This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Littoral Author(s): Laurens Thissen Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 43 (1993), pp. 207-237 Published by: British Institute at Ankara Stable 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 unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian Studies.
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 thanksto ProfessorTahsinOzgiui,who very kindly to the Kavak and gave me permission reanalyseand republish potteryfrom Diindartepe, in Turkey.His help is greatlyappreciated. Tekekoy 2The "CopperAge" (equivalentto Early Bronze Age) pottery from Diindartepe, Kavak, Alaca Hoytik, and severalother CentralAnatoliansites located aroundAnkara has extremelystrong similaritieswith CernavodaIII-II pottery assemblages,but less with the CernavodaI phase. This is true especiallyfor pots with nail-, shell-, or stickimpressionalong the widestdiameter,pot-shapesin general,and similarhandles. 3To explain some terms: with Anatolia is meant Turkey west and north of the Taurusbelt. Dating is in uncalibrated years B.C.The "Chalcolithic" periodconformsto conventionalAnatolian chronology,i.e. Late Neolithic = end of the sixth millennium Early Bronze Age (e.g., IliplnarPhase X), Chalcolithic= fifth and fourth millennium; criteriafor a subdivisionof the Chalcolithicperiod startingc. 3000 B.C.No satisfactory is techhave been developedyet. The "LateChalcolithic" used here mostly as a terminus nicus. By using this term, however,it is meant, on purpose,to conform with the Late Chalcolithicin Syria and Southeastern Turkey,i.e. the latter part of the Obeid period and the Uruk colonizationperiod (see below). In BalkanterminologyLate Chalcolithic ancien"(Lichardus Lichardus-Itten and calls, "chalcolithique equatesto, what Lichardus et al. 1985:512-13),or to Todorova's "Late Eneolithic"(Todorova 1978, table 1). A would be 3500-3000B.C. rough time-spanfor the Late Chalcolithic by 4Probably coastal seafaring.On this subject,see Frey 1991:200(who, imaginatively, describesthe necessity for the long-distancetrade in raw materialsduring the KaranovoVI period of having fixed and friendlylandingplaces along the route, facilinavigationmethodsan interesting parallel, tating accessto freshprovisions).Concerning islanderson a Kula expeif only in spirit,may be found in the sailingsof the Trobriand dition (Malinowski 1922:224-8). Cf. also the referenceby Todorova (1978:70) that remainsof dug-outshave been found in the Varnalakes. The importanceof the Black Sea was earlierrecognizedby Todorova (1978:38-9, the 41), attributing rapidprogressof the BulgarianBlack Sea sites (Varna,Durankulak, etc.) duringthe "LateEneolithic"[i.e. equatedwith KaranovoVI, LT] to the "brisksea trade".Also Makkay implicitlyunderlinesthe importanceof the Black Sea, by opting koine of provincesaroundthe Black Sea" at least since Karanovo for a "metalworking VI times (Makkay 1985:7).His conclusionin the same article,that (speakingof tabbed
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 distributionof these pendanttypes suggestsa continentwidesystem of exchangeof ideasandgoods developed accordance in withoverseastradeand connections with specialization metallurgy" in (ibid.: 11; my emphasis)can reasonablybe to the generalized incorporate materialas well as immaterial productsof other branches as well. In a similarvein the centralrole of the Black Sea is emphasizedby Fol et al. 1988:7and by Frey 1991. near SGelveri-Giizelyurt, Nigde. Excavationsin 1990 led by Prof. Ufuk Esin from IstanbulUniversity.Precucuteni finds from Gelveriwere alreadyreportedin the 1950s by Tezcan 1958, Fig. 5. See furtherOzdogan, in press. Ozdogan, in the same article, refersmoreoverto Cucuteni-related as potteryfrom the Alisar deepsounding, well as to a paintedvariety,found on recentsurveysin CentralAnatolia by a Japaneseteam.
