Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions:

On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe

Edited by

Dragos Gheorghiu

Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe,

Edited by Dragos Gheorghiu

This book first published 2009

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2009 by Dragos Gheorghiu and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-0159-3, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-0159-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations ..................................................................................... ix List of Tables........................................................................................... xvii Contributors............................................................................................ xviii Preface ....................................................................................................... xx Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xxi Intoduction................................................................................................... 1 Early Pottery: A Concise Overview Dragos Gheorghiu Chapter One............................................................................................... 22 Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia Mehmet Özdoğan Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 44 Variations on the Neolithic Transition in Eastern and Western Hungary Eszter Bánffy Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 63 Cultural Diversities: The Early Neolithic in the Adriatic Region and Central Balkans. A Pottery Perspective Michela Spataro Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 87 Early Neolithic Ceramics in Southern Italy: Relationships between Pottery Technology and Production Organization Italo M. Muntoni Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 116 From Galicia to the Iberian Peninsula: Neolithic Ceramics and Traditions M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez

Table of Contents

viii

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 150 The Pottery of Hunter-Gatherers in Transition to Agriculture, Illustrated by the Swifterbant Culture, the Netherlands Jutta Paulina de Roever Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 167 First Appearance of Pottery in Western Europe: The Questions of La Hoguette and Limburg Ceramics Anne Hauzeur Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 189 What Is the Evidence and Consequences of Exchanging Bone and Antler and Pottery Designs Between Ertebølle and TRB Danubian Communities? George Nash Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 215 Early Pottery among Hunter-horticulturalists and Hunter-gatherers in Central Fenno-Scandinavia Fredrik Hallgren Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 239 Pots, Pits and People: Hunter-Gatherer Pottery Traditions in Neolithic Sweden Åsa M. Larsson Index........................................................................................................ 271

CHAPTER ONE

EARLIEST USE OF POTTERY IN ANATOLIA

MEHMET ÖZDOĞAN Introduction: Vessels of the Pre-Pottery Stage

The use of clay and the use of clay for making pottery vessels are two

distinct entities, not only because the dates they have been introduced are different and that the technologies employed are not the same, but as they have completely different social implications. Accordingly, putting both into the same narrative is rather difficult; still we consider as useful presenting a conspectus of problems related to the initial use of clay and to note the distinction between the simple use of clay and using it to make vessels. The use of clay has a much longer history than pottery; besides manufacturing figurines, beads and other commodities, it was extensively used in architecture, not only as mud-brick and plaster in the walls, but also for other structural elements, such as fire places, ovens or benches (Özdoğan 1996; Shamandt and Besserat 1977). The use of clay in architecture might seem irrelevant to the use of clay for vessels, but it also indicates that its properties were known to prehistoric communities much before the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic Period. Likewise, even the earliest Neolithic communities were aware of the fact that controlled firing changed the properties of material; besides heat treating flint and obsidian, pyrotechnics involved in working with native copper and in the manufacturing of “terrazzo” floors by burning lime stands as remarkable examples of this knowledge. It is evident that the early Neolithic communities had already attained the level competence in firing technology that would have been needed for the production of pottery, if they would have wanted to do so. Moreover, the dynamics of the Neolithic Period should not be overlooked; the pace that innovative experiments in technology took, especially in the earlier stages of the Neolithic Period is astounding; the craftsman of the period had been experimenting with all sorts of raw materials for thousands of years. Considering that firing clay

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 23

to make vessels is a relatively simple technology, it then seems possible to surmise that, if the early Neolithic communities needed such vessels, they could easily have made it. Accordingly, understanding the “function” seems to be more significant than technology for the initial stages of pottery making1.

Evidently vessels or containers were in use much before the appearance of pottery, however made, not from clay, but from other materials such as basketry, skin, wood or of other organic materials. Even though not much have survived of these organic wares, still there is good evidence, though fragmentary and mainly from burned contexts, enough to exemplify their extensive usage and also of the high level of craftsmanship (Stordeur 1988). Among the notable samples, those from Beida (Kirkbride 1967) and from the submerged sites of Atlit Ram (Galili and Shick 1990) are worth mentioning. Those, considered together with the clay bins and leather containers or gourds, would suffice all sorts of requirements for storage, fermentation and for transportation, and also of manipulating liquids. The only task these organic materials would fail to fulfill would be cooking and boiling2. All other sorts of food preparation, grinding, beating, roasting, fermenting could well be done with stone slabs and non-pottery vessels (Wright 2004). Then it seems justifiable to assume that during the early stages of the Neolithic Period food was consumed fresh, fried, grilled, toasted or cold. Accordingly, the introduction of pottery vessels also marks a change in eating habits with the improvisation of some sort of soup or boiled meal; if so, it is also logical to surmise that this change did not start simultaneously all over the primary zone of Neolithisation and that in some areas the beginning of Pottery Neolithic Period was earlier than others. This also implies that in initial stages, the use and/or distribution of pottery would be very random and therefore defining the end of the Pre-Pottery stage would be rather difficult to detect. Recognizing early pottery becomes more problematic in marginal areas, where there is no consensus even on the definition of the preceding stage. However, before going into that problem, we consider it worth noting some of the non-pottery containers of the Pre-Pottery period.

