Anatolian Studies 43

New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from theTurkish Black Sea LittoralAuthor(s): Laurens ThissenSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 43 (1993), pp. 207-237Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642976 .Accessed: 21/12/2010 16:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AnatolianStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642976?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa

NEW INSIGHTS IN BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS IN THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC: OLD EVIDENCE FROM THE TURKISH

BLACK SEA LITTORAL1

By LAURENS THISSEN

University of Leiden

The Northern Anatolian region under consideration here, the Bafra plain with its main site of Ikiztepe, and the Samsun area with Diindartepe, should be seen as a contact zone between Central Anatolia, the Balkans and the Eastern Aegean. Several items of material culture from Northern Anatolia can be linked with Southeast Europe, the islands off the coast of Western Turkey and Central Anatolia. These connections were established at least by the end of the fifth millennium B.C. Strong similarities in pottery and metal finds from North and Central Anatolian sites with the Cernavoda cultures in Romania indicate that close linkage did in fact continue into the third millennium B.c.,2 thus giving proof of a long tradition. Here, only a small segment of this huge time-span, viz., the last quarter of the fourth millennium, equated with the last stretch of the Late Chalcolithic period, is my concern.3

The Black Sea should have played a decisive role in the traffic interrelating the various communities in Anatolia and Southeastern Europe.4 The present state of research, however, does not allow us to be specific about the nature of

'This study could only be done thanks to Professor Tahsin Ozgiui, who very kindly gave me permission to reanalyse and republish the pottery from Diindartepe, Kavak and Tekekoy in Turkey. His help is greatly appreciated.

2The "Copper Age" (equivalent to Early Bronze Age) pottery from Diindartepe, Kavak, Alaca Hoytik, and several other Central Anatolian sites located around Ankara has extremely strong similarities with Cernavoda III-II pottery assemblages, but less with the Cernavoda I phase. This is true especially for pots with nail-, shell-, or stick- impression along the widest diameter, pot-shapes in general, and similar handles.

3To explain some terms: with Anatolia is meant Turkey west and north of the Taurus belt. Dating is in uncalibrated years B.C. The "Chalcolithic" period conforms to conventional Anatolian chronology, i.e. Late Neolithic = end of the sixth millennium (e.g., Iliplnar Phase X), Chalcolithic = fifth and fourth millennium; Early Bronze Age starting c. 3000 B.C. No satisfactory criteria for a subdivision of the Chalcolithic period have been developed yet. The "Late Chalcolithic" is used here mostly as a terminus tech- nicus. By using this term, however, it is meant, on purpose, to conform with the Late Chalcolithic in Syria and Southeastern Turkey, i.e. the latter part of the Obeid period and the Uruk colonization period (see below). In Balkan terminology Late Chalcolithic equates to, what Lichardus calls, "chalcolithique ancien" (Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten et al. 1985:512-13), or to Todorova's "Late Eneolithic" (Todorova 1978, table 1). A rough time-span for the Late Chalcolithic would be 3500-3000 B.C.

4Probably by coastal seafaring. On this subject, see Frey 1991:200 (who, imagina- tively, describes the necessity for the long-distance trade in raw materials during the Karanovo VI period of having fixed and friendly landing places along the route, facili- tating access to fresh provisions). Concerning navigation methods an interesting parallel, if only in spirit, may be found in the sailings of the Trobriand islanders on a Kula expe- dition (Malinowski 1922:224-8). Cf. also the reference by Todorova (1978:70) that remains of dug-outs have been found in the Varna lakes.

The importance of the Black Sea was earlier recognized by Todorova (1978:38-9, 41), attributing the rapid progress of the Bulgarian Black Sea sites (Varna, Durankulak, etc.) during the "Late Eneolithic" [i.e. equated with Karanovo VI, LT] to the "brisk sea trade". Also Makkay implicitly underlines the importance of the Black Sea, by opting for a "metalworking koine of provinces around the Black Sea" at least since Karanovo VI times (Makkay 1985:7). His conclusion in the same article, that (speaking of tabbed

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Fig. 1 Map of Southeastern Europe and Turkey, with sites mentioned in the text: 1. Diindartepe, 2. Tekek6y, 3. Kavak (Kaledorugu), 4. Ikiztepe, 5. Alaca H6yiik, 6. Biiyik Gilliicek, 7. Alisar, 8. Gelveri-Guzelyurt, 9. Horoztepe, 10. Ciradere, 11. Pazarli, 12. Ahlathbel, 13. Etiyokusu, 14. Karaoglan, 15. Polatli, 16. Yazir Hoyiik, 17. Demirci-huiyiik, 18. Beycesultan, 19. Ilipinar, 20. Troy, 21. Yortan, 22. Toptepe, 23. Emporio, 24. Ayio Gala, 25. Tigani, 26. Vathy, 27. Kalythies, 28. Saliagos, 29. Arapi, 30. Sitagroi, 31. Dikili Tas, 32. Kokkinochoma (Proskinites), 33. Paradimi, 34. Karanovo, 35. Drama, 36. Slatino, 37. Anza, 38. Vinca,

39. Cernavoda, 40. Durankulak, 41. Vinica, 42. Goljamo Delevo.

these contacts. Purpose and intensity would, moreover, have varied through time, on account of local factors affecting the different cultures. Neither a homogeneous Precucuteni assemblage as recently found in inland Anatolia,5 nor the Early Bronze Age stages at Alaca Hoyiik with the "royal tombs", nor the contemporary levels at other North and Central Anatolian sites can, in my view, satisfactorily be explained by a mere exchange mechanism. On the other hand, the Karanovo VI/Gumelnitsa type copper tools found in Diindartepe, or the presence of graphite-slipped sherds at Ali?ar (see below), probably hint at the sort of exchange Sahlins has called "balanced reciprocity" (Sahlins 1972:194-5, 219-20), where relations between communities are regulated and secured partly, as in our example, through valuables and technological novelties.

pendants) "the broad distribution of these pendant types suggests a continent wide system of exchange of ideas and goods developed in accordance with overseas trade and connections with specialization in metallurgy" (ibid.: 11; my emphasis) can reasonably be generalized to incorporate the material as well as immaterial products of other branches as well. In a similar vein the central role of the Black Sea is emphasized by Fol et al. 1988:7 and by Frey 1991.

SGelveri-Giizelyurt, near Nigde. Excavations in 1990 led by Prof. Ufuk Esin from Istanbul University. Precucuteni finds from Gelveri were already reported in the 1950s by Tezcan 1958, Fig. 5. See further Ozdogan, in press. Ozdogan, in the same article, refers moreover to Cucuteni-related pottery from the Alisar deepsounding, as well as to a painted variety, found on recent surveys in Central Anatolia by a Japanese team.

208

BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS

To the aforementioned Balkan-Anatolian networks existing along the Black Sea coast, an important third branch can be added.

Northern and Central Anatolia have some excellent ties with the Aegean islands off the coast of Western Turkey.6 While, however, the Balkan-Anatolian line seems to be continuous and long-lasting, the Aegean contacts with Anatolia prove to be restricted to a far shorter time frame, probably in the last centuries of the fifth millennium B.C. Two aspects of this time-span not commonly recognized in the literature and directly bearing upon our subject should be mentioned.

Firstly, there are very close connections in several kinds of pottery between, on the one hand, the North and Central Anatolian sites of Ikiztepe Mound II (to be specific, the assemblages called "EBA I"),7 Biiyiik Giilliicek, and the earlier Chalcolithic material from Alaca H6ytik,8 and on the other, Tigani (I-III) on Samos, Ayio Gala and Emporio X-VIII on Chios, Kalythies on

6Earlier noted by Furness 1956:197, 199, 205, who correlated white-painted pottery as well as horned handles, found in Ayio Gala lower and upper cave resp., and in Tigani, with those from Biyiuk Giilliicek and Alaca Hoyuk. Cf. ib. 207: "(...) the Biiyiik Gtillticek finds, which include horned handles and white-painted decoration, leave no doubt that there was some connection between Central Anatolia and the West as early as the Chalcolithic period." Yakar recognized the similarity existing between the Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" material and the pottery from Ayio Gala, Tigani and Vathy (1985:241).

7When referring in this article to Ikiztepe II, I mean those levels which are located on Mound II and which are designated Level II or "EBA I" (Yakar 1985:235). There are in fact still earlier levels present at Ikiztepe Mound II, situated below this "EBA I" phase. These earliest levels are called Level III, or "Late Chalcolithic" (Yakar 1985:242-3). This phase should even antedate the final fifth millennium B.C. date put forward here for Ikiztepe II/"EBA I".

8In my opinion we have in fact two different assemblages at Alaca Hoyuk in the Chalcolithic deposit (i.e. levels 14-19, also called phase IV), although they have been interpreted by the excavators as representing one homogeneous phase. The horizons are separated from each other by a gap of nearly a thousand years. Stratigraphically, this distinction cannot be retraced on the basis of the excavation reports. For the sake of convenience I will call the earlier material "earlier Chalcolithic", and the later material "later Chalcolithic". The earlier phase can be dated towards the end of the fifth millennium B.C. while the later phase conforms to the Late Chalcolithic period as defined in note 3 above. To date, neither the existence of a lacuna in the sequence of Alaca H6yiik, nor the mixed aspect of its Chalcolithic deposit have been recognized in the literature. Although Orthmann (1963:35, 67) notes a difference in shapes and manufacture for the decorated (meaning the "earlier Chalcolithic") ware in contrast to the plain ware (meaning the "later Chalcolithic") he concludes (while assessing the similarity of the decorated Alaca pieces with Btiyiik Gtilliicek) that Biiytik Gilliicek and Alaca Hoyutk cannot be contemporary, because at Buiyiik Gtilliicek the plain, fine ware from Alaca Hyuik (meaning the "later Chalcolithic") is absent. In fact he views Bliytik Gulliicek as the earlier settlement (Orthmann 1963:66).