Thereare in fact still earlier levels present at Ikiztepe Mound II. there are very close connections in several kinds of pottery between.7 Biiyiik Giilliicek. The earlierphase can be dated towardsthe end of the fifth millen"laterChalcolithic". Ayio Gala and Emporio X-VIII on Chios. and the "contemporary" (see table p. To date.. I mean those levels which are located on MoundII and whichare designatedLevelII or "EBAI" (Yakar 1985:235). for AlthoughOrthmann(1963:35.This phase should even antedatethe final fifth millenniumB. 207: "(. who correlatedwhite-painted 6Earlier pottery as well as horned handles. . In fact he views Bliytik Gulliicek as the earliersettlement(Orthmann1963:66). on the one hand.Ikiztepe II/"EBAI" and Biiyiik Giilliicekhas been noted by Yakar. found in Ayio Gala lower and upper cave resp.) the Biiyiik Gtillticekfinds.750) tends to follow Orthmann. the Aegean contacts with Anatolia prove to be restricted to a far shorter time frame. ware. ib. 39. however. nor the mixed aspect of its Chalcolithicdeposit have been recognizedin the literature.6 While.carinatedbowls and pottery (cf. leave no doubt that therewas some connectionbetweenCentralAnatolia and the West the as earlyas the Chalcolithic period. date put forwardhere for IkiztepeII/"EBAI".BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 209 To the aforementioned Balkan-Anatolian networks existing along the Black Sea coast. at 8In my opinion we have in fact two differentassemblages Alaca Hoyuk in the Chalcolithicdeposit (i. levels 14-19. 3-7 graphite-slipped (Ali?ar)). cf. 178) material from ChalcolithicAli?ar (levels variations" (1985:180). or "Late Chalcolithic" (Yakar 1985:242-3). Alkim and Ozdogan. the assemblages called "EBA I"). 19-12M) as due to "local or sub-regional The correlationof Alaca Hoyik (i.67) notes a differencein shapesand manufacture the ware in contrastto the plain ware (meandecorated(meaningthe "earlier Chalcolithic") he ing the "laterChalcolithic") concludes(whileassessingthe similarityof the decorated cannot be Alaca pieces with BtiyiikGtilliicek)that BiiytikGilliicek and Alaca Hoyutk because at BuiyiikGtilliicek the plain. probably in the last centuries of the fifth millennium B. 205.C."Yakarrecognized similarity existingbetweenthe Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" material and the pottery from Ayio Gala. situated below this "EBA I" phase. Yakar explainsthe differencein the potteryof Alaca Hoyuk and BtiytikGilliicek..C. Kalythies on noted by Furness 1956:197. Firstly.Two aspects of this time-span not commonly recognized in the literature and directly bearing upon our subject should be mentioned. also his chronologicalschema on p. neitherthe existenceof a lacunain the sequenceof Alaca H6yiik. although they have been one interpreted the excavatorsas representing homogeneousphase. Tigani (I-III) on Samos. the Balkan-Anatolian line seems to be continuous and long-lasting.. 40 (Alaca Hoyilk) with pls. and the earlier Chalcolithic material from Alaca H6ytik. in 7Whenreferring this articleto IkiztepeII. 769.The "laterChalcolithic" pottery of Alaca Hoyiik closely resemblesthe materialfrom Ali?ar similarred/blackthickwalled level 14-12M. These earliest levels are called Level III. the "earlierChalcolithic" material). Cf. with fruit-stands. pls.e. with those from Biyiuk Giilliicek and Alaca Hoyuk. Stratigraphically. which include horned handles and white-painteddecoration. also called phase IV). nium B. Huot (1982:54-5. an important third branch can be added. Orthmann1963.199.while the later phase conformsto the Late Chalcolithicperiod as definedin note 3 above. fine ware from Alaca Hyuik contemporary. the North and Central Anatolian sites of Ikiztepe Mound II (to be specific. Northern and Central Anatolia have some excellent ties with the Aegean islands off the coast of Western Turkey. Tigani and Vathy (1985:241).For the sake of and the later material convenienceI will call the earliermaterial"earlierChalcolithic".8 and on the other.e. distinctioncannot be retracedon the basis of the excavationreports. The horizonsare by this separatedfrom each other by a gap of nearly a thousandyears. and in Tigani. is (meaningthe "later Chalcolithic") absent.C.