The most evident and at the same time most easy to detect are the stone vessels; even though they appear as early as the Proto-Neolithic Period and continue on to the Pottery Neolithic, they have an extremely uneven 1 In this respect, the methods that make it possible to distinguish between pots that can be used for cooking on fire and those that cannot, is worth noting (Le Mière and Picon 2003). 2 We are aware of the fact that heating-stones can be used for boiling; however, it is also evident that there are certain limitations in their employment.

Chapter One

24

distribution, both geographically and chronologically. Likewise, in an overview, the contexts where stone vessels have been found do not reveal a discernable pattern. Çayönü is most extensively excavated Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in the Near East, also covering the entire range of that period; accordingly it provides the best means to see, both the spatial and the sequential distribution of stone vessels (Özdoğan 1999). Firstly, it should be noted that the stone vessels, excluding coarse ground stone mortars etc (Davis 1982), are rather scarce, numbering only 35 at Çayönü. They are rather evenly distributed through various sub-phases with no clustering either at the beginning or at the end of the sequence. Most of the stone bowls show a fine craftsmanship, they are rather small, shallow, mostly 4 to 14 cm in diameter. There are only two decorated samples, one 20 cm in diameter and the other, the largest one found at Çayönü (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1993: fig.1:D.8), 30 cm. in diameter and 24 cm. in height. With the exception of these two decorated stone vessels, none of the others have the capacity to contain anything substantial. Almost all of the undecorated ones are of limestone or of marble; the decorated ones are of green stones, serpentine and chloride. Decorated stone bowls, mostly of dark greyish metamorphic rocks, have been recovered at Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 1999: Fig. 3), in an earlier phase then Çayönü and there is also an extensive collection at the local Museum of Mardin from rescue excavations of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Hirbet Selim. However, the most striking collection of decorated stone bowls have been recently recovered at Körtik Tepe (Özkaya 2008; Özkaya and San 2007), revealing a wide range of sophisticated designs. The stone vessels of Körtik Tepe, unlike others, are all from a Pre-Pottery Neolithic cemetery, presumably left as burial gifts. Fine stone bowls continue occurring during the Pottery Neolithic period, though again random and their distribution indicating no clear pattern; a group of eleven marble bowls have been recovered as possible “building-gifts” in a buried structure at Mezraa Teleilat (Karul et al 2001: Figs 13–14), while there are others from insignificant contexts.

The other vessel category of the Pre-Pottery stage that is worth considering is the so-called “White-Ware” or vaisselle blanche group. As these have been manufactured from a prepared paste (Goren and Goldberg 1991; Kafafi 1986), though mainly of lime and not of clay, and occasionally fired, they are sometimes considered as the forerunners of the pottery technology. At Çayönü the earliest occurrence of white ware is in Early PPNB, a large vessel found in the Skull Building. In the later Pre-Pottery stages of Çayönü, there is an apparent increase in the number of white wares, though they never occur in substantial numbers. Most of the vessels of the white ware at Çayönü are so fragmented that it is impossible

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 25

to reconstruct neither their dimensions nor their shapes. However, the restorable ones, like those in other contemporary sites (Maréchal 1982) are considerably large, sometimes almost a meter in diameter, and 30 cm. in height; still, none could be used either for cooking or for boiling.

Vessels shaped from a paste similar to that of mud-bricks used in architecture, constitutes the most peculiar group of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period (Özdoğan 1999). Actually, shaped slabs of mud-brick paste were extensively used in constructing architectural elements such as large and heavy containers and bins through the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period; however, non-architectural containers appear by later stages of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; in Çayönü, crude vessels made from the same type of paste which was used in shaping mud bricks occur in the cell and large room sub-phases. Most of them were also too fragmented to yield the shape; however, six of such vessels have been restored (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1993). All of them were shaped by applying a thick paste around a mould. Most of them are simple in shape, but two display more developed forms, somewhat conceptually reminiscent of “pottery” vessels. One of them (Fig. 1-1:F.20) has a cylindrical stem-like base and reverted rim, and the other is a shallow dish (Fig. 1-1:F.19). As all such vessels were recovered in burnt buildings, it is not clear whether or not they were fired intentionally. On the basis of technology, the vessels are closer to the pottery making than the white ware.