Huot (1982:54-5, 750) tends to follow Orthmann, cf. also his chronological schema on p. 769.

Yakar explains the difference in the pottery of Alaca Hoyuk and Btiytik Gilliicek, and the "contemporary" (see table p. 178) material from Chalcolithic Ali?ar (levels 19-12M) as due to "local or sub-regional variations" (1985:180).

The correlation of Alaca Hoyik (i.e. the "earlier Chalcolithic" material), Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and Biiyiik Giilliicek has been noted by Yakar, Alkim and Ozdogan. The "later Chalcolithic" pottery of Alaca Hoyiik closely resembles the material from Ali?ar level 14-12M, with fruit-stands, similar red/black thickwalled ware, carinated bowls and graphite-slipped pottery (cf. Orthmann 1963, pls. 39, 40 (Alaca Hoyilk) with pls. 3-7 (Ali?ar)).

209

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Rhodes and possibly some material from Vathy on Kalimnos.9 All these sites have to be seen as more or less contemporary to each other.

A more selective orientation apparently exists in the ceramic contacts of the Anatolian and the Eastern Aegean sites with the Balkans during the same period. Here, horned handles seem to form the most consistent links. A cursory survey of the published evidence showed that in the region around Nova Zagora in Bulgaria, at Anza IV, or in Northern Greece at Sitagroi I, Paradimi and Kokkinochoma (Proskinites) perfect parallels occur in this respect.'? These correspondences make it possible to date these assemblages to the Karanovo IV phase. In absolute years this would conform to the last quarter of the fifth millennium B.C. (cf. the chronological table)."I

Secondly, it should be pointed out that there are long gaps not only in the stratigraphy of Alaca Hoyiik, but also in the sequences of Ikiztepe, (Mound II being much earlier than Mound I, see below) and of Samos Tigani (between phase III and IV). (See the chronological table.)

9While the close connections between Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", Alaca Hoyiik "earlier Chalcolithic" and Biiytik Giilliicek are firmly established (cf. Alklm et al. 1988:184-7 for references), a (necessarily limited) range of the most conspicuous Aegean parallels illu- minates my point. Technique, location and structure of motifs of white-painted decoration, several vessel shapes, tab handles raised above the rim of hemispherical bowls, horned handles with rounded or animal endings are all remarkably similar in detail.

White paint combined with tab handle: cf. Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 26:3) with Kalythies on Rhodes (Sampson 1987, pls. 54:613; 55:616). A similar motif on Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 24:14). Similar tab handles on Samos Tigani II (Felsch 1987, pl. 58:164).

Vessel shape: carinated pots with offset, everted necks and handles raised above rims cf. Biiyiik Giillicek (Ko?ay and Akok 1957, pl. 25:3) with Samos Tigani II (Felsch 1987, pl. 58:157, 158); open, carinated bowls with vertical or everted, offset rims cf. Biiyiik Gtillticek (Ko?ay and Akok 1957, pl. 14:1 lower right, and pl. 23 third row) with Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987, pls 58:179; 60:235; 61:249a); while pot-type Samos Tigani II (Felsch 1987, pl. 57:156) is also typical for Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (cf. Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 31:1), Alaca H6yiik and Buiyiik Gtillticek (Orthmann 1963, pl. 52).

Horned handles: the typical handles from Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987, pls. 59:181, 205, 210, 233, 236; 62:259, 260, 261, etc.) occur, in similar vein, in the "earlier Chalcolithic" phase at Alaca H6yiik (Ko?ay and Akok 1966, pl. 151 fourth row, fourth from left). The double handle from Alaca Hoyiik (Ko?ay and Akok 1966, pl. 151 bottom row, second from right (= op. cit., pl. 148:A1. j224)) is also attested at Samos Tigani (Felsch 1987, pl. 76:F4, unstratified, assigned to III). A white painted horned handle at Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987, pl. 59:216), conforms qua shape exactly to horned handles from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", Biyuik Giilliicek, Alaca Hoytik and the Samsun area (see here Fig. 7:7, 8).

Important connections between Samos Tigani III and Biiyiik Giilliicek are also handles with animal heads: compare Felsch 1987, pls. 61:246a, 254; 62:258; 66:305 with Ko?ay and Akok 1957, pl. 21:2.

It is interesting to note that parallels are particularly strong between Samos Tigani II-III and the North and Central Anatolian sites.

I?Resp. Kancev 1973, pls. 10, 11 (from a site near Nova Zagora); Gimbutas [ed.] 1976, figs. 96, 99 (Anza IV); Renfrew et al. 1986, fig. 11.6 (Sitagroi I); Bakalakis/Sakellariou 1981, pls. 16:6 (Paradimi III), 17 (Paradimi lib), 24b:4 (Paradimi I), IVc:2, 4 (Paradimi Ia), XII:3-5 (probably Paradimi II-III); Bakalakis/Sakellariou 1981, pl. 13 (Kokkinochoma (Proskinites)). The selective aspect of the Balkan-Anatolian contacts may be misleading, however. The Karanovo IV period in Bulgaria is, in fact, still badly known. It is highly probable, that with increasing knowledge these contacts will prove to have been more thorough.

"This date late in the fifth millennium B.C. is based inter alia on recent radiocarbon dates from Toptepe (Turkey) (Ozdogan et al. 1991:82) and Karanovo III (Hiller 1990:205), as well as on Vin6a B-C dates, with which Karanovo IV seems to conform best (Chapman 1981:18-19).

210


Apart from Ozdogan (1991), connecting early Ikiztepe with the Vesselinovo culture in Bulgaria, the date in the Karanovo IV period for Ikiztepe II/"EBA 1", the "earlier Chalcolithic" part of Alaca Hoyiik and Biiytik Gtilliicek has never seriously been considered.12 The existence of large gaps in the sequences of Ikiztepe, Alaca Hoyiik and Samos Tigani has never been recognized up till now.

Analysis of the exact nature of the complex network relating different regions and communities at several points in time, hinted at above, can only proceed when the basic chronological problems have been overcome. Two major drawbacks, however, still make this condition hard to fulfil. Firstly, there is a lack of well stratified sites relevant to our subject. Secondly, the evidence available from Anatolia is far from being unequivocal; it suffers, moreover, from a misleading nomenclature.13 The consequence is that there is still considerable uncertainty and confusion regarding the succession and composition of material cultures during the Chalcolithic period in Turkey.

A reanalysis of some pottery from the Turkish Black Sea littoral sites of Diindartepe, Kavak (Kaledorugu) and Tekek6y, together with a reconsideration of the stratigraphic and material evidence from Ikiztepe, led me to isolate an as yet not clearly assessed Late Chalcolithic phase for this part of Anatolia.'4 It allowed me moreover to clear up some of the above confusion.

Pottery from Diindartepe, Tekekoy and Kavak The pottery published here is a sample of material mainly from

Diindartepe, with a few unstratified pieces coming from Tekekoy and Kavak.15 Diindartepe will be the focal point in the discussion. Excavated in four main trenches in separate locations, the material from the site has been divided by the excavators into three periods, viz. Eneolithic (occasionally called Chalcolithic),

12In the most recent survey of the Anatolian Chalcolithic period, Yakar dates Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" early in the third millennium B.C., equating it even with Karanovo VII (1985:237).

'3The retainment of the "Early Bronze Age" label with the concomitant traditional third millennium dating for what are essentially Chalcolithic assemblages (started with Bittel and Orthmann, continued by Alklm and Yakar) has only recently been explained and attacked (M. Ozdogan 1991, and idem, in press).

4Diindartepe, Tekek6y and Kavak were excavated by T. Ozgi9q in 1940-42, and the results were published in two preliminary reports, see K6kten et al. 1945 and T. Ozgii9 1948. Orthmann (1963) reanalysed some of the pottery, but since then its importance has not been appreciated. This review of the Diindartepe, etc. material was made possible by a travel grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and took place in October 1990. The permission, kindly granted by the Turkish Antiquities Service, is greatly appreciated, enabling also the study of pottery from Btiyik Giillucek, Ali?ar and Alaca Hoyiik, stored in the Anatolian Civilizations Museum in Ankara and in the Alacahoyufk local museum. Special words of thanks are due to Professor Tahsin Ozgiiq and to Dr. Mustafa Akkaya, Director of the Samsun Archaeological Museum. The inking of the drawings was done by Erick van Driel, Archaeological Centre, Leyden University.

15The nature of the sample stored in some boxes in the Samsun Museum, is unknown. The sherds belong either to the Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, or Hittite periods (my terminology). Material earlier than the Late Chalcolithic (e.g. the "Eneolithic/Chalcolithic" mentioned in the reports) was not noticed, apart from three horned handles (cf. here Fig. 7:7, 8) Diindartepe yielded c. 60 labelled sherds, datable in the Late Chalcolithic, Tekek6y 5 and Kavak 3. Some unlabelled sherds are also taken into account and provisionally assigned to Diindartepe.

211

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Copper Age and Hittite (resp. called Diindartepe I, II and III).16 Both on the summit of Diindartepe (area B) and on the slope so-called Copper Age levels were excavated. Although the finds from these two areas were recognized as strikingly different from each other, and the peculiar character of the material from the summit area was clearly assessed, both assemblages were dated as more or less contemporary, not only by Kokten et al., (1945:397-8) and Lamb (1949:191-2), but also, even if with some reservation, by Orthmann (1963:74). Huot (1982:962) and Yakar (1985:245) tentatively date Dtndartepe area B ("Early Bronze II-IIIa") prior to the slope area ("Early Bronze III/Intermediate").