] 1976.Gimbutas[ed.pl. 54:613. everted necks and handles raised above rims cf. Technique.pl. 4 (ParadimiIa). cit. 24b:4 (Paradimi I). Importantconnections between Samos Tigani III and Biiyiik Giilliicek are also handleswith animalheads:compareFelsch 1987.) occur. it should be pointed out that there are long gaps not only in the stratigraphy of Alaca Hoyiik. pl. BiiyiikGiillicek (Ko?ayand Akok 1957. 26:3) with Kalythieson Rhodes (Sampson1987. 76:F4. 151 fourthrow. offset rims cf. 205. Alaca Hoytik and the Samsunarea (see here Fig. 21:2. 23 thirdrow) with while pot-typeSamosTigani SamosTiganiIII (Felsch 1987. Paradimi and Kokkinochoma (Proskinites) perfect parallels occur in this respect. 1988. or in Northern Greece at Sitagroi I. Gtillticek (Orthmann1963.pls. "This date late in the fifth millennium is based interalia on recentradiocarbon B. II (Felsch 1987. 62:259. pl. The selective aspect of the Balkan-Anatoliancontacts may be misleading. in the "earlier Chalcolithic" phase at Alaca H6yiik (Ko?ayand Akok 1966. pls. 1986.210 ANATOLIAN STUDIES Rhodes and possibly some material from Vathy on Kalimnos. 58:164). The double handlefrom Alaca Hoyiik (Ko?ayand Akok 1966. 13 (Kokkinochoma (Proskinites)). fig.assignedto III). It is highly probable. see below) and of Samos Tigani (between phase III and IV).66:305with Ko?ayand Akok 1957. 158). It is interestingto note that parallelsare particularly strong betweenSamos Tigani II-III and the North and CentralAnatoliansites. 59:216). (See the chronological table.pl. 62:258. 7:7. 59:181. 25:3)with SamosTigani II (Felsch 1987. In absolute years this would conform to the last quarter of the fifth millennium B. 1988:184-7for (cf.C.pls 58:179. unstratified. 1991:82) and Karanovo III (Hiller 1990:205). 11 (from a site near Nova Zagora). Alaca Hoyiik "earlier and Chalcolithic" BiiytikGiilliicekare firmlyestablished Alklm et al. 233. 10. A white painted horned handle at Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987. pl.conforms qua shape exactly to horned handles from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I". Biyuik Giilliicek. pl. (cf. The Karanovo IV period in knowBulgariais. with which Karanovo IV seems to conform best (Chapman1981:18-19). figs. Vessel shape: carinatedpots with offset. 52). XII:3-5 (probably ParadimiII-III). 151 bottom row. 31:1). Renfrew et al.Kancev 1973. a limited)range of the most conspicuousAegean parallelsillureferences). Here. Alkim et al. j224)) is also attestedat Samos Tigani (Felsch 1987. in fact. 99 (Anza IV). pl.9 All these sites have to be seen as more or less contemporary to each other. 57:156)is also typicalfor IkiztepeII/"EBAI" (cf. pl. 8). pls. 261. but also in the sequences of Ikiztepe. tion. pl. hornedhandleswith roundedor animalendingsare all remarkably White paint combinedwith tab handle:cf. open. 11. and pl.location and structure motifs of white-painted bowls. 260. (necessarily of decoraminatesmy point.Alaca H6yiik and Buiyiik Horned handles: the typical handles from Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987.however. 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. the chronological table). Bakalakis/Sakellariou 1981. Similartab handles on Samos Tigani II (Felsch 1987. 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. tab handles raised above the rim of hemispherical similarin detail.254. 14:1lowerright.pl. IVc:2. I?Resp. IkiztepeII/"EBAI" (Alkim et al.'? These correspondences make it possible to date these assemblages to the Karanovo IV phase. 16:6(ParadimiIII). 58:157. . several vessel shapes. pls.55:616). at Anza IV. 236. pl. carinatedbowls with vertical or everted. Bakalakis/Sakellariou 1981. pl. (Mound II being much earlier than Mound I.) 9Whilethe close connectionsbetween Ikiztepe II/"EBA I". pls.pl. 148:A1. dates from Toptepe (Turkey) (Ozdogan et al. 210. 1988.that with increasing ledge these contactswill prove to have been more thorough. 17 (Paradimilib). 61:246a. 24:14). 96. fourthfrom left). second from right (= op..C."I Secondly.pl. 1988.as well as on Vin6a B-C dates.A similarmotif on Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (Alkim et al. still badly known.6 (Sitagroi I).pl. etc. in similar vein.60:235.61:249a). BiiyiikGtillticek(Ko?ayand Akok 1957.
