan/Gatsov 1998: M. Özdopan/I. Gatsov, The aceramic Neolithic period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica 24, 1998, 209–232. Perlès 1990: C. Perlès, Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome II. Les Industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique Initial (Bloomington, Indianapolis 1990).

– 2001: –, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). – 2003: –, An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of neolithization in Greece. Doc. Praehist. 30, 2003, 99–113. – 2005: –, From the Near East to Greece: let’s reverse the focus, cultural elements that didn’t transfer. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 275–290. Pyke/Yiouni 1996: G. Pyke/P. Yiouni, Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic village in Northern Greece 1961–1964 (Athens 1996). Ralph/Stukenrath 1962: E. K. Ralph/R. J. R. Stukenrath, University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates V. Radiocarbon 4, 1962, 144–159. Reimer et al. 2009: P. J. Reimer/M. G. L. Baillie/E. Bard/A. Bayliss/J. W. Beck/P. G. Blackwell/C. Bronk Ramsey/C. E. Buck/ G. S. Burr/R. L. Edwards/M. Friedrich/P. M. Grootes/T. P. Guilderson/I. Hajdas/T. J. Heaton/A. G. Hogg/K. A. Hughen/ K. F. Kaiser/B. Kromer/F. G. McCormac/S. W. Manning/ R. W. Reimer/D. A. Richards/J. R. Southon/S. Talamo/C. S. M. Turney/J. van der Plicht/C. E. Weyhenmeyer, IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51,4, 2009, 1111–1150. Reingruber 2005: A. Reingruber, The Argissa Magoula and the beginnings of the Neolithic in Thessaly. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 155–171. Roodenberg 1995a: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91 (Istanbul 1995). – 1995b: J. Roodenberg, Introduction to the Project. In: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91 (Istanbul 1995) 1–7. – 1995c: –, Stratigraphy and architecture. In: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91 (Istanbul 1995) 35–76. – 1995d: –, Chronologies and conclusion. In: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91 (Istanbul 1995) 167–174. Rosenstock 2005: E. Rosenstock, Höyük, Toumba and Mogila: a settlement form in Anatolia and the Balkans and its ecological determination 6500–5500 BC. In: C. Lichter (ed.), 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. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 221–237. Sagona/Zimansky 2009: A. Sagona/P. Zimansky, Ancient Turkey (Oxon, New York 2009). Saplamtimur 2007: H. Saplamtimur, Ege Gübre Neolitik Yerles¸imi. In: Özdopan/Bas¸gelen (eds), Anadolu’da Uygarlıpın Dopus¸u ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Yeni kazılaryeni bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 373–376. Sampson 1998: A. Sampson, The Neolithic and Mesolithic occupation of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra Alonnessos, Greece. Annu. British School Athens 93, 1998, 1–22. Schachermeyr 1976: F. Schachermeyr, Die Ägäische Frühzeit. Forschungsbericht über die Ausgrabungen im letzten Jahrzehnt und über ihre Ergebnisse für unser Geschichtsbild. 1. Band. Die Vormykenischen Perioden des Griechischen Festlandes und der Kykladen (Wien 1976). Schoop 2005a: U. D. Schoop, Das Anatolische Chalkolithikum. Eine chronologische Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kultursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien und den angrenzenden Gebieten. Urgesch. Stud. 1 (Remshalden 2005). – 2005b: –, The late escape of the Neolithic from the Central Anatolian Plain. In: C. Lichter (ed.), How did Farming reach Eu-



The origins of Europe’s first farmers: The role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, fifty years on rope? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th Millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20th–22nd May 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 41–58. Schubert 1999: H. Schubert, Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien (Rahden 1999). Séfériadès 2007: M. Séfériadès, Complexity of the processes of neolithization: traditions and modernity of the Aegean World at the dawn of the Holocene Period (11–9 kyr). Quaternary Internat. 167–168, 2007, 177–185. Talalay 1993: L. E. Talalay, Deities, dolls, and devices. Neolithic figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece (Bloomington, Indianapolis 1993). Theocharis 1973: D. Theocharis (ed.), Neolithic Greece (Athens 1973). Thissen 1995: L. Thissen, A synopsis of pottery shapes from phases X–VI. In: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar excavations I. Five seasons of fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987–91 (Istanbul 1995) 109–119. – 2000a: –, Early village communities in Anatolia & the Balkans, 6500–5500 cal BC. Studies in chronology and culture contact (unpublished thesis, University of Leiden 2000). – 2000b: –, Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: clues to the neolithization of Greece? Doc. Praehist. 27, 2000, 141–151. – 2006: –, Southwest and Northwest Anatolia 14C databases. 10th–6th Millennia cal BC. In: http://www.canew.org/data/ – visited 17/03/09. Thissen et al. 2001: L. Thissen/F. Gérard/D. Bischoff/A. Reingruber, Central Anatolian Neolithic e-Workshop (CANeW). In: http://www.canew.org/ – visited 17/03/09. Thissen et al. 2010: L. Thissen/H. Özbal/A. Türkekul Bıyık/F. Gerritsen/R. Özbal, The land of milk? Approaching dietary preferences of Late Neolithic communities in NW Anatolia. Leiden Journal of Pottery Stud. 26, 2010. Thissen/Reingruber 2005: L. Thissen/A. Reingruber, Aegean Catchment (E Greece, S Balkans and W Turkey) 14C databases. 10th–6th Millennia cal BC. In: http://www.canew.org/data/ – visited 17/03/09.