My analysis will show that the pottery from the summit and from the slope, being morphologically easily separable and mutually exclusive in regard to find-location, is indeed chronologically diverse. I cannot accept the Early Bronze Age date for the Diindartepe-Summit levels, however, as put forward by Orthmann, Huot and Yakar.

The pottery coming from the slope area of Dundartepe'7 can be correlated to what has formerly been called "Copper Age" by Turkish archaeologists, or "Early Bronze II-III" by Orthmann (1963), Yakar (1985) and Alklm (Alkim et al., 1988). It is perfectly similar to the pottery from Ikiztepe I/Sounding A and Kavak, and moreover to the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age assemblages from Central Anatolian sites such as Alaca Hoyiik, Pazarli, Horoztepe, Clradere, Ahlatlibel, Etiyokusu, Polatli and Karaoglan (K6kten et al., 1945:376).18 This later material is, however, not my concern here.

Area B on the Dtindartepe-Summit has been excavated to a depth of 3.80 m. (K6kten et al. 1945:369-75; Cambel 1947:265-7). The whole stratum, starting right underneath the topsoil, was heavily burnt. Three building levels are reported. Houses were built in the wattle-and-daub technique. There are many metal finds in these levels (Kokten et al. 1945:372-4), in contrast to the Early Bronze Age slope area, where metal is rare. The pottery and other small finds are, it will be argued, to be dated in the Late Chalcolithic period, as defined above (note 3). The sherds from this deposit will be shown to belong to

16The general aspect of the pottery from the "Eneolithic" levels of Diindartepe is not well known (Kokten et al. 1945:367-9; pl. LXIII:1-6; also cf. Cambel 1947:264). The pottery is described as being black, grey or reddish brown, burnished and sand tempered. Comparisons are made with Ali?ar and Alaca. White-filled, fingernail and other impresso decoration is reported to occur, though in small numbers. Excavated in area A, the Eneolithic deposit is at least 4-5 m. thick, while virgin soil was not reached. Eneolithic levels were also sounded in the railway cut, area G.

Whether three unlabelled horned handles, noted among the Diindartepe sherds in the Samsun Museum, belong to this Eneolithic phase is not certain (see here Fig. 7:7, 8). A similar handle is published from Kavak (Kokten et al. 1945, pl. LXIX:2) and indicates that the horizon, represented by Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", Biytik Giilliicek, Alaca Hoyik and Samos Tigani I-III is also present in the Samsun region. The white-filled decoration mentioned may indicate this too.

17See for this pottery Kokten et al. 1945, pls. LXVII:1, LXVIII:4 and Ozgtiu 1948, pls. 11:6, VII. Similar pottery from Kavak: Ozgiiq 1948, pl. X.

18For Ikiztepe see Alkim et al. 1988, pls. XI:13, 15-17; XII; XIII:1; XIV; XVI for good examples. As to the other sites Orthmann's book is still very useful for a quick survey of the evidence. Characteristic for these assemblages are pots with impresso decoration (nail, implement or shell) in a single zone around the widest diameter, as well as large lids with impresso rims. This kind of pottery is, by the way, conspicuously absent from the Early Bronze Age sequence at Ali?ar Hiuyuk. I already referred (note 2) to the strong parallels existing between this material and the pottery from Cernavoda III-II.

212


one, homogeneous assemblage and are morphologically and technologically related.

Within the pottery of Late Chalcolithic Diindartepe several groups can be distinguished empirically.19

1. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration (Figs. 2; 3:1-7). (Kbkten et al. 1945:371-2). The clay contains fine to medium sand as non-plastics, mostly with additions of chaff and/or crushed shell. Surfaces were generally medium burnished on the exterior. The interior was, by contrast, usually left unburnished. Colours: some of the sherds have been fired secondarily (to an orange-red colour throughout) probably due to the conflagration of the deposit. Several of these refired sherds had turned into a sort of "clinky" stone ware (Fig. 3:1-3). The original colours were either a black exterior, a brown-red interior and a similar colour separation on the fracture (Fig. 2:6; 3:5), or else dark-brown or blackish throughout (Fig. 2:2, 5). As such, this group is related to groups 2-4, showing a similar interior and exterior colour contrast.

The fragments in the sample all belong to plain-rimmed, sharply carinated, small to medium-sized bowls (diameters varying from 13 to 24 cm.), with small, flat or slightly concave bases (diameters around 7 cm.). Characteristic of the form-concept is a slightly concave wall between carination and base. Upturned- lug handles at the carination (perhaps two opposite each other) are typical. Always associated with these handles are stringholes, either pierced through the handle itself, or else above or next to it. Most probably these stringholes were used for attaching lids to the vessels. Indeed, it is not unlikely that some of these bowls were lids themselves, considering the upturned position of the handles. The fact that in two instances the "bases" were decorated on the outside may corroborate this option (Fig. 3:1).

Decoration is rectilinear, in sharply incised or grooved lines, located on the exterior, both on the shoulder and below the carination. Motifs are variations on simple geometric patterns, such as horizontal V-shapes creating fish-bones, upturned V's and zig-zags. These are repeated and mirrored all around the vessel, occasionally limited by borderlines. Isolated motifs do not occur. Several of these sherds have a matt, yellow-white, thin slip or wash, encrusted in and over the decorated zones (Fig. 3:1-4, 6).

Sherds of this type were found at Diindartepe, Kavak, and Tekekoy. A good parallel exists at Ikiztepe I/Sounding F (Alkim et al. 1988:210, pl. 50:11).

2. Black burnished fine pottery with white-painted decoration (Figs. 3:8; 4; 5:1-3). (Kokten et al. 1945:370-1). Non-plastics are fine or medium-coarse sand with mica inclusions, while occasionally finely chopped chaff is added (Fig. 4:3, 5; 5:2, 3). The exterior surfaces are invariably highly burnished, while the interior is smoothed or lightly burnished only.

Colours are highly contrasting: black for the exterior, red for the interior. This contrast was certainly intentional, as it was created using a specific firing process (cf. the interpretations of Alklm et al. 1988:172-3). Loe Jacobs (Pottery Technology Institute, Leiden University) kindly provided some relevant information:

19Considering the nature of the sample (cf. note 15), the taxonomic value of the grouping is almost nil, the classification being partly typological, partly technological.

213

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

The vessels are placed upside down in the fire, and fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. At the end of the firing they are subjected to a short reduction process by extinguishing the fire, and closing off the oxygen flow by covering the vessels (with sand for instance). In that state the pots cool down. This process creates black exterior colours. The interior colours to shades of red or brown, dependent on the amount of oxygen remaining inside the vessel. Moreover, a red/black colour separation is always present on the fracture, while often the exterior rim is coloured similarly to the interior, probably due to insufficient covering (perhaps intentionally) during the reduction process.20

The sherds have a mean wall-thickness of 6 mm. and are well made. Shapes are usually slightly restricted bowls, with incurving or carinated profiles. Rims are generally plain, while the rim of Fig. 4:2 is pinched. Diameters fall between 20 cm. and 28 cm. Several of the bowls are fitted with rudimentary knobs (Fig. 4:1, 4). Apart from bowls there are also hole-mouth pots with horizontally or vertically placed handles (Figs. 4:5; 5:1). No bases were found, but these were probably flat or concave (cf. Fig. 6:8, 9). Cf. also Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 20:11, for a concave base from Ikiztepe I (Sounding C, with white paint).

The decoration consists of painted, thin and straight lines, of a white, diluted clay-slip (see appendix for a technological analysis). It is applied after burnishing, before firing. Often, the paint is hardly visible anymore. It should be pointed out here, that in contrast to the white-painted pottery of the Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" horizon, the decoration at Diindartepe and Ikiztepe I is only applied to the exterior and never to the interior of the vessels. The motifs consist of bundles of parallel lines set obliquely to each other, crossing each other, occasionally creating lozenge patterns. They extend from rim down to the base, as indicated by the Ikiztepe I base-part referred to above. Occasionally the decoration seems to cover the whole vessel (Fig. 4:3), in other instances patterns are interrupted by handles or rudimentary knobs. Slightly deviating in shape from the usual white-painted pottery is a sharply carinated, inverted rim bowl (Fig. 3:8). The hole-mouth pot (Fig. 5:2) is different in motif and structure of decoration, showing a continuous triple-repeated zig-zag, not extending from the rim downwards, but instead located on the shoulder of the pot.

White-painted sherds of group 2 further occur on Kavak, Tekek6y and Ikiztepe I, where good parallels come from soundings C and F (Alkim et al. 1988, pls. 13:6, 8; 17:12, 13; 19:6; 20:11; 21:3, 4 (C); 49:3, 5, 6; 51:3 (F)).

3. Black burnished fine pottery like group 2, without paint (Figs. 5:4, 5; 6:1-5). (K6kten et al. 1945:370). This group has exactly the same characteristics as the painted variant. Most characteristic is the similar colour contrast on the exterior and interior surfaces as well as on the fracture. Mean wall thickness is 6 mm. The repertoire of shapes seems larger than in group 2, including open, sloping-sided bowls, and jars with small mouth diameter and a tall neck (Fig. 5:4 and Fig 6:4 resp.)

For characteristic parallels at Ikiztepe I, see sounding C (Alkim et al. 1988:pls 13:7; 18:2-6; 19:7-9; 20:10, 13; 22:8).

20Comparable firing processes appear to have been used in the Arapi phase. Here, coloured pottery also has a black burnished exterior, a red interior, a small red exterior rim and a black/red colour separation on the fracture. See Hauptmann and Miloj6ic for details on firing methods (1969:50-1).