can only proceed when the basic chronological problems have been overcome.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. the "earlier Chalcolithic" part of Alaca Hoyiik and Biiytik Gtilliicek has never seriously been considered. and attacked(M. Kavak (Kaledorugu) and Tekek6y. with a few unstratified pieces coming from Tekekoy and Kavak. connecting early Ikiztepe with the Vesselinovo culture in Bulgaria. Director of the SamsunArchaeologicalMuseum. enablingalso the study of potteryfrom Btiyik Giillucek.and idem. and Alaca Hoyiik. Two major drawbacks. or Hittite periods (my terminology). Ozgii9 has some of the pottery. materialwas made possibleby not been appreciated. A reanalysis of some pottery from the Turkish Black Sea littoral sites of Diindartepe.kindly grantedby the TurkishAntiquities Service. from a misleading nomenclature. in press). together with a reconsideration of the stratigraphic and material evidence from Ikiztepe. 60 labelledsherds. Ozgiiq The inkingof the drawingswas done by Erickvan Driel. still make this condition hard to fulfil. 12In the most recent survey of the Anatolian Chalcolithicperiod. Ozdogan 1991. however.is greatlyappreciated. here Fig. the date in the Karanovo IV period for Ikiztepe II/"EBA 1". the mentionedin the reports)was not noticed.C. Ozgi9q 1940-42.The sherds belong either to the Late Chalcolithic. Eneolithic (occasionally called Chalcolithic). hinted at above. in Tekek6yand Kavakwereexcavatedby T..12 The existence of large gaps in the sequences of Ikiztepe. resultswere publishedin two preliminary reports. is unknown. 7:7. it suffers. Material earlier than the Late Chalcolithic (e. 8) Diindartepe yieldedc. Firstly. of '3Theretainment the "EarlyBronzeAge" label with the concomitanttraditional third millenniumdating for what are essentiallyChalcolithicassemblages(startedwith continuedby Alklm and Yakar)has only recentlybeen explained Bittel and Orthmann. 1945 and T. 15Thenature of the sample stored in some boxes in the Samsun Museum. viz. Mustafa Akkaya.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 211 Apart from Ozdogan (1991).g.see K6kten et al.Leyden University. moreover. the evidence available from Anatolia is far from being unequivocal. Some unlabelledsherdsare also taken into accountand provisionally assignedto Diindartepe.Specialwords of thanks are due to ProfessorTahsin in the Alacahoyufk and to Dr.Early Bronze. The permission. Excavated in four main trenches in separate locations.Orthmann (1963)reanalysed etc. This reviewof the Diindartepe.datablein the Late Chalcolithic. Pottery from Diindartepe. Alaca Hoyiik and Samos Tigani has never been recognized up till now. VII (1985:237). Tekekoy and Kavak The pottery published here is a sample of material mainly from Diindartepe. there is a lack of well stratified sites relevant to our subject.'4 It allowed me moreover to clear up some of the above confusion. stored in the AnatolianCivilizationsMuseumin Ankaraand Ali?ar local museum. equatingit even with Karanovo . apart from three "Eneolithic/Chalcolithic" hornedhandles(cf. led me to isolate an as yet not clearly assessed Late Chalcolithic phase for this part of Anatolia. the material from the site has been divided by the excavators into three periods.but sincethen its importance 1948.Tekek6y 5 and Kavak 3. Archaeological Centre. Yakar dates IkiztepeII/"EBAI" early in the third millenniumB. a travel grant from the NetherlandsOrganizationfor ScientificResearch(NWO) and took place in October 1990.and the 4Diindartepe.15 Diindartepe will be the focal point in the discussion. Secondly. Analysis of the exact nature of the complex network relating different regions and communities at several points in time.