To summarize, during the Pre-Pottery stage there were some vessels, but neither can possibly be considered as the forerunners of pottery vessels and if there would had been a need, pottery vessels could have easily be manufactured by the Neolithic communities.

Earliest Pottery in the Near East3

The discussion on defining the early pottery of the Near East has a considerable long history; it was first surfaced at Sakçegözü as early as 1907, with the recovery of prehistoric painted sherds, later to be known as the Halafian painted.

3 There is an extensive literature on the early pottery assemblages of the Near East with the description of the wares, shapes, decoration and distribution (see mainly Balossi Restelli 2004; 2006; Cruells and Nieuwenhuyse 2004; Le Mière and Picon 1998; Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1993; Tsuneki and Miyake 1996); accordingly here we shall restrain going into details. The chapter is aimed in presenting an overview on the latest stand of our knowledge and to note certain problems that are occasionally overlooked.

Chapter One

26

Fig. 1-1. Unbaked mud-brick vessels from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Layers

of Çayönü. Soon after, the deep soundings at Tell Halaf and Kargamış, not only

defined this assemblage, but more significantly revealed the presence of yet an earlier monochrome phase. This new group, distinguished with its dark coloured and burnished surface, much later, after Robert J. Braidwood and Linda S. Braidwood’s work in the Amuq plain, came to be known as the “Dark Faced Burnished Ware”. This particular ware, conveniently came to be called as the DFBW, still sustains to be in the centre of discussions on the origin and dispersal of early pottery in the Near East (Balossi Restelli 2006). Nevertheless, excavations at sites such as Hassuna, Jarmo, Umm Dabbagiah and others have revealed the presence of still earlier horizons with pottery. In the course of the last two decades, this early pottery stage

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 27

was extensively studied and published (Balossi Restelli 2004; Le Mière 1989; Nishiaki and Le Mière 2005; Tsuneki and Miyake 1996). As there are a number of regional variants, there is no consensus on giving a name to this pottery horizon and it has mostly been classified either under geographic regions or by the type-sites of that region such as Umm Dabbagiah or Sotto ware. Evidently, attaining a different name to each local variant, only confuse rather than clarify as, in an overview, the regional differences are within the limits of what can be expected of a simple pottery. Accordingly, we share the view (Le Mière 2000) in naming of this pottery group as Proto-Hassuna instead of using various regional denominations.

This group is characterized by relatively light coloured, dull surfaces, either left plain, wiped or rarely burnished. In spite of the over emphasis given by some of our colleagues on the distinction between grit and organic temper, both occur randomly. This early pottery, in spite of the presence of certain regional variants, has been noted in an extensively large area, from the highlands of the Zagros Mountains in the east, to the Euphrates basin in the west and up to the first intermountain plains beyond the East Taurus range in the north.

Further to the west, mainly in the region between the Euphrates and the coastal zone of the Mediterranean, including Cilicia, the picture is, seemingly very different from that in the east. Already by the first half of the 20th century Braidwood, in defining the Amuq A assemblage (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960), had drawn attention to a certain dark coloured burnished ware group, noting its resemblance to the “early monochrome” recovered in the basal levels of Tell Halaf. Considering this ware as the main component of the early pottery of Northern Syria, had named it as “Dark Face Burnished Ware”. In naming this ware, Braidwood had used the term “dark” not implying dark surface colours, but as an entire range of dull colours that are notably different from the Syrian light coloured wares. This evidently led to a long lasting confusion in associating all dark surfaced wares of the Near East as DFBW, regardless of their shape and surface treatment. In time, a dualistic concept of DFBW developed, while implying coarse, slightly burnished dark surfaced pottery early in the East Anatolian highlands (Esin 1993; Esin and Harmankaya 1990), black or blackish surfaced, well finished and burnished fine wares in northern Levant (Balossi Restelli 2006), the latter being more nearer to the original perception of the Braidwoods. Even though the resemblance between the DFBW and the early Pottery Neolithic assemblages of Central Anatolian plateau has been noted for almost half a century ago (Mellaart 1961, 1962), no comprehensive study has yet been conducted in

Chapter One

28

comparing these assemblages and whether the apparent similarities are incidental or not, still remains as an open question. Nevertheless, the DFBW, until about two decades ago, stood as representing the early pottery of northern Levant; as will be noted below, following the excavations at sites such as Kerkh, Sabi Abyad and Yumuktepe this has been modified considerably.