214


4. Black burnished medium-coarse pottery (Fig. 6:6-10). Much similar to group 3, but slightly less fine-tempered and finished. Some sherds have crushed- shell temper. Fragments are generally thicker-walled (mean 8 mm.). The red/black colour contrast is also apparent here.

5. Other plain wares (Fig. 7:1-5). These sherds probably belong to different groups, but are lumped together here. They possibly correlate with Ikiztepe ware groups h5 and h6. The carinated bowl (Fig. 7:1) can be related to the carinated bowls from group 1 here, in regard to general proportions. The pot-fragments on Fig. 7:2-3 are well-finished and brown burnished, while those on Fig. 7:4, 5 are representing really coarse kitchen ware, coarsely tempered with pebble grit and/or chaff, unburnished and unevenly walled.

The carinated bowl may be compared with Ikiztepe I/Sounding C (Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 11:1); for Fig. 7:5 see op. cit. pl. 19:4; 20:4; 22:1, 2, 4.

The pottery from the area B on Dtindartepe-Summit is assumed to belong to one single and homogeneous assemblage. The following technological and morphological aspects interrelating the five groups should be taken into account:

1. chaff additions as non-plastics, which occur in all groups; 2. a well-controlled firing process, aiming at creating black exterior and

red interior colours, occurring in groups 1-4, and linking different form and decoration concepts;

3. crushed-shell additions as non-plastics, attested in groups 1 and 4; 4. white-painted decoration on a sharply carinated bowl typologically fit-

ting in group 1 (Fig. 3:8); 5. a plain ware bowl with inverted rim (Fig. 7:1), which can be connected

with the group 1 bowls. The stratigraphic evidence from Ikiztepe, 60 km. further to the west, con-

firms the grouping.

Ikiztepe At Ikiztepe, a perfectly similar assemblage to the one suggested for Late

Chalcolithic Diindartepe is present in soundings C (on the northwestern slope of Ikiztepe I) and F (on the saddle between Ikiztepe I and II). The material from sounding A (top of Ikiztepe I) conforms rather well to the "Early Bronze Age II-III", or "Copper Age" finds referred to above (cf. note 18). The finds from area C and to a lesser extent those from area F (which has some later mix) on the one hand, and the material from area A on the other, e.g. at Diindartepe, are mutually exclusive in regard to find-location, as well as in terms of mor- phology and technology. This point is not stressed in the publication. A check on findspots and pottery types will clarify my distinction.

Black burnished, white-painted pottery like Diindartepe group 2, for instance, never turned up in area A, and was only found in areas C and F.21 The same is true for the Dtindartepe groups 3 and 4, i.e. black burnished pottery without paint. Similar profiles to those noted at Diindartepe for these groups, will appear at Ikiztepe to stem from sounding C, and none of them from area A. The single parallel for Diindartepe group 1 at Ikiztepe comes from sounding F.

By contrast, the "Copper Age" material from Ikiztepe is all concentrated in sounding A, while the yield from C is negligible.

21Alklm et al. 1988:195: "In Sounding A at Ikiztepe I (...) white painted [ceramics] were not encountered."

215

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Like the deposit in the Duindartepe-Summit area, the upper portions of Ikiztepe I/Sounding C had been heavily burnt (see Alkim et al. 1988:153, men- tioning burnt remains more than 1 m. thick; idem, 154, referring to sherds completely deformed by the conflagration; and 155, "charred section of a floor", and "carbonized wooden beams"). Also the deposit in sounding F had been heavily burnt, in fact on at least two different occasions, once during the "Early Hittite" phase (see Alkim et al. 1988:197) and at an earlier time--on the basis of the finds (see below) at the same time as the conflagration attested in sounding C (Alkim et al. 1988:198, see under square D 3/III 14).

The sequence at Ikiztepe is further complicated by the fact that both Yakar and Alkim failed to stress the dissimilarity in finds from Ikiztepe I/Sounding C and those from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", while actually the two assemblages are highly distinctive. Yakar in fact appears to mix up the ceramic assemblage of Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (characterized by horned handles and Biiytik Giilliicek type vessels and decorations) with that of Ikiztepe I/Sounding C, lumping them under the label "Early Bronze I-II" (1985:240). This mixing of finds is due to the misleading occurrence of white-painted decoration in both assemblages. Alkim on the other hand, on the basis of the white paint, does separate sounding C from the sounding on Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", but opts for a developing tradition, viz. "(...) the potsherds with white-painted decorations from Sounding C at Ikiztepe I seem to continue this tradition [i.e. the white-painted one, LT] of EB I [i.e. Ikiztepe II/'EBA I', LT], so it is likely that they may belong to a later period, namely to EB II." (Alkim et al. 1988:196).

Contrary to the excavators' views, I believe that Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F represent two entirely different horizons, not even in chronological succession, having different sets of material culture items and with different form concepts in regard to ceramics.

The cause of this confusion is that neither author recognized the structural difference in the white-painted decoration from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and that from Ikiztepe I/Sounding C. Indeed, the technique used is very similar (see appendix), while the motifs also at first glance show some resemblance (cf. the parallel or crossing line bundles of Diindartepe with those from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I"). However, location of the decoration and the pot-shapes associated with this decoration are structurally different.

The Ikiztepe I/Sounding C white paint, like its Diindartepe counterpart, is applied only to the vessel-exteriors, while the white paint from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" is either applied to the interiors of open, hemispherical bowls, and more often than not combined with white-filled, grooved decorations on the exteriors;22 or else to the exteriors of carinated pots with offset necks.23 More often, such pots are decorated with white-filled grooves, or unfilled incisions.

Notwithstanding the similarities in technique and, superficially, in motifs, my view of the distinctiveness of the two white-painted groups at Ikiztepe is strengthened by the fact that the sets are mutually exclusive in regard to find- spot (Ikiztepe II and I) and that both co-occur with a different vessel-repertoire.

The evidence collected so far makes it clear that Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and Ikiztepe I are chronologically separable. Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" can be put in the same time horizon as Karanovo IV (cf. notes 9 and 10); Ikiztepe I is Late Chalcolithic, as was already assumed.

22Alkim et al. 1988:182-3, pls. 24:5, 10, 14; 25:5, 11; 26:3, 5; 27:6, 15; and pls. 25:4, 6, 7, 9, 10; 26:1, 2; 27:1, 3 resp.

23Alkim et al. 1988, pls. 30:7; 31:1; 35:27.

216


External dating of Ikiztepe I, Soundings C, F and Diindartepe-Summit Having established the sounding C and F levels from Ikiztepe I and the

material from Diindartepe-Summit as contemporary to each other, and having separated the two assemblages from the "Copper Age/Early Bronze Age II-III" material on both sites, and isolating them from the much earlier Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (= Karanovo IV) horizon, I now have to furnish further corrobora- tive evidence for the Late Chalcolithic date of the assemblages in question. I note several points:

1. Several female figurines in baked clay, of undeniably Karanovo VI/Gumelnitsa type with pierced ears, were found in sounding F on Ikiztepe I (see Alkim et al. 1988:216-18, 225 (with further Balkan references); pls. 56:1, 6, 7, 9, 10; 99, 100).24 The parallels between Ikiztepe I/Soundings F and C have already been stressed.

Connected with this correlation are two head fragments with similar pierc- ings, coming from Alisar Levels 14M and 12M (Von der Osten 1937:78 and Fig. 85:c506, e1940). As has been stated (note 8), Ali?ar 14-12M is contemporary with the "later Chalcolithic" part in the Alaca Hoyiik sequence, and should fall, in my opinion, within the same time-span as Dtindartepe-Summit and Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F (see also further below).

2. The metal finds from Diindartepe-Summit (see K6kten et al. 1945, pl. LXVI:1-3) have excellent parallels in the Karanovo VI horizon (see Todorova 1978, pl. XI:5, 3 and 6 resp.), and more particularly, in the Varna cemetery (Ivanov 1988, pl. 22; Lichardus 1991, fig. 10).

3. The find of a steatopygous figurine in baked clay from Dtindartepe- Summit (K6kten et al. 1945:375, pl. LXVI:6; = Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 101:210 for good photographs) can be related to the typical, grooved figurines from the Cucuteni A phase.25

4. The carinated, grooved bowls of Dtindartepe group 1 have conceptual parallels in the Karanovo VI period. The small bases and the conical,' even slightly concave walling below the sharply inverted shoulders are features which are basic characteristics of many pottery shapes from the Karanovo VI period (cf. Todorova 1978, pls. III, IV). This form concept is, for instance, present at Goljamo DelCevo from level II onwards (Todorova et al. 1975, pl. 9:20) till the end, while bowls with inverted rims occur from level IV (Todorova et al. 1975, pl. 37:2; 39; etc.), becoming more frequent in the later levels. At Vinica the same form concept is also noted from the earliest level (RadunCeva 1976, pl. 7:3-5, 6) onwards till the end. For more or less similarly carinated, inverted-rim bowls like those at Diindartepe see RadunCeva 1976, pls. 23, etc. Never, however, do these Karanovo VI assemblages show the upturned handles so typical for Diindartepe, while the careful, additional marking of the carination and the rims from Karanovo VI does not recur in Diindartepe.

The general concept of straight, conical vessel walls, angularity and small bases is also evident from the Karanovo VI material from Drama (Bulgaria), but again, exact parallels cannot be found.

White encrustation over incised/grooved decorated zones was used from the Marica/Karanovo V period (Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten et al. 1985:267), as attested also at Drama (Fol et al. 1989, pl. 33:10). At the same site, however, mention is made of a white or yellow "Kalkmasse" used for encrustation during

24See for a quick reference, Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten et al. 1985:379 and fig. 49:1, 5, 6; or Todorova 1978, pl. XII:6.