being morphologicallyeasily separableand mutuallyexclusivein regard to find-location. where metal is rare.in contrast to the Early Bronze Age slope area. Eneolithiclevels were also soundedin the railwaycut.The whole stratum.thoughin smallnumbers. grey or reddishbrown. burnishedand sand temare pered. Houses were built in the wattle-and-daub technique. starting right underneaththe topsoil. even if with some reservation. thick.XIV. pottery is describedas being black.Characteristic these assemblages pots with impressodecoration (nail. however. Biytik Giilliicek. it will be argued.but also. 1988.. Alaca Hoyik and Samos Tigani I-III is also presentin the Samsunregion. My analysis will show that the pottery from the summit and from the slope. Three building levels are reported. LXVII:1. Comparisons made with Ali?arand Alaca. as definedabove (note 3). however.18 later materialis. noted among the Diindartepesherdsin the SamsunMuseum.not only by Kokten et al. and moreoverto the Copper Age/EarlyBronze Age assemblagesfrom Central Anatolian sites such as Alaca Hoyiik. 8). Similarpotteryfrom Kavak:Ozgiiq1948. A similarhandle is publishedfrom Kavak (Kokten et al. 1988). for 17See this pottery Kokten et al. Yakar (1985) and Alklm (Alkim et al. XI:13.Polatli and Karaoglan(K6kten et al. Cambel1947:264). Etiyokusu.. 15-17. pls. The sherdsfrom this deposit will be shown to belong to 16The levels of Diindartepeis generalaspect of the pottery from the "Eneolithic" not well known(Koktenet al. 1945:376). LXIII:1-6. White-filled.or "EarlyBronzeII-III" by Orthmann(1963). XIII:1. pls. This kind of potteryis. The pl.also cf. alreadyreferred I (note 2) to the strong parallelsexisting betweenthis materialand the pottery from CernavodaIII-II. XII.As to the other sites Orthmann's for are vey of the evidence. called DiindartepeI.as well as large lids with impressorims.as put forwardby Huot and Yakar.not my concernhere. 1945. The white-filled decorationmentionedmay indicatethis too. area G. pls. XVI for book is still very usefulfor a quick surgood examples. 7:7. Whetherthree unlabelledhorned handles. the Eneolithic deposit is at least 4-5 m.VII. conspicuouslyabsent from the Early BronzeAge sequenceat Ali?arHiuyuk.Cambel 1947:265-7).pl. fingernailand other impressodecorationis reportedto occur.belong to this Eneolithicphase is not certain(see here Fig. There are many metal finds in these levels (Kokten et al.LXVIII:4and Ozgtiu1948. I cannot accept the Early BronzeAge date for the Diindartepe-Summit levels.both assemblages weredated as more or less contemporary. This Ahlatlibel. 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"). It is perfectlysimilarto the pottery from IkiztepeI/SoundingA and Kavak. Although the finds from these two areas were recognizedas strikinglydifferentfrom each other.. pl. 1945:369-75. representedby Ikiztepe II/"EBA I". (1945:397-8) and Lamb (1949:191-2). is indeed chronologicallydiverse. II and III). X. 18For Ikiztepesee Alkim et al. The potterycoming from the slope area of Dundartepe'7 be correlated can to what has formerlybeen called "CopperAge" by Turkisharchaeologists.by Orthmann(1963:74). was heavily burnt. Clradere. Horoztepe. . 11:6. and the peculiarcharacterof the material from the summitarea was clearlyassessed.Excavatedin area A. Pazarli. LXIX:2)and indicates that the horizon. implementor shell) in a single zone around the widest diameter. 1945. Area B on the Dtindartepe-Summit been excavated to a depth of has 3. Orthmann. 1945:367-9. while virgin soil was not reached. to be dated in the Late Chalcolithicperiod. (K6kten et al. 1945:372-4).212 ANATOLIAN STUDIES Copper Age and Hittite (resp.80 m. The pottery and other small finds are. by the way.16Both on the summitof Diindartepe(area B) and on the slope so-called Copper Age levels were excavated.