Our perception of the Neolithic Period has been considerably modified during the last two decades; intensified archaeological activity in Northern Syria, South-eastern Turkey and in Central Anatolia, not only draw a new picture of the period, but also modified definitions of the “earliest pottery”. Defining the earliest pottery assemblage has been the concern of many archaeologists; in earlier years of research, pottery was considered to be one of the main indicators of the Neolithic Period, later when the presence of a pre-pottery stage of long duration became apparent, pottery then became the hallmark in dividing the two seemingly distinct stages of this period. The influx of new data is so extensive that every aspect of this stage now needs to be redefined and still some more time is needed to assimilate before drawing a comprehensive picture. Here we shall restrict ourselves in pointing to three topics that we consider as significant:

1. Transitional Stage between Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic

Here, we argue that there was an interim stage between the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic stages, significant enough to be considered as a distinct entity. This transitional stage had been overlooked until recent, firstly because there is a break in the occupational sequences of most of the Neolithic sites between the Pre-Pottery and Neolithic stages, and also because pottery is so rare in this transitional stage that, unless there is a large enough exposure, the chances of recovering sherds is very low. The fact that the uppermost layers in most of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites that did not continue into the Pottery Period have been extensively eroded and in those that continued on, the basal layers could only be reached by restricted deep soundings, has further concealed attaining a clear picture.

The final stages of the Pre-Pottery cultures of the Near East also marks a period of a social turmoil and a notable decline in cultural setting; it was during this time that most of the settlement sites have either been abandoned or shifted their location. Accordingly, in most of the excavations, this transitional stage have either been missed or overlooked. Here we shall try to present the evidence from Mezraa Teleilat, a Neolithic site by the Euphrates, which for the first time revealed deposits stratified

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 29

between the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic layers, making it possible in identifying a hitherto undefined interim stage. Excavations at Mezraa Teleilat have been carried out between 1999 and 2004 (Karul et al. 2004), presenting a rather long and uninterrupted sequence from Late Pre-Pottery B to the end of the Pottery Neolithic Period. Within this sequence, the transitional stage, denominated as Phase III is stratified right above the final PPNB layers and it is characterized by a complete change in the organization of the settlement. This horizon, rather extensively exposed, is securely dated by seven C 14 dates to cal. BC 7080–6800 interval. In the earlier part of this deposit, no pottery has been recovered; however by the final stages, some sherds begins showing up, though extremely seldom. Here, it is worth noting that if our exposure would have been conducted in a limited area as in many other excavations elsewhere in the Near East, it is highly possible that we would have missed all of them. Two distinct types of wares have been noted in this sequence, the first but extremely rare, is coarse, thick walled, with coarse mineral or more rarely organic temper and the other is a fine burnished ware, mostly reddish brown, depicting mainly hole-mouth profiles. The latter is significantly akin to the Dark Faced Burnished Ware of northern Levant, noted above. Neither of the wares can be considered as representing the initial stages of pottery making, as they are well made and finished. Accordingly, it is evident that, while Mezraa Teleilat was still in a Pre-Pottery stage, pottery had for long been invented and developed elsewhere and it was introduced possibly as the containers of certain commodities. Then the question is to locate its provenance. It seems unlikely that this development took place along the Euphrates region, as our observations on Mezraa Teleilat is supported by other excavations such as Akarçay Tepe4 and Sabi Abyad (Akkermans et al 2006; Nieuwenhuyse 1996), also in the same region. Likewise, a similar picture is also repeated at sites excavated to the east of the Euphrates. Among these, Çayönü, located in the catchment area of the upper Tigris, have presented evidence confirming our observations. Since the early years of research, some sherds were found in the Large-Room Sub-Phase, the latest Pre-Pottery Neolithic B horizon at Çayönü; however, those were considered to be introduced from the Pottery layers. It was only after the recovery of some sherds from securely dated contexts that their in situ position could be confirmed (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1993); this also indicates that while Çayönü was in Pre-Pottery stage, elsewhere pottery was in use and was being used as containers in long-distance trade. Accordingly, it seems more probable that pottery vessels were first used in

4 Personal communication of the excavator, Dr. Mihriban Özbaşaran.

Chapter One

30

a region west of the Euphrates, but where exactly is not possible to say for the time being. Early dates of the pottery bearing horizons from sites such as Mersin-Yumuktepe and Çatal Höyük, now revealing dates close to the beginning of 6th millennium BC, confirms the view that the Pottery Neolithic in the west is contemporary with the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the east.