25See e.g., Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten et al. 1985:372, fig. 49:3.

217

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

the Karanovo VI phase, which would perhaps place it near the Diindartepe decoration (Fol et al. 1969:68).

At this point, however, it should be noted that the internal development of the Karanovo VI period is far from secure. Recently, Lichardus, on the basis of evidence from Drama, casts doubt on the four-phase periodization put forward by Todorova, proposing instead a two-phase system for Karanovo VI (Fol et al. 1989:92-4).

Be that as it may, we have, of course, neither at Diindartepe nor at Ikiztepe, any example of a "classic" Karanovo VI assemblage. All the characteristic pottery from Karanovo VI, like graphite-painted decoration, extravagantly angled vessels, large lids and all the other decorative techniques, are totally absent in the Black Sea littoral.

It is more reasonable to see the Turkish sites as of basically local development, while in close contact with the Karanovo VI communities, as is evidenced by the metal finds, the figurines, and perhaps by some form concepts and one particular decoration technique (conical body-wall, inverted rims and encrustation, respectively). The carinated bowls at Diindartepe, made with the local techniques in regard to tempering and firing, deviate from the rest of the assemblage in their shape. For the other pottery groups on Diindartepe (or, for that matter, on Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F) correspondences to the Karanovo VI assemblages on the Balkans are lacking.26

Contacts between North and Central Anatolia during the Late Chalcolithic While the connections between the Turkish Black Sea littoral sites and the

Central Anatolian communities of Alaca Hoyiik and Biiyiik Giilliicek were particularly strong in the last quarter of the fifth millennium B.C., it is interesting to observe that, after an interval of nearly a thousand years, both regions had developed along different lines. The contact-zone function of Northern Anatolia was apparently weak at this stage, only to become strong again during the third millennium B.C. The more or less contemporary assemblages of Alaca H6yiik's later Chalcolithic and Ali?ar levels 14-12M have a totally distinct pottery repertoire compared to the Late Chalcolithic from Ikiztepe and Diindartepe. The white-painted pottery from the Black Sea, for instance, does not occur in Central Anatolia, though a few white-painted sherds were found in Level 14M from Ali?ar (Von der Osten 1937:57, fig. 63:3, 4). These are, however, of a different conception. Moreover, the characteristic "fruit-stands" from Alaca and Ali?ar do not occur at the Black Sea littoral.

However, a few points may be adduced to pull Central Anatolia within the sphere of the Karanovo VI culture. First, there are the two Karanovo VI/Gumelnitsa figurine fragments from Ali?ar already referred to; and secondly, as already mentioned, the presence at Ali?ar 14-12M of graphite-slipped sherds.27 The graphite slip creates a shimmering black surface and is a rather

26As a final argument for a date late in the fourth millennium B.C. the evidence from Mersin can be adduced. Here, white painted sherds occur in Level XIIA, which, however, is stratigraphically insecure (cf. Eggert and Liith 1987). XIIA follows Level XIIB in time, which has flint-scraped or Coba-bowls in its assemblage. These bowls were very wide-spread in Southeast Turkey and Northern Syria and can be dated around 3600/3500 B.C. Mersin XIIA should then, in any case, be dated to the second half of the fourth millennium.

27Probably a clay-slip with graphite mixed in it. I noted these sherds when reviewing some of the Ali?ar pottery, stored in the Ankara Archaeological Museum. They are unpublished.

218


common surface treatment there, applied all over the interior of open bowl shapes. The application of graphite as a surface treatment may link Ali?ar up with the Karanovo VI phase, when graphite was widely used for decorating ceramics.

The dating of Ali?ar 14-12M and of the later Chalcolithic of Alaca Hoyiik to the Late Chalcolithic period has recently been underlined through the finding of Central Anatolian "fruit-stands" in a solid Late Uruk context at Tepecik, and through pottery of Central Anatolian type in the Late Uruk influenced level VIA at Arslantepe (see Ozdogan 1991, and idem, in press, with further references).

Conclusions What should be stressed about the delineation of several Late Chalcolithic

pottery assemblages in North and Central Anatolia is their distinctiveness from almost all the pottery following them in the third millennium B.C. The assemblage called "Copper Age" at Alaca Hoyiik, or similar ones called "Early Bronze II/III" at the Black Sea sites and the inland settlements are all highly different in the general composition of the vessel repertoire, the shapes used, decoration techniques and technological aspects, such as tempering and firing methods. There seems indeed to have been a profound and widespread shift in the archaeological record at the transition from the fourth to the third millennium B.C. (contra Renfrew 1987:265). However, this shift is far from clear. In fact, the material culture from this transition period is not known so far. We have, however, seen that at Ikiztepe as well as at Diindartepe the Early Bronze Age settlements were located in new areas of the mounds.

There should, however, not necessarily have been a large gap between the Late Chalcolithic period as defined here, and the Early Bronze Age/Copper Age assemblages from North and Central Anatolia. In order to accept this proposi- tion it would be necessary to reconsider the dating and succession of the material cultures in the third millennium B.C. in these parts of Turkey. There are, in fact, some indications that at least part of Anatolia's Early Bronze Age/Copper Age assemblages can be dated several centuries earlier in the third millennium B.C. than commonly accepted.

Without going into details, one chain of evidence for updating the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, consists of the following points: (a) The "Copper Age" deposit at Alaca Hoytik being almost 5 metres thick, but changes in the ceramics being seemingly absent, one may opt for a long and slow development of the pottery-making tradition at this site; (b) Lichardus recently pointed out the close similarities existing between his evolved Karanovo VI phase, Varna and Cernavoda I in their uses of T-shaped, bone idols (Lichardus 1991:172, pl. 4:8, from Oltenita-Renie I (Cernavoda I), and pl. 4:9, 10, from the Varna cemetery); (c) as already referred to, there are strong parallels between the North and Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age/Copper Age pottery and that from Cernavoda III-II; and (d) Morintz and Roman, in their treatment of the Cernavoda evidence emphasized the close links existing between Cernavoda I and III (1968:47).

On basis of these considerations, it is possible to place Varna and the last stage of the Karanovo VI phase close to the beginning of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age.28 Accepting a late fourth milennium B.C. date for late Karanovo VI

28In this respect, it is interesting to note that Makkay, in various writings, stresses the strong resemblances in several gold objects from Varna and the "royal graves" at

219

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

and Varna as fixed, it may thus be suggested that at least some of the Anatolian assemblages dated "Early Bronze Age II-III" by Orthmann and Yakar are to be put earlier, i.e. in Early Bronze Age I.

Concluding, I may sum up the main points of my analysis of the Diindartepe material as follows:

1. There must have been strong contacts during the end of the fifth millennium B.C. between North and Central Anatolia, the islands in the Eastern Aegean, Northern Greece (Thrace and Macedonia), Bulgaria and the region around Anza. Inbetween these areas the degree of contact was variable. Remarkable, however, are the strong correspondences between Samos Tigani II-III and Biiyiik Gilliicek, in view of the geographical distance and the lack of similar material in Western Anatolia. It is not impossible that these contacts went by sea.

2. Contrary to common opinion, we can date Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", the earlier Chalcolithic material from Alaca Hoyiik and Biiyiik Giilliicek towards the end of the fifth millennium B.C. contemporary with the Karanovo IV period, as well as contemporary with Samos Tigani (I), II-III, Emporio X-VIII, etc. (see chronological table).

3. There exist large gaps in the sequence of Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and I, the earlier and later Chalcolithic from Alaca Hiyiik, and between Samos Tigani III and IV. The later phases are all contemporary, and are to be dated towards the end of the fourth millennium B.C., contemporary with Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic and the later part of the Karanovo VI period.

4. The fourth millennium in Anatolia, and its first half in particular, is still hardly known, except for the recent discoveries at Gelveri-Giizelyurt and the surveys in Central Anatolia. They hint at ongoing contacts with the Balkans.

5. Diindartepe, Tekekoy and Kavak, as well as Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F all have Late Chalcolithic assemblages, mostly of a local nature. Some form concepts as well as a decorative technique for a certain type of pottery vessel, together with the presence of some figurines and copper tools from these sites, make it possible to insert them in a Karanovo VI network of long distance contact, involving seafaring along the coasts of the Black Sea, thus relating different communities. Intensity of contact would have differed for each community, depending on local interests and potentials.

Central Anatolia has probably been part of this network, as evidenced by some figurine fragments from Ali?ar and the use of graphite in pottery manufacture on the same site.

6. The implications of this conceived network are that we have to view the Late Chalcolithic period as a period of international contacts. Although we are hampered by scanty evidence, it seems that the different communities played different, but probably related parts in these contacts. The North Anatolian sites possibly served as anchorages in the transport of the raw materials. The inland sites in Central Anatolia were in one way or another connected with the North Coast of Turkey, but also with the Uruk colonies to the South, via Arslantepe and Tepecik. It is possible to state that both the North Anatolian and the Central Anatolian sites were situated at the periphery of two complex and very active, wide-reaching economic and cultural entities: the Karanovo VI-Varna complex and the Mesopotamian Uruk complex. Viewing both systems as more

Alaca Hoyik. He, in fact, implies only a small gap for the phases in question (Makkay 1976, 1985).

220


or less contemporary, it remains to be investigated in what way they may have confronted each other.29

7. Much of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age, as represented by the pottery assemblages at Alaca Hoyiik, Ahlatibel, Etiyoku?u, etc., may be dated early in the third millennium, and not in the second half of it, as suggested by the "Early Bronze Age II/III" date for these materials by the literature.