199

Tsuneki 2003: A. Tsuneki, Site, stratigraphy and structures. Sounding excavations at Tell el-Kerkh 2. In: T. Iwasaki/A. Tsuneki (eds), Archaeology of the Rouj Basin. A Regional Study of the Transition from Village to City in Northwest Syria (Tsukuba 2003) 43–55. Vitelli 1989: K. D. Vitelli, Were pots first made for food? Doubts from Franchthi. World Arch. 21,1, 1989, 17–29. – 1993: –, Franchthi Neolithic Pottery. Volume 1. Classification and ceramic phases 1 and 2 (Bloomington, Indianapolis 1993). Whittle 1990: A. Whittle, Radiocarbon dating of the Linear Pottery Culture: the contribution of cereal and bone samples. Antiquity 64, 1990, 297–302. – 1996: –, Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new Worlds (Cambridge 1996). Whittle/Cummings 2007: A. Whittle/V. Cummings (eds), Going over the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in North-west Europe. Proc. British Acad. 144 (Oxford 2007). Wilkie/Savina 1997: N. C. Wilkie/M. E. Savina, The earliest farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity 71, 1997, 201–207. Winn/Shimabuku 1989: S. Winn/D. Shimabuku, Chapter 5. Pottery. In: M. Gimbutas/S. Winn/D. Shimabuku (eds), Achilleion: a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC. Mon. Arch. 14 (Los Angeles 1989) 75–164. Yalman 2006: N. Yalman, What can pottery vessels tell us about the way people lived? In: M. Haydaroplu (ed.), Çatal Höyük. From earth to eternity (Istanbul 2006) 34–38. Yalman/Özdöl 2003: N. Yalman/S. Özdöl, Pottery report. Çatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report. In: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ archive_reports/2003/ar03_15 – visited 17/03/09. Zilhão 2001: J. Zilhão, Radiocarbon Evidence for Maritime Pioneer Colonization at the Origins of Farming in Mediterranean Europe. Proc. Nat. Acad. Scien. United States America [PNAS] 98,24, 2001, 14180–14185. Zvelebil 1998: M. Zvelebil, Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, and the transition to farming in the Baltic Basin. In: M. Zvelebil/R. Dennell/L. Doman´ska (eds), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest. The emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic region (Sheffield 1998) 9–28.

Maxime Brami, PhD candidate, School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, Hartley Building, Brownlow Street, LIVERPOOL L69 3GS, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Volker Heyd, Reader in Prehistoric Archaeology, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Bristol, 43 Woodland Road, BRISTOL BS8 1UU, UK. E-mail: [email protected]



200


Appendix – Radiocarbon Database Phase

Sample material

Provenience

Lab. No.

Date BP

cal BC 1

cal BC 2

Ia

Charcoal

test pit east

Ia

Charcoal

LJ-4449

7490x150

6496–6121

6635–6061

test pit east

UCLA-1896A 7460x175

6467–6101

Ia

6654–5989

Organic material/carbon B-2–26

P-2118

6416–6252

6471–6106

Ib

Charcoal

B-1–31

UCLA-1882B 7260x155

6347–5989

6435–5845

Ib

Charcoal

A-2–27

GrN-7437

7440x55

6377–6251

6428–6223

Ib

Charcoal

B-1–30

GrN-7438

7390x45

6361–6223

6394–6100

Ib

Charcoal

B-1–26-▼3.54/3.63 m

LJ-3329

(1) 7370x50 6359–6110 (2) 7360x50 6350–6101

6376–6094 6396–6088

Ib

Charcoal

B-2–27

LJ-3184

7320x50

6230–6100

6346–6061

Neo.

Charcoal

A-D3–14

P-2123

(1) 7450x80 6397–6244 (2) 7454x78 6398–6247

6459–6101 6461–6105

Achilleion (1970s–1980s)

7470x80

Argissa (1958–early 1970s) EN I ‚Precer.‘

Bone (Ovis)

nd

UCLA-1657A 8130x100

7330–6867

7454–6775

EN I ‚Precer.‘

Bone

nd

UCLA-1657D 7990x95

7053–6771

7171–6644

EN I ‚Precer.‘

Charcoal

E 11, pit

H-896–3082

7740x100

6656–6464

7022–6413

EN I ‚Precer.‘

Charcoal

G 9, pit

H-894–3081

7520x100

6460–6255

6594–6116

EN I or EN II ‚Precer.‘ Charcoal

8/9, pit ?