At Mezraa Teleilat, Phase II represents the beginning of extensive use of pottery; however, the common pottery of this horizon is notably different from that of the randomly found ones of Phase III. The typical pottery in the earliest stage of Phase II (Karul et al 2004: figs. 3–7), is light coloured, grit tempered with wiped or unburnished surfaces, though well fired. Shapes are simple and the shaping is extremely crude, (Figs. 1-2 and 1-3); in the earliest examples there are no decoration. By the second building level, there are some with knob-like or crescent-shaped relief decorations. Pastes with coarse organic temper first appear during these layers; later in the sequence, the number of sherds with organic temper increases and at the same time becomes finer.

It is evident that the pottery of phase II at Mezraa Teleilat did not derive from those of Phase III and, the “primitiveness” of manufacture clearly indicates that it is a local innovation, possibly imitating others. This pottery, almost with similar paste, shapes and decoration has an extensive distribution in the early Proto-Hassuna sites of South-eastern Turkey and of northern Syria. Within this ware group, though few in number, sherds with knob-like decoration are of importance; at Mezraa Teleilat these are represented by only three specimens (Fig. 1-2: 302). At Çayönü there are a few more pieces of this type that are more pronounced (Fig. 1-5: 300, 301, 306); however, further to the north, they appear as the main element of the earliest horizon. They occur in the plains of Elazığ and Malatya and become exceedingly common in the Caucasus (Chataigner 1995: fig. 31, 33.8, 36.5). It seems possible to suggest that this specific ware also represents the initial northward expansion of the Neolithic way of life.

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 31

Fig. 1-2. Mezraa Teleilat Phase II early, simple ware.

Chapter One

32

Fig.1-3. Mezraa Teleilat Phase II early, simple ware.

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 33

Fig. 1-4. Çayönü Pottery Neolithic simple ware.

Chapter One

34

Fig. 1-5. Çayönü Pottery Neolithic simple ware.

1. Defining the Earliest Pottery

What has been presented above, covers mainly a conspectus of the evidence on the earliest use of pottery vessels; evidently, the picture that is under discussion is much more complex and multi-facetted then presented here; intentionally certain details and some of the controversial issues have been omitted from this chapter. Nevertheless, rather recently initiated debate on the earliest pottery group needs to be noted here. In the ongoing excavations at Salat Cami Yanı (Miyake 2005; Miyake 2008), at the basal layers of the Pottery Neolithic sequence, a coarse, thick bodied ware, notably different from the Proto-Hassuna types have been recorded; by description it is highly reminiscent of the coarse sherds found at Phase III of Mezraa Teleilat, found together with the fine Dark Face Burnished

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 35

Wares. The presence of similar wares at the earliest reached levels of Mersin Yumuktepe (Caneva 2008) and of Çatal Höyük (Last 1996; Last 2005), considering their early dates, is highly interesting and implies the region between Central Anatolian plateau and northern Levant as the possible origin of pottery vessels. It should also be taken into consideration that the basal levels of Mersin Yumuktepe and the very beginning of the Çatal Höyük sequence still remains indeterminate. This brings forth the old discussion on the nature of the basal horizon at Hacılar, which had been assigned as Aceramic by Mellaart. Resumed work on the same horizon by Duru (Duru 1989) had revealed the presence of coarse sherds, though very few, in the same horizon. Considering the very early dates of this horizon in the 8th millennium, and the early dates for the basal layers of sites such as Bademağacı and other sites in the Aegean littoral, westerly origin of pottery seems more probable.

2. Westward Expansion of the Pottery Neolithic

Different from the happenings in the core areas of primary neolithicisation, the expansion of the Neolithic way of life to the west and to Balkan peninsula, is directly related to the use of pottery. The mode and the pace of this expansion in its earliest stage is still far from being clear (Budja 2001; Özdoğan 2005; Özdoğan 2006). Discussions that had been triggered by Milojcic after claims of having an Aceramic horizon at Argissa in Thessaly, not only remains unresolved but there is no consensus on whether or not there were sherds at that horizon (Reingruber 2005). Likewise, besides the site of Hacılar mentioned above, there are other sites with similar claims in the western parts of the Anatolian plateau (Özdoğan and Gatsov 1998). Evidently, the solution to this problem remains in fixing the border between the core area of Neolithisation and the contemporary Mesolithic communities in Western Anatolia, assuming that there is such a definite border (Özdoğan 2005; Özdoğan 2006).