One consequence of this updating would be an early date for at least some30 of the "royal tombs" at Alaca H6yiik. Indeed, many links between Alaca and Varna, in particular in regard to the metal objects,31 have been singled out by several workers in the field. It should, however, be stressed that other variables in both sites' sets, such as location of the graves at the site, burial type, body position, arrangement of the accompanying objects, all differ strongly. Although the exact cultural and chronological lines between Varna and Alaca Hoyiik have still been hardly considered, I view an early third millennium date for the Alaca tombs as much more plausible than the later date, opting further for a slight ancestry of the Varna cemetery.

8. The Anatolian pottery assemblages, mentioned in point 7, are strongly related to the Romanian Cernavoda assemblages. Their presence at Ikiztepe, Duindartepe, Tekek6y and Kavak, as well as in Central Anatolia, suggests an ongoing contact-zone function of the Turkish Black Sea littoral for the Early Bronze Age. The nature of the correspondent variables, such as temper, location and structure of decoration, vessel-shape and repertoire, implying near congru- ence of both cultural sets, together with the nearly complete break of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age material with the preceding Late Chalcolithic assemblages, make a common origin for the Cernavoda and the North and Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age/Copper Age communities plausible.

Chronological table The proposals and hypotheses discussed above may be summarized in a

chronological scheme. N. B. This table is restricted to the issues and sites directly bearing on our subject. Dates are uncalibrated. The suggested chronological blocks do not so much represent solid and strict boundaries; they rather indicate a global time frame for settlement phases with similar elements of material culture. It should be stressed, that a chronological sequence in the order of sites included in the table is not suggested.

29In such a conception of the "history" of the late fourth millennium, the occurrence in the Karanovo VI period of wheelmade bowls may perhaps be related to Mesopotamian pottery technology.

30If not all, where I would like to follow T. Ozgui; (1957:218), who reckons two gen- erations at the most for all of the tombs at Alaca Hoyuk.

310ne especially strong connection, to my knowledge never considered, is formed by two copper figurines from Alaca Hoyiik Tomb H (Ko?ay 1951:157 (Al. b. H. 1 and 2), pls. 138, 139) showing clear Karanovo VI/Gumelnita influences (cf. for particularly strong parallels two terracotta heads from Eastern Bulgaria (Lichardus 1988:112, pl. 68)).

221

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

ANATOLIA AEGEAN BALKANS

3000 B.C. Ilipinar IV Samos Tigani IV Varna Diundartepe-Summit Emporio VII-VI later Karanovo VI Ikiztepe I/C, F Cucuteni A-B Alaca 'later Paradimi IV

Chalcolithic' Vin6a D Ali?ar 14-12M Dikili Ta IIB Beycesultan LCh. Sitagroi IIIB-C Demircihiiyuk, Ware F Yazir Hyuik

3500 B.C.

3600 B.C. Gelveri Precucuteni Ali?ar 19-15M Karanovo V/Marica

Dikili Ta? IIA Sitagroi IIIA Slatino

4000 B.C.

4100 B.C. Bilytik Gillucek Samos Tigani II-III Karanovo IV Alaca "earlier Emporior X-VIII Sitagroi I(-II)

Chalcolithic" Ayio Gala, upper cave Dikili Ta? I Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" Kalythies Paradimi I-III Toptepe Saliagos 3 Dimini-Arapi

Anza IV Vin6a B2-C2

4300 B.C.

APPENDIX

About white paint In Turkey, decoration of dark-coloured pottery with a thin, white paint

was already popular in the last part of the fifth millennium B.C. in North and Central Anatolia and at contemporary sites on the Eastern Aegean islands. With a large, unexplained gap in the fourth millennium, the decoration returns vigor- ously in the later part of the fourth millennium B.C. on the North Anatolian sites of Ikiztepe, Diindartepe and Tekekoy, in Central Anatolia at Ali?ar level 14M (Von der Osten 1937:57, fig. 63:3, 4), in Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic, on the Konya Plain (Mellaart 1963, fig. 4), at Demircihiiyiik (Ware F) (Seeher 1987, pls. 28, 29) and Yazir Hoytik (Temizer 1960, fig. 7), and again also in the Aegean (Emporio VII-VI and Samos Tigani IV). The use of white paint in the late fourth millennium in Anatolia leads me to distinguish four stylistic variants, each with different rules concerning pottery shapes associated with the decoration, motifs used and structure and location of the motifs. These groups are the Northern Anatolian region, Central Anatolia, Demircihtiyiik-Yazir Hoyik- Konya Plain, and Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic-Samos Tigani IV. I will not elaborate on this distinction now.

The decoration is still very wide-spread in the first quarter of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, as attested by the evidence from Central (Polatll,

222


Etiyoku?u, Ahlatllbel, Asarclk Htiytik, Karaoglan and Maltepe) and Western Anatolian sites (Yortan, Troy I, Poliochni, Kusura A, and Thermi B).32

As a preliminary to some experiments with white paint, a quick, in no way exhaustive, survey of the available literature concerning the technique of white- painted decoration relevant to our context suggests that since its occurrence at the end of the fifth millennium more or less similar techniques have been used until the end of the fourth, and beginning of the third millennium B.C. creating analogous effects. A few Southeast European parallels have been included.

"Even if white paint has been used..., it has disappeared because of utilization and the passage of time so that only an unburnished area under the paint remained... these decorations were administered... after the vessels were burnished. The small particles present in the paste have con- tracted in the process of burnishing and absorbed water when a decoration with wet brush was applied. For this reason the surface has a bumpy appearance. It is striking that on almost all pieces the white paint is not visible." (Alkim et al. 1988:174). Ikiztepe I pottery

"The highly burnished, black inner surfaces show lozenge ornamentations in grayish lines. These lines seem to me to be traces of paint which has blis- tered and come off; it may be that a carboniferous paint was used which lost its color through accidental heating." (Von der Osten 1937:57). Ali?ar, Level 14M

"In wenigen Fallen sind die Reste der eigentlichen Malfarbe erhalten, die demnach relativ dick aufgetragen gewesen sein muB. Diese Farbe erscheint heute milchichgrau. Oft ist die Art der Bemalung jedoch nur am Fehlen der Politur zu erkennen. Die aufgetragene Bemalung hat die Politur angegriffen (auch Feuchtigkeit greift eine ungebrannte Politur an!), und so sind die Mallinien nach der Auflbsung der Farbe im Boden nur noch an der zerst6rten Politur zu erkennen." (Seeher 1987:67). Demircihiiyiik, Ware F

"The paint is either thin and burnished with the surface or crusted on after burnishing." (Mellaart and Lloyd 1962:81). Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic 1

"The white paint is invariably matt and often thick. It was applied after burnishing, but before firing. The white paint is often faded and has some- times worn off." (Mellaart 1963:201). Konya Plain survey material

"Painting carried out after the burnishing of the pot.... the paint itself had an effect on the surface below it also, partially or wholly destroying the 'mechanical slip' produced by the burnishing process." (Renfrew and Evans 1976:41). Saliagos

32See Seeher 1987:69-71 for an exhaustive survey of the occurrences of white paint in Anatolia.

223

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

"(.. .) encrusted . . ., applied after the burnishing and firing." (Hood 1981:225). Emporio X-VI

( . .) matte, weiBliche Farbe ist ziemlich dick aufgetragen (...). "(...) die Malmasse [besteht] aus weiBer Erdfarbe, die erst nach dem Brand auf die Gefal3oberflache aufgemalt wurde, da sie sonst schwarz umgefarbt worden ware." (Hauptmann and MilojCic 1969:25 and n. 38). Arapi

"Bemalung vor dem Brand. (...) nach einer vorangehenden starken Polierung.... Die [weiBe] Malfarbe mu3 einen hohen Sauregrad enthalten haben, da der Uberzug an den mit dem Pinsel bertihrten Stellen einfach 'verbrannt' war.... Die Bemalung ist abgefallen und die bemalten Zonen weisen jetzt eine braune Schattierung auf. Auch diese Bemalung hat einen 'sauerlichen' Charakter, da der Uberzug, in den bemalten Zonen, 'verbrannt' war, wahrend er in den unbemalten Zonen, wo er von schwarzer Farbe ist, unversehrt erhalten blieb. In beiden Fallen verleiht es, von einer gewissen Entfernung betrachtet, den Eindruck von Graphit." (Roman 1971:69) Baile Herculane II

"Die Linienmuster sind auf dunkler oder-seltener roter Gefal3oberflache mit weiBer, oft kaum noch erkennbarer Farbe angebracht." (Orthmann 1966:26). Yortan pottery

".. .on almost every pot these white lines are considerably faded or washed out and they do not really conform to a contrasting pattern upon the dark- er surface.... the white substance [was] mixed with water and applied on the already burnished surface [and probably] wore out over the millennia under such environmental factors as the fluctuating ground water-table and the soil conditions." (Kamil 1982:17). Yortan pottery

Summarising, almost all the instances show, (a) that the white paint is applied after burnishing of the vessel; (b) that the white paint is hardly visible anymore (attributed to the workings of time and soil), and (c) that the white paint had occasionally affected the burnish.

Loe Jacobs from the Institute of Pottery Technology at Leiden University did some research on the subject, having at his disposal for reference the same Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" sherds used earlier (cf. citation above).33 His report follows:

Some technical notes on white-painted decoration Some preliminary research was done on the subject concerning the way dull

light-coloured lines were applied over a dark, polished surface. The experiments were carried out using a commercial clay D 3004. For the white linear decorations a white commercial clay D 4025 was used. From a first observation it could be concluded that the pottery [i.e. some Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" white-painted sherds] was fired under neutral to reducing conditions [N.B. the sherds in question were brown-black throughout.]