H-889–3080

7760x100

6685–6471

7024–6430

EN I (‚Early Ceramic‘) Charcoal

G 8, 28b burnt post

GrN-4145

7500x90

6440–6255

6565–6107

EN I (‚Early Ceramic‘) Bone

spit 28b

UCLA-1657E 6700x130

5721–5515

5882–5380

EN

nd

I-1959

7380x240

6462–6015

6755–5737

Asfaka (1960s) nd

Cyclops Cave (1990s–2000s) ‚Upper level‘

Bones (sheep/goat)

nd

Beta-?

7120x80

6066–5904

6211–5838

‚Upper level‘

Bones (sheep/goat)

nd

Beta-?

7060x80

6016–5847

6065–5755

Elateia (early 1960s) EN

Charcoal

Tr.1, floor, ▼2.30 m

GrN-3039

8240x110

7451–7084

7539–7042

EN monochrome

Charcoal

Tr.1, NE quadrant, base, ▼3.10 m

GrN-2973

7480x70

6425–6257

6458–6226

EN monochrome

Charcoal

Tr.2, floor of bothros at ▼2.70 m

GrN-3037

7360x90

6355–6099

6415–6059

EN monochrome

Charcoal


GrN-3041

7190x100

6211–5986

6328–5845

EN

Charcoal


GrN-3502

7040x130

6024–5778

6210–5673

Franchthi Cave (1960s–early 1970s) Late/Final Mesolithic (P.IX)

Charcoal

G1:22

P-1536

8190x80

7306–7079

7459–7047

Late/Final Mesolithic (P.IX)

Charcoal

FF1:43A1

P-1526

8020x80

7066–6815

7174–6682

Final Mesolithic (P. IX–X)

Charcoal

FAS:146

P-2095

7980x110

7049–6708

7240–6595

Neo.?

Charcoal

FA poutre 102S

P-1921

8410x90

7575–7360

7595–7190

Interphase 0/1 (P.X)

Charcoal and soil

FAS:143

P-2094

7930x100

7028–6688

7080–6572

Interphase 0/1

Charcoal

FF1:44B5

P-1527

7900x90

7023–6648

7058–6592

Interphase 0/1

Wood charcoal

A:63

P-1392

7794x140

6897–6466

7054–6426

FCP 1

Charcoal and soil

FF1:42B1

P-1525

7704x81

6602–6466

6692–6418

FCP 1

Charcoal and soil

H[Ped]:37Y

P-1667

7278x89

6230–6059

6366–6003

FCP 1

Charcoal and soil

FAS:129

P-2093

6940x90

5966–5732

5993–5668

AA-32

7610x150

6634–6266

6901–6096

Franchthi Koilada Bay (1980s) Coring

Charcoal

FC2, ▼5.45–5.65 m Halai (1990s)

EN

Wood

Trench F2c

A-7268

7530x200

6600–6116

7021–6001

EN

Wood

Trench F2c

A-7271

7325x160

6366–6059

6477–5890



201

The origins of Europe’s first farmers: The role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, fifty years on Phase

Sample material

Provenience

Lab. No.

Date BP

cal BC 1

cal BC 2

Knossos (1960s; 2004) X

Carbonised wood stake (oak)

Pit F, area AC, level 27, central court

BM-124

8050x180

7247–6691

7488–6574

Quercus evergreen charred acorns

Unit 39

OxA-9215

7965x60

7033–6778

7051–6688

X

Carbonised wood stake (oak)


BM-278

7910x140

7030–6648

7173–6471

X

Carbonized seed near the wood stake


BM-436

7740x140

6767–6436

7046–6374

IX

Charcoal

Area AC, level 24

BM-272

7570x150

6588–6254

6752–6072

Neolithic

Sediment/carbonate

Trench 3, Layer 5, square LM8/9, area 3, pot 25

Neolithic

Organic fraction

Trench 2, ▼0.50 m; Gd-15 365 below the lower pavement, sq. LM8/9, area 3, dwelling context

7680x120

6645–6429

6908–6248

Neolithic

Organic fraction

Trench 2, ▼0.38 m; just above the lower pavement

7240x120

6230–6005

6382–5895

Near original layer

Charcoal

LX1, D5/4

Q-655

8180x150

7456–7043

7532–6709

ENI

Charcoal

Nd

GX-679

7780x270

7047–6423

7448–6099

ENI

Charcoal

A4/3 feature A; ash pit or post-hole

P-1202

7557x91

6493–6263

6591–6237

nd

Hordeum vulgare

H6/1a+H7/A

OxA-1605

7400x90

6396–6119

6430–6079

nd

Hordeum vulgare – humid acid

H6/1a+H7/A

OxA-4282

7400x90

6396–6119

6430–6079

nd

Bone (Bos)

C9/1, L644

OxA-3876

7370x90

6369–6105

6417–6065

nd

Bone (Capra)

B5/1, 644

OxA-3874

7370x80

6367–6107

6404–6069

nd

Lens culinaris

K6/1FG

OxA-1606

7400x100

6399–6113

6438–6069

nd

Lens culinaris – humid acid

K6/1FG

OxA-4283

7260x90

6222–6052

6362–5985

Maroulas on Kythnos (