At the present stage of knowledge, it is not possible to comment on the very beginning of pottery in the west; however, there is more evidence, at least enough to surmise, on the later stages of this expansion in the western extremities of the Anatolian plateau- and to a degree in the Balkans. It is now evident that the first settling at this stage was dominated by monochrome, dark coloured pottery, at best defined in the region around the Sea of Marmara as the Fikirtepe group (Fig. 1-6); among its characteristic features, hole-mouth profiles, antisplash rims, heavy ledge handles, rectangular or triangular vessels with feet, incised geometric decoration are easily notable. Affinities of the Fikirtepe pottery with that

Chapter One

36

of the early dark coloured, burnished wares of Central Anatolia are evident. Even though there is some controversy on the initial dating of this culture, new dates from Menteşe, giving 6500 cal. BC, though placing it firmly to the middle of the 6th millennium, probably does not represent the very early stage of this group. Recent work in the western parts of Anatolia has revealed the extensive presence of Fikirtepe culture, mainly around the Sea of Marmara; however, its presence in the European part is still not very clear. It seems highly probable that the sites of the so-called “monochrome phase”, such as Koprivets and Krainitsi in Bulgaria might be akin to the Fikirtepe group (Özdoğan 2006), but still more data is needed before reaching a consensus.

Fig. 1-6. Early monochrome pottery of western Anatolia. (First row: Çatal Höyük after Mellaart 1962, Fig. 9: 3, 8, 17, 23,

Lower rows Fikirtepe)

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 37

Evidently, following the expansion of the cultures with monochrome pottery of the Fikirtepe type, there is another, but much more massive western movement; the dominant component of this settling is easily distinguishable from the dark surfaced ones of the previous group with the red slipped surfaces and with the S curved profiles of the vessels. This assemblage, in certain regions, is dominated by white on red painted decoration. The orientation of this movement also differs from the previous one, this time hitting directly to the coastal plains along the Aegean and not to the Marmara region. Recently, the presence of this pottery has been noted in a number of sites, such as Ulucak, Yeşilova and Coşkuntepe along the Aegean coastal strip, Hoca Çeşme revealing its sequential development (Fig. 1-7). The expansion of this group must be rather rapid as its characteristic features remained unchanged in a considerably large area. Among its characteristic features, vertical or oblique tubular lugs, raised bases, ovoid shapes, anthropomorphic or zoomorphic shapes are to be accounted.

Fig. 1-7. Hoca Çeşme, red slipped ware.

Chapter One

38

Most of the Early Neolithic sites in South-eastern Europe begin with the red slipped painted pottery, clearly indicating the rapid movement of this culture in the Aegean and especially in the mainland Greece, like in the littoral areas of Anatolia. The picture is somewhat more complicated; there the presence of an Impresso decorated pottery implies that, besides the land route through Anatolian plateau, there also is a maritime interaction zone (Perlès 2001; Perlès and Vitelli 1994). At present, defining the origin of this pottery is rather difficult; by definition, it is widespread all along the coastal areas of the Mediterranean and Aegean, but it is also well represented in the Euphrates basin. Considering the simplicity of this decorative technique and the use of vessels with simple profiles, makes the genetic relation among different Impresso decorated groups difficult to interpret. Likewise, the initial stages of Pottery Neolithic in other regions, such as the Eastern Europe and the Pontic steppes (Anthony 2007; Dolukhanov 2005), and in particular the degree of interaction between these regions and the Anatolian- Near Eastern complex, is highly problematic and far from being clear.

Concluding Remarks

In considering the emergence and expansion of Neolithic way of life, the impact of biases due to research strategies should not be overlooked. Until recent, Anatolian highlands were considered to have remained outside the main formation zone of Neolithisation. Accordingly, excavations focused on the Neolithic Period were concentrated in two distinct zones, the semi-arid lowlands of the Near East and the Balkan Peninsula, leaving the contact zone void of research. It is only during the last two decades that the presence of early Neolithic communities on the Anatolian highlands has been generally accepted. Recent work in different parts of the peninsula have given astonishing new evidence on the significant role of this geography in the formation of the Neolithic cultures, also filling in the lacuna in our knowledge between the Near Eastern and European cultures. However still, our knowledge of the Anatolian Neolithic cultures is in its incipiency; there are vast areas where no sites have been excavated and each new excavation is making radical changes in our perception. Accordingly, what has been put into this chapter should be considered as preliminary insights and not as conclusive remarks. Actually, we are confident that the picture is much more complex then what has been noted here.

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 39

References

Akkermans, P. M. M. G., Cappers, R., Cavallo, C., Nieuwenhuyse, O., Nilhamn B., and Otte, M. 2006. Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad. American Journal of Archaeology 110: 123–156.