an orange-red colour throughout)probablydue to the conflagrasecondarily(to tion of the deposit. 1988:172-3). 4:3. 5).eitherpiercedthroughthe handle itself. The original colours were either a black exterior.). the classificationbeing partly typological. or else above or next to it. Most probablythese stringholeswere used for attachinglids to the vessels.Motifs are variations exterior. small to medium-sized flat or slightly concave bases (diametersaround 7 cm. 3:5). 2:2. encrustedin and over the decoratedzones (Fig.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 213 one. Sherds of this type were found at Diindartepe. 3:1-3).it is not unlikelythat some of these bowls were lids themselves.19 distinguished (Figs. yellow-white. and Tekekoy. by Colours:some of the sherdshave been fired contrast. in Decorationis rectilinear. 3:8. note 15).pl.as it was createdusing a specific firing of process (cf. bowls (diametersvaryingfrom 13 to 24 cm. occasionallylimitedby borderlines. sharplyincisedor groovedlines. 1988:210. (Kokten et al. (Kbkten et al. 6). Several vessel. on simple geometricpatterns. the interpretations Alklm et al. homogeneous assemblage and are morphologicallyand technologically related. Upturnedlug handles at the carination (perhaps two opposite each other) are typical.The clay contains fine to medium sand as non-plastics.The interiorwas. Within the pottery of Late ChalcolithicDiindartepeseveralgroups can be empirically. while the interioris smoothedor lightly burnishedonly.consideringthe upturnedposition of the handles.while occasionallyfinely choppedchaff is added (Fig.usually left unburnished. Characteristic the of form-conceptis a slightlyconcave wall betweencarinationand base. 3:1-4. Colours are highly contrasting:black for the exterior.). 5:2. sand 5:1-3).red for the interior. 2:6.such as horizontalV-shapescreatingfish-bones. showing a similar interior and exterior this group is related colour contrast. 1945:370-1). 3:1-7). a brown-redinterior and a similar colour separation on the fracture or (Fig. This contrast was certainlyintentional. Several of these refired sherds had turned into a sort of "clinky"stone ware (Fig. Always associatedwith these handlesare stringholes. The fact that in two instancesthe "bases"were decoratedon the outside may corroboratethis option (Fig. 3:1).thin slip or wash. A good parallelexists at IkiztepeI/SoundingF (Alkim et al. with small. upturned V's and zig-zags.partly technological. of these sherds have a matt. 2. . 4.Indeed. These are repeated and mirroredall around the Isolatedmotifs do not occur. Black burnishedfine pottery with white-painted decoration (Figs. the taxonomic value of the groupingis almost nil.Loe Jacobs (Pottery Institute. or else dark-brown blackishthroughout(Fig. 50:11). The fragmentsin the sampleall belong to plain-rimmed. located on the both on the shoulderand below the carination. The exterior surfaces are invariably highly burnished.Kavak. mostly with additions of chaff and/or crushed shell. sharplycarinated. 5. 1945:371-2).Non-plasticsare fine or medium-coarse with mica inclusions. 3). Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration the 19Considering nature of the sample (cf. As such. to groups 2-4. Surfaceswere generallymediumburnishedon the exterior. 1. Leiden University) kindly provided some relevant Technology information: 2.
They extend from rim down to the base. colouredpotteryalso has a black burnished exterior. with incurving or carinated profiles. Moreover. Often. and fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. and jars with small mouth diameter and a tall neck (Fig. in other instances patterns are interrupted by handles or rudimentary knobs. 3. White-painted sherds of group 2 further occur on Kavak. showing a continuous triple-repeated zig-zag. 6:8. also Alkim et al. Mean wall thickness is 6 mm. 21:3. 6:1-5). thin and straight lines.214 ANATOLIAN STUDIES The vessels are placed upside down in the fire. 5:4. This group has exactly the same characteristics as the painted variant. 13. occasionally creating lozenge patterns. where good parallels come from soundings C and F (Alkim et al. It is applied after burnishing. 13. before firing. The motifs consist of bundles of parallel lines set obliquely to each other. At the end of the firing they are subjected to a short reduction process by extinguishing the fire. It should be pointed out here. probably due to insufficient covering (perhaps intentionally) during the reduction process. but these were probably flat or concave (cf. 49:3.20 The sherds have a mean wall-thickness of 6 mm. 1945:370). with white paint). 8.a red interior. while often the exterior rim is coloured similarly to the interior. as indicated by the Ikiztepe I base-part referred to above. This process creates black exterior colours. 5. inverted rim bowl (Fig. that in contrast to the white-painted pottery of the Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" horizon. crossing each other. pl. Tekek6y and Ikiztepe I. the decoration at Diindartepe and Ikiztepe I is only applied to the exterior and never to the interior of the vessels. 