33The same institute earlier studied the white paint on some sherds from Ikiztepe II, cf. Alklm et al. 1988:174 and n. 98. We pursued the analysis a bit further.

224


The experiment was carried out as follows: a small pot was kneaded from clay D 3004, which gives a red firing colour under oxidizing conditions. The outer surface was polished with a well rounded pebble, when the clay was in a state of having lost all its plasticity, but was not yet completely dry. This is the best moment for polishing, because most gloss is obtained in a quick way then. Moreover at this stage the surface is already slightly soaking. This is necessary in order to be able to apply firm and quickly drawn lines with a strongly diluted clay slip. The moisture from the diluted clay slip is directly soaked into the surface. This gives the freshly applied line a taut appearance. The slip does not flow out then, as might be the case when painting is done on a soft or leatherhard clay. Another advantage of this way of working is that in spite of the freshly applied lines the object can still be handled. This is because the clay slip no longer sticks. At this point it is still possible to polish the lines. When doing so, no contour fading is caused by the polishing, as might occur when polishing is done on a leatherhard surface. The painted lines on the Chalcolithic sherds from Ikiztepe are, however, not polished.

The contrast between the polished surface and the dull lines was obtained because the painting was carried out with diluted white clay slip over the polished surface. After firing, the colour contrast was, moreover, enhanced by a light to dark contrast of dull gray lines on a shining black surface. When the painting is done with a very liquid clay slip, there is no noticeable difference in level between the painted lines and the underground. The dull lines in fact seem to have sunk somewhat into the shiny background, which is an optical illusion. When the clay slip is applied in a less diluted condition, the result is a somewhat dry, crumbly line. In this case there is some difference in level with the underground.

CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED POTTERY

[Drawings scale 1:2. All pottery is handmade. E = exterior, I = interior; D = diameter; OT = Oksiiriiktepe, which is an alternative name for Diindartepe; OT/b = Area B on Diindartepe-Summit; all sherds are stored in the Samsum Archaeological Museum]

Fig. 2. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration 1: no label, but = Kkten et al. 1945, pl. LXV:5 (Duindartepe). Medium

sand; E medium burnished, I roughly smoothed. Colour: orange throughout due to secondary firing. D 19 cm.

2: Diindartepe OT/b 838 = Orthmann 1963, pl. 65:16/16. Medium sand and medium-coarse crushed shell; E low burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E and I darkbrown, brown fracture. D 19 cm.

3: no label, but = Kbkten et al. 1945, pl. LXIV:I (Diindartepe). Medium- coarse sand, some chaff added; E medium burnished, I roughly burnished. Colour: E black, I darkbrown-black. D 13 cm.

4: Tekekoy TK 108. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand; E rim medium burnished, but below carination smoothed only, I low burnished; unevenly walled. Colour: E black, I brown-black. D 24 cm. Two holes pierced through shoulder opposite handle.

5: Diindartepe OT/b 552. Unpublished. Medium sand; E medium burnished, I roughly smoothed. Colour: E and I brown-black, black core. D 20 cm.

6: Kavak (Kaledorugu) A. 205 = Orthmann 1963, pl. 68:18/06. Medium- coarse sand, while surface shows also chaff-facing. Grooves are burnished-in,

225

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

while rest of E rim is deliberately left without burnish. Below carination vessel, again burnished. I not burnished. Colour: E black, I dark brown. D 23 cm.

Fig. 3:1-7. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration; 8. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration

1: Diindartepe OT/b 685. Unpublished. Medium sand and medium-coarse crushed shell; E medium burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E and I orange, fracture orange too, all due to secondary firing. D base 8 cm. Traces of yellowish-white encrusted paste or wash in and over grooved zones.

2: Diindartepe OT/b 2296. Unpublished. Medium sand and medium-coarse crushed shell; E medium smoothed, I slightly smoothed. Colour: E and I and fracture orange, due to secondary firing. D base 8 cm. Traces of yellowish-white paste or wash in and over decorated zone. Cf. Fig. 3:4.

3: Diindartepe OT/b 466. Unpublished. Medium sand and finely crushed shell; E medium burnished, I low burnished. Colour: E orange, I red, fracture red, all due to secondary firing making the sherd also dinky hard (stone ware aspect). E zone without decoration is medium burnished, while decorated zones are unburnished and have faint traces of yellowish-white paste or wash over them.

4: Diindartepe OT/b 681. Unpublished. Medium sand and medium crushed shell; E low burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E, I and fracture all orange, due to secondary firing, making the sherd dinky hard. Deeply incised. Yellowish-white paste or wash in and over decorated zone. Piece to be located near base. Very probably from same bowl as Fig. 3:2 (no join).

5: Diindartepe OT/b 647. Unpublished. Fine sand; E medium burnished. I roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I grey-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D not measurable.

6: Dtindartepe OT/b 660. Unpublished. Medium sand and medium crushed shell; E medium burnished. I lightly smoothed. Colour: E, I and fracture all orange, due to secondary firing. Two holes pierced through wall below carination at both sides of handle. Traces of yellowish-white paste or wash over grooved zone on shoulder.

7: Diindartepe OT/b 662 = Kokten et al. 1945, pl. LXIII:7. Medium sand and medium-coarse crushed shell; E medium smoothed, I lightly smoothed. Colour: E orange, I black, same colour separation on fracture. Shallow grooves. Piece is overfired, probably secondarily; cracked at places.

8: no label, possibly Diindartepe. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand and pebble grit inclusions; E medium-high burnished, I smoothed only. Colour: E orange-red, I orange, due to secondary firing. White paint above carination.

Fig. 4. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration 1: Diindartepe OT/b 1398. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand; E bur-

nished, but worn off, I medium burnished. Colour: E black, I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 22 cm. One rudimentary knob below rim.

2: Diindartepe OT/b 842. Unpublished. Fine sand; E highly burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E black, I orange, same colour separation on fracture. D 27 cm. The white paint is very faintly preserved, while unclear or non- existent on right half.

3: Diindartepe OT/b 1422. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand and chaff; E highly burnished, I low burnished. Colour: E black, I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 21 cm.

4: Tekekoy TK 114. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand and crushed shell

226


inclusions; E highly burnished, I haphazardly burnished only. Colour: E black with redbrown rim (down till arrow), I red-brown; I unevenly walled. Two rudimentary knobs on widest diameter. White paint very vaguely visible. D 25 cm.

5: Diindartepe UT/b 616. Unpublished. Medium sand and pebble grit and chaff; E highly burnished, I evenly smoothed only. Colour: E black, I grey- brown, same colour separation on fracture. I wall uneven. D 13 cm.

Fig. 5:1-3. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration; 4-5. black burnished, fine pottery without paint

1: Diindartepe OT/b 1757 = Ozgiiu 1948, pl. VI:5. Medium-coarse sand; E highly burnished, I smoothed, but worn. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 14 cm.

2: Dtindartepe OT/b 2396. Unpublished. Medium sand and pebble grit, and fine chaff; E has chaff-faced aspect. E highly burnished, I rim medium burnished, rest evenly smoothed. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 13 cm.

3: Dindartepe OT/b a./19 = Orthmann 1963, pl. 65:16/14. Medium-coarse sand and chaff; E medium burnished, I roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. Fragment possibly belonging to bowl like Fig. 4:1.

4: Diindartepe OT/b 1258. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand and chaff; E medium burnished, I low burnished. Colour: E black, I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 26 cm.

5: Dtindartepe OT/b 411. Unpublished. Fine sand; E medium burnished, I roughly smoothed, slightly worn. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. Two rudimentary knobs juxtaposed horizontally below rim. D 25 cm.

Fig. 6:1-5. Black burnished, fine pottery without paint; 6-10. black burnished, medium-coarse pottery

1: Diindartepe OT/b 669. Unpublished. Fine sand; E highly burnished (very smooth-no individual strokes visible), I medium burnished. Colour: E black, E rim (down till arrow) and I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 22 cm.

2: Diindartepe OT/2 1137. Unpublished. Medium sand; E highly burnished, I low burnished. Colour: E black, I ochre brown, same colour separation on fracture D 17 cm.

3: Diindartepe OT/b 1226. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand and chaff; E highly burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E black, E rim (down till arrow) and I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 23 cm.

4: Diindartepe OT/b 438 = Orthmann 1963, pl. 65:16/05. Fine-medium sand and chaff; E medium burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 10 cm.

5: Diindartepe OT/b 606. Unpublished. Medium sand; E medium burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 12 cm.

6: Diindartepe OT/b 932. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand; E highly burnished (slightly worn), I low burnished. On I rim vague traces of a red wash. Colour: E black, I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 20 cm.

7: Diindartepe OT/b 524. Unpublished. Medium sand and pebble grit; E highly burnished, I rim medium burnished, rest medium smoothed only. Colour: E black, I orange, same colour separation on fracture. D 21 cm.

227

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

8: Diindartepe OT/b 1467. Unpublished. Medium sand and chaff; E medium burnished, I roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I grey-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D base 8 cm.

9: Diindartepe OT/b 1803. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand, chaff and coarse grit inclusions; E medium burnished (slightly worn), I roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I grey-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D base 13 cm.

10: Diindartepe OT/b 69. Unpublished. Medium sand and pebble grit; E highly burnished, I rim medium burnished, rest medium smoothed only. Colour: E black, I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 19 cm. Rim very uneven.

Fig. 7. Coarse ware/miscellaneous 1: Diindartepe OT/2 1620. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand; E medium

burnished, I low burnished. Colour: E and I grey-brown, fracture grey. D 21 cm.