Anthony, D. W. 2007. Pontic-Caspian Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies at the time of the Black Sea flood: a small audience and small effects. In Yanko-Hombach, V., Gilbert, A. S., Panin, N., and Dolukhanov, P. M. (eds.) The Black Sea Flood Question. Changes in Coastline, Climate and Human Settlement, pp. 345–370. Dordrecht: Springer.

Balossi Restelli, F. 2004. New Data for the Definition of the DFBW Horizon and its Internal Developments. The Earliest Phases of the Amuq Sequence Revisited. Anatolica XXX: 109–149.

—. 2006. The Development of 'Cultural Regions' in the Neolithic of the Near East. The 'Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon'. BAR International Series 1482. Oxford: Basingstoke Press.

Braidwood, R. J. and Braidwood, L. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Oriental Institute Publications Volume LXI, Chicago.

Budja, M. 2001. The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery. Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII: 27–47.

Caneva, I. 2008. Mersin-Yumuktepe in the seventh millennium BC: an updated view. In Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (eds.) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

Chataigner, C. (ed.) 1995. La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique. Maison de L’Orient Méditerranéen, BAR International Series 624, Oxford.

Cruells, W. and Nieuwenhuyse, O. 2004. The Proto-Halaf period in Syria. New sites, new data. Paléorient 30.1: 47–68.

Davis, M. 1982. The Çayönü Ground Stone. In Braidwood, R. J., and Braidwood, L. Prehistoric Village Archaeology in South-Eastern Turkey. pp. 77-174. BAR 138, Oxford.

Dolukhanov, P. 2005. The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1441–1458.

Duru, R. 1989 Were the Earliest Cultures at Hacilar Really Aceramic? In: Emre, K., Hrouda, B., Mellink, M. and Özgüç, N. (eds.) Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç. pp. 99–104. Ankara.

Chapter One

40

Esin, U. 1993. The Relief Decorations on the Prehistoric Pottery of Tülintepe in Eastern Anatolia. In Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., and Mellnick, M. (eds.) Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata. pp. 105–119. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell'Antichita Universita di Roma.

Esin, U. and Harmankaya, S. 1990. İkiz Höyük (Kuluşağı, Malatya) Kurtarma Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XII/1: 325–344.

Galili, E. and Shick, T. 1990. Basketry and a Wooden Bowl from the Pottery Neolithic Submerged Site of Kefar Samir. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 142–151.

Goren, T. and Goldberg, P. 1991. Petrographic Thin Sections and the Development of Neolithic Plaster Production in Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 18.1: 131–138.

Kafafi, Z. 1986. White Objects from 'Ain Ghazal, Near Amman, BASOR 261: 51–56.

Karul, N., Ayhan, A., and Özdoğan, M. 2001. 1999 Yılı Mezraa-Teleilat Kazısı. In Tuna, N., Öztürk, N. J., and Velibeyoğlu, J. (eds.) Ilısu ve Karkamış Baraj Gölleri Altında Kalacak Arkeolojik ve Kültür Varlıklarını Kurtarma Projesi 1999 Yılı Çalışmaları: 133–174. Ankara: ODTÜ Tarihsel Çevre Araştırma ve Değerlendirme Merkezi (TAÇDAM).

—. 2004. 2001 Yılı Mezraa-Teleilat Kazıları. In Tuna, N., Greenhalgh, J., and Velibeyoğlu, J. (eds.) Ilısu ve Kargamış Baraj Gölleri Altında Kalacak Arkeolojik ve Kültür Varlıklarını Kurtarma Projesi 2001 Yılı Çalışmaları. pp. 57–106. Ankara: ODTÜ Tarihsel Çevre Araştırma ve Değerlendirme Merkezi (TAÇDAM).

Kirkbride, D. 1967. Beidha 1965: An Interim Report. Palestine Exploration Quaterly 1967: 5–13.

Last, J. 1996. Surface Pottery at Çatalhöyük. In Hodder, I. (ed.) On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–95. pp. 115–171. McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 22, Ankara.

—. 2005. Pottery from the East Mound. In Hodder, I. (ed.) Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995–99. pp. 101–138. Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 5, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara-McDonald Institute Monographs, Oxford.

Le Mière, M. 1989. Les débuts de la céramique sur le Moyen-Euphrate (6500–5500 B.C.). In Haex, O. M. C. et al. (eds.) To The Euphrates and Beyond. pp. 53-64. Rotterdam.