9). Here. No bases were found. The repertoire of shapes seems larger than in group 2. Black burnishedfine pottery like group 2. Most characteristic is the similar colour contrast on the exterior and interior surfaces as well as on the fracture. including open. 4). Several of the bowls are fitted with rudimentary knobs (Fig. Rims are generally plain. a red/black colour separation is always present on the fracture. Diameters fall between 20 cm. 13:6. see sounding C (Alkim et al. 6. (K6kten et al. and are well made. but instead located on the shoulder of the pot. 20:11. 1988. 19:6. and 28 cm. without paint (Figs. Occasionally the decoration seems to cover the whole vessel (Fig. 5:2) is different in motif and structure of decoration. Cf. 17:12. Fig. sloping-sided bowls. of a white. 20:10. In that state the pots cool down. 20:11. while the rim of Fig. 5:1). 1988:pls 13:7. 5:4 and Fig 6:4 resp. 22:8). 19:7-9. 5. The hole-mouth pot (Fig. 4:3). Apart from bowls there are also hole-mouth pots with horizontally or vertically placed handles (Figs. The interior colours to shades of red or brown. 4:2 is pinched. 20Comparable firingprocessesappearto have been used in the Arapi phase. pls. diluted clay-slip (see appendix for a technological analysis). 4 (C). 4:1. 1988. not extending from the rim downwards.See Hauptmannand Miloj6icfor detailson firingmethods(1969:50-1). 51:3 (F)). the paint is hardly visible anymore.a small red exterior rim and a black/redcolour separationon the fracture. and closing off the oxygen flow by covering the vessels (with sand for instance). 3:8). for a concave base from Ikiztepe I (Sounding C. The decoration consists of painted. 18:2-6.) For characteristic parallels at Ikiztepe I. dependent on the amount of oxygen remaining inside the vessel. Slightly deviating in shape from the usual white-painted pottery is a sharply carinated. . Shapes are usually slightly restricted bowls. 4:5.
which occur in all groups.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 215 and group 3.while those on Fig. which can be connected with the group 1 bowls. 7:4. Other plain wares(Fig. 5. occurringin groups 1-4. e. 3. at Diindartepe. They possiblycorrelatewith Ikiztepeware groups. The pottery from the area B on Dtindartepe-Summit assumedto belong is to one single and homogeneous assemblage. unburnished unevenlywalled. furtherto the west. groupsh5 and h6. 1988.g. The carinatedbowl (Fig. The red/blackcolour contrastis also apparenthere. a well-controlledfiring process. black burnishedpottery without paint. crushed-shell additionsas non-plastics. white-painted pottery like Diindartepe group 2. for instance. and was only found in areasC and F. coarsely temperedwith pebble grit and/orchaff. 2. 6:6-10). will appearat Ikiztepeto stem from soundingC. a perfectlysimilar assemblageto the one suggestedfor Late ChalcolithicDiindartepeis presentin soundingsC (on the northwestern slope of IkiztepeI) and F (on the saddle between IkiztepeI and II). white-painteddecorationon a sharplycarinatedbowl typologicallyfitting in group 1 (Fig.as well as in terms of morphology and technology. and none of them from area A. The stratigraphic evidencefrom Ikiztepe.A check on findspotsand potterytypes will clarifymy distinction. Fragments are generally thicker-walled (mean 8 mm. note 18). and The carinatedbowl may be comparedwith IkiztepeI/SoundingC (Alkimet al. and linkingdifferentform and decorationconcepts.. The materialfrom soundingA (top of Ikiztepe I) conforms ratherwell to the "EarlyBronze Age II-III". chaff additionsas non-plastics.22:1. 2. while the yield from C is negligible. These sherdsprobablybelong to different but are lumpedtogetherhere. 1988:195: SoundingA at IkiztepeI (. in regardto generalproportions.The pot-fragments on Fig. "In et 21Alklm al. confirmsthe grouping.).20:4.) white painted[ceramics] were not encountered." Ikiztepe 4. pl. Black burnished medium-coarse pottery (Fig. aiming at creating black exterior and red interiorcolours.for Fig. and the materialfrom area A on the other. cit. but slightlyless fine-tempered finished.This point is not stressedin the publication. The finds from area C and to a lesser extent those from area F (which has some later mix) on the one hand. 7:1-5).e. Similarprofiles to those noted at Diindartepefor these groups. 7:1) can be relatedto the carinated bowls from group 1 here. 7:1).Some sherdshave crushedshell temper. or "CopperAge" finds referredto above (cf. 4. Much similar to . pl.60 km. 4.21The same is true for the Dtindartepegroups 3 and 4. in By contrast. 5.. 7:2-3 are well-finishedand brown burnished. are mutually exclusive in regard to find-location. 3:8).neverturnedup in area A. 19:4. At Ikiztepe.attestedin groups 1 and 4. 11:1). 5 are representing really coarse kitchen ware. 7:5 see op. i.the "CopperAge" materialfrom Ikiztepeis all concentrated soundingA. Black burnished. The single parallelfor Diindartepegroup 1 at Ikiztepecomes from soundingF. a plain ware bowl with invertedrim (Fig.The following technologicaland morphological aspects interrelating the five groups should be taken into account: 1.