2: Dtindartepe OT/b 641. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand and chaff; E and I low burnished. Colour: E and I ochre brown, fracture black. D 29 cm.

3: Diindartepe OT/b 1443. Unpublished. Medium sand; E medium burnished, I evenly smoothed. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 19 cm.

4: Dtindartepe OT/2 892. Unpublished. Medium sand, pebble grit and chaff; E low burnished, I evenly smoothed. Colour: E and I ochre brown, fracture brown. D 17 cm.

5: no label, but possibly Diindartepe. Unpublished. Medium sand, pebble grit and chaff; E and I low burnished. Colour: E black, I brown-black, fracture black. D 28 cm.

6: Diindartepe OT/b 1413. Unpublished. Fine sand; E highly burnished, I evenly smoothed. Colour: E black, I orange, same colour separation on fracture. Very neatly and thinly incised. D 8 cm.

7: no label, could be Diindartepe. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand; medium burnished, black throughout.

8: no label, could be Dtindartepe. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand; medium burnished, black throughout.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alkim, U. B., H. Alkim and 0. Bilgi 1988 Ikiztepe I. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu. Bakalakis, G. and A. Sakellariou 1981 Paradimi. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern. Cambel, H. 1947 "Archaologischer Bericht tiber Anatolien." Orientalia N.S. 16:263-270. Chapman, J. 1981 The Vinca culture of South-East Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and so-

ciety. Oxford: BAR International Series 117. Eggert, M. and F. Liith 1987 "Mersin und die absolute Chronologie des europaischen Neolithikums."

Germania 65:17-28. Evans, J. and C. Renfrew 1968 Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. London: The British School of Archae-

ology at Athens.

228

BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 229

2

5

Fig. 2. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration: 1-3, 5 Diindartepe; 4 Tekekoy; 6 Kavak. (1:2).

/ 1

230 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

1

2

4

5 98 4/- '_ '

3

5 6i

K

8

Fig. 3. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration: 1-7 Dtindartepe; 8 white- painted decoration (possibly Diindartepe). (1:2).

BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 231

I-/ 1

I 3

5

Fig. 4. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration: 1-3, 5 Diindartepe; 4 Tekek6y. (1:2).

232 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

2

4

f

Fig. 5. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration: 1-3; black burnished, fine pottery without paint: 4, 5. All from Diindartepe. (1:2).


2

3

i6

4

5

7

1 8

:;::

!?? .? . : :

Ir' ?'' 6;:? : :: 10

Fig. 6. Black burnished, fine pottery without paint: 1-5; black burnished, medium-coarse pottery without paint: 6-10. All from Dundartepe. (1:2).

233

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Z,.J 2 \_ 3

Fig. 7 Caeaeieaos1 uate5 psiy26

7 \\~ 4~8

Fig. 7. Coarse ware/miscellaneous: 1-4 Diindartepe; 5-8 possibly Diindartepe. (1:2).

234


Felsch, R. 1987 Das Kastro Tigani. Die spdtneolithische und chalcolithische Siedlung. Samos II.

Bonn: Phillip von Zabern. Fol, A., R. Katincarov, J. Lichardus, F. Bertemes and I. Krastev Iliev 1989 "Bericht tiber die bulgarisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in Drama (1983-1988).

Neolithikum-Kupferzeit-Bronzezeit." Bericht der Rdmisch-Germanischen Kommission 70:5-127.

Frey, O.-H. 1991 "Varna-ein Umschlagplatz fur den Seehandel in der Kupferzeit?" In: J.

Lichardus [ed.]. Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6-13.11.1988. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 195-201.

Furness, A. 1956 "Some early pottery of Samos, Kalimnos and Chios." Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 22:173-212. Gimbutas, M. [ed.] 1976 Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia.

Los Angeles: University of California. Hauptmann, H. and V. Miloj&ic 1969 Die Funde der friihen Dimini-Zeit aus der Arapi-Magula, Thessalien. Bonn:

Rudolf Habelt. Hiller, S. 1990 "Neue Ausgrabungen in Karanovo." In Srejovic, D. and N. Tasic [eds.] Vin6a

and its world. International symposium-The Danubian region from 6000 to 3000 B.C. Belgrade, Smederevska Palanka, October 1988. Belgrade:197-206.

Hood, S. 1981 Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. London:

The British School of Archaeology at Athens/Thames and Hudson. Ivanov, I. 1988 "Die Ausgrabungen des Graberfeldes von Varna (1972-1986)." In A. Fol and J.

Lichardus [eds.] Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Grdberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfdnge einer neuen europdischen Zivilisation. Saarbrticken: Moderne Galerie des Saarland-Museums:49-66.

Kamil, T. 1982 Yortan cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia. Oxford: BAR

International Series 145. Kdn,ev, M. 1973 "Kulturnata grupa Karanovo IV v Novozagorsko." Archeologija Sofia

15/3:42-51 Ko?ay, H. 1951 Lesfouilles d'Alaca Hoyiik, 1937-1939. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu. Ko?ay, H. and M. Akok 1957 Ausgrabungen von Buiyiik Gillicek, 1947 und 1949. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu 1966 Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hoyiik. Vorbericht uiber die Forschungen und

Entdeckungen von 1940-1948. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu. Kokten, K., N. Ozgui and T. Ozguii 1945 "1940 ve 1941 yillnda Turk Tarih Kurumu adina yapilan Samsun bolgesi kazilan

hakkinda ilk kisa rapor." Belleten IX:361-400. Lamb, W. 1949 "New developments in early Anatolian archaeology." Iraq XI:188-201. Lichardus, J. 1988 "Der westpontische Raum und die Anfange der kupferzeitlichen Zivilisation." In

A. Fol and J. Lichardus [eds.]. Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Graberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfdnge einer neuen europdischen Zivilisation. Saarbriicken: Moderne Galerie des Saarland-Museums:79-130.

1991 "Das Graberfeld von Varna im Rahmen des Totenrituals des Kodzadermen- Gumelnita-Karanovo VI-Verbandes." In: J. Lichardus [ed.]. Die Kupferzeit als

235

ANATOLIAN STUDIES

historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 167-194.

Lichardus, J. and M. Lichardus-Itten et al. 1985 La protohistoire de l'Europe. Le neolithique et le chalcolithique entre la

Mediterranee et la mer Baltique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Lloyd, S. and J. Mellaart 1962 Beycesultan. Vol. I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age levels. London: The

British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Makkay, J. 1976 "Problems concerning Copper Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin." Acta

Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28:251-300. 1985 "Diffusionism, antidiffusionism and chronology: some general remarks." Acta

Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37:3-12. Malinowski, B. 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. An account of native enterprise and adventure in

the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul [1978 paperback edition used].

Mellaart, J. 1963 "Early cultures of the South Anatolian plateau, II. The Late Chalcolithic and

Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain." Anatolian Studies 13:199-236. Morintz, S. and P. Roman 1968 "Aspekte des Ausgangs des Aneolithikums und der Ubergangsstufe zur

Bronzezeit im Raum der Nieder-Donau." Dacia XII:45-128. Orthmann, W. 1963 Die Keramik der friihen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. Berlin:Gebr. Mann. 1966 "Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen." Istanbuler Mitteilungen

16:1-26. Osten, H. H. von der 1937 The Alishar Hiiyiik. seasons of 1930-1932. Part 1. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press [OIP 28]. Ozdogan, M. 1991 "Eastern Thrace before the beginning of Troy I. An archaeological dilemma."

In: J. Lichardus [ed.] Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt:217-225.

in press "Pre-bronze age sequence of Central Anatolia: an alternative approach." [To appear in the Beran Festschrift].

Ozdogan, M., Y Miyake and N. Ozba?aran Dede 1991 "An interim report on excavations at Yarlmburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern

Thrace." Anatolica XVII:59-121. Ozgiiu, T. 1948 "Samsun hafriyatlnln 1941-1942 yili neticeleri." In: III. Turk Tarih Kongresi,

Ankara 1943. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu:393-419. Ozgiiy, T. and M. Akok 1957 "Objects from Horoztepe." Belleten XXI:211-219. Radun6eva, A. 1976 Vinica. Eneolitno seliSCe i nekropol. Sofia. Renfrew, C. 1987 Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origins. [1989 Penguin

edition used]. Renfrew, C., M. Gimbutas and E. Elster 1986 Excavations at Sitagroi I. Los Angeles: University of California. Roman, P. 1971 "Strukturanderungen des Endaneolithikums im Donau-Karpaten-Raum." Dacia

XV:31-169. Sahlins, M. 1972 Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine.

236


Sampson, A. 1987 E neolithike periodos sta Dodekanesa. Athens:Tameio Archaiologikon poron kai

Apallotrioseon. Seeher, J. 1987 Demircihuyuk. Die Keramik I. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern. Tezcan, B. 1958 "Aksaray 9evresinden derlenen eserler." Belleten XXII:517-526. Temizer, R. 1960 "Yazir Hyuigii Buluntular." In: V. Turk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1956. Ankara:

Turk Tarih Kurumu:156-164. Todorova, H. 1978 The eneolithic period in Bulgaria in the fifth millennium B.C. Oxford:BAR

International Series 49. Todorova, H. and G. Tonceva 1975 "Die aneolithische Pfahlbausiedlung bei Ezerovo im Varnasee." Germania

53:30-46. Todorova, H., S. Ivanov, V. Vasilev, M. Hopf, H. Quitta and G. Kohl 1975 SeliSenata mogila pri Goljamo Delkevo. Sofia. Yakar, J. 1985 The later prehistory of Anatolia. the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Oxford: BAR International Series 268.

237

Date post:	05-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bogdana-milic
View:	269 times
Download:	3 times

Anatolian Studies 43

Documents