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 41

—. 2000. L'occupation Proto-Hassuna du Haut-Khabur Occidental d'Aprés la Céramique. In Lyonnet, B. (ed.) Prospection Archéologique du Haut-Khabur Occidental (Syrie du N.E.) pp. 127–149. Beyrouth: Institute Français d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient.

Le Mière, M. and Picon, M. 1998. Les Débuts de la Céramique au Proche-Orient. Paléorient 24/2: 5–26.

—. 2003. Appearance and first Development of Cooking and “Non-cooking” Ware Concepts in the Near East. In Di Pierro, S., Serneels, V., and Maggetti, M. (eds.) Ceramic in the Society. Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. pp. 175–188. Fribourg: Universitas Friburgensis.

Maréchal, C. 1982. Vaisselles blanches du Proche-Orient. El Kowm (Syrie) et l'usage du plâtre au Néolithique. Cahiers de l’Euphrate 3: 217–251.

Mellaart, J. 1961. Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau. Anatolian Studies XI: 159–184.

—. 1962. Excavations at Çatal Höyük. First Preliminary Report 1961. Anatolian Studies XII: 41–65.

Miyake, Y. 2005. Archaeological Survey at Salat Cami Yanı. A Pottery Neolithic Site in the Tigris Valley, Southeast Turkey. Anatolica XXXI: 1–17.

—. 2008. Salat Cami Yanı: Dicle Havzasında Bulunan Çanak Çömlekli Neolitik Döneme ait Yeni Bir Yerleşme. In Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (eds.) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Nieuwenhuyse, O. 1996. Early Pottery: The Ceramics from Level 1. In Verhoeven, M. and Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (eds.) Tell Sabi Abyad II. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement. pp. 1–11. Report on the Excavations of the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden in the Balikh Valley, Syria.

Nishiaki, Y. and Le Mière, M. 2005. The Oldest Pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: New Evidence from Tell Seker al-Aheimar, the Khabur, Northeast Syria. Paléorient 31.2: 55–68.

Özdoğan, A. 1999. Çayönü. In Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey: 35–63 (Text), 19–35 (Plates). İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Özdoğan, M. 1996. From Huts to Houses: “Firsts” in Architecture. In Beykan, M. (ed.) Housing and Settlement in Anatolia. A Historical Perspective. pp.19-30. HABİTAT II, Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul.

Chapter One

42

—. 2005. The Expansion of Neolithic Way of life. What We Know and What We Do Not Know. In Lichter, C. (ed.) How Did Farming Reach Europe? BYZAS 2, Istanbul: 13–27.

—. 2006. Neolithic Cultures at the Contact Zone Between Anatolia and the Balkans – Diversity and Homogeneity at the Neolithic Frontier. In Gatsov, I. and Schwarzberg, H. (eds.) Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: The Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic. pp. 21–28. Langenweissbach: Beier and Beran.

Özdoğan, M. and Özdoğan, A. 1993. Pre-Halafian Pottery of Southeastern Anatolia. In Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., and Mellnick, M. (eds.) Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata pp. 87–103. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichita Universita di Roma.

Özdoğan, M. and Gatsov, I. 1998 The Aceramic Neolithic Period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica XXIV: 209–232.

Özkaya, V. 2008. Körtik Tepe: Bulgular Işığında Kültürel Doku Üzerine İlk Gözlemler. In Özdoğan, M.and Başgelen, N. (eds.) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Özkaya, V. and San, O. 2007. Körtik Tepe. In Lichter, C. (ed.) Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit: 78, figs. pp. 101-102. Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe.

Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perlès, C. and Vitelli, K. D. 1994. Technologie et fonction des premières productions céramiques de Grèce. Terre Cuite et Société: 226–242.

Reingruber, A. 2005. The Argissa Magoula and the Beginning of the Neolithic in Thessaly. In. Lichter, C. (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. Byzas 2, Istanbul: 155–171.

Rosenberg, M. 1999. Hallan Çemi. In Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (ed.) Neolithic in Turkey: 25–33 (Text), 9–18 (Plates). İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Shamandt-Besserat, D. 1977 The Earliest Uses of Clay in Syria. Expedition 19.3: 28–42.

Stordeur, D. 1988. Vannerie et Tissage au Proche-Orient Néolithique: IX–V Millénaire, Basketry and Weaving in The Neolithic Near East: IX–V Millenium. Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire IX: 19–39.

Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia 43

Tsuneki, A. and Miyake, Y. 1996. The Earliest Pottery Sequence of the Levant: New Data from Tell el-Kerkh 2, Northern Syria. Paléorient 22.1: 109–123.

Wright, K. 2004. The Emergence of Cooking in Southwest Asia. Archaeology International 2004/2005: 33–37.