Indeed. in motifs. having different sets of material culture items and with different form concepts in regard to ceramics. 1988:153. 23Alkimet al. 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".23More often. or unfilled incisions. and 155. and pls. and more often than not combined with white-filled. 7. I believe that Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F represent two entirely different horizons. grooved decorations on the exteriors. pls. LT]. 11. while the white paint from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" is either applied to the interiors of open. is applied only to the vessel-exteriors. "charred section of a floor". Notwithstanding the similarities in technique and. 3 resp. while the motifs also at first glance show some resemblance (cf. 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. as was already assumed. 1988. pls. mentioning burnt remains more than 1 m. 15.e. 22Alkimet al.e. and "carbonized wooden beams"). in fact on at least two different occasions. 6. 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. 1988:196). the white-painted one. viz. 10. lumping them under the label "Early Bronze I-II" (1985:240). 31:1. I seem to continue this tradition [i. 25:4. 2. "(. 35:27.. Alkim on the other hand. 27:1. see under square D 3/III 14). the technique used is very similar (see appendix). 25:5. 5. thick. 30:7. like its Diindartepe counterpart. Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" can be put in the same time horizon as Karanovo IV (cf. The Ikiztepe I/Sounding C white paint. Ikiztepe I is Late Chalcolithic.22or else to the exteriors of carinated pots with offset necks. The evidence collected so far makes it clear that Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and Ikiztepe I are chronologically separable. 24:5. while actually the two assemblages are highly distinctive. 9. Also the deposit in sounding F had been heavily burnt. 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 findspot (Ikiztepe II and I) and that both co-occur with a different vessel-repertoire. such pots are decorated with white-filled grooves. so it is likely that they may belong to a later period. 10. 26:3." (Alkim et al. 27:6.216 ANATOLIAN STUDIES Like the deposit in the Duindartepe-Summit area. not even in chronological succession. superficially. on the basis of the white paint. 26:1. idem. location of the decoration and the pot-shapes associated with this decoration are structurally different. does separate sounding C from the sounding on Ikiztepe II/"EBA I". This mixing of finds is due to the misleading occurrence of white-painted decoration in both assemblages. the upper portions of Ikiztepe I/Sounding C had been heavily burnt (see Alkim et al. once during the "Early Hittite" phase (see Alkim et al. hemispherical bowls. However.. notes 9 and 10). namely to EB II. 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. LT] of EB I [i. Ikiztepe II/'EBA I'. 14. Contrary to the excavators' views. 1988:182-3. but opts for a developing tradition. 154. the parallel or crossing line bundles of Diindartepe with those from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I"). 1988:198.) the potsherds with white-painted decorations from Sounding C at Ikiztepe . referring to sherds completely deformed by the conflagration.
The metal finds from Diindartepe-Summit (see K6kten et al. pls. 85:c506. 1945:375. 49:3.. Several female figurines in baked clay. 101:210 for good photographs) can be related to the typical. For more or less similarly carinated. = Alkim et al. LXVI:1-3) have excellent parallels in the Karanovo VI horizon (see Todorova 1978. I now have to furnish further corroborative evidence for the Late Chalcolithic date of the assemblages in question. 5. grooved figurines from the Cucuteni A phase. etc. 22. grooved bowls of Dtindartepe group 1 have conceptual parallels in the Karanovo VI period.Lichardusand Lichardus-Itten al. conical vessel walls. Ali?ar 14-12M is contemporary with the "later Chalcolithic" part in the Alaca Hoyiik sequence. while the careful.24The parallels between Ikiztepe I/Soundings F and C have already been stressed. and isolating them from the much earlier Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (= Karanovo IV) horizon. White encrustation over incised/grooved decorated zones was used from the Marica/Karanovo V period (Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten et al. Connected with this correlation are two head fragments with similar piercings. of undeniably Karanovo VI/Gumelnitsa type with pierced ears.25 4. Lichardus . 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. 39. 10. or Todorova 1978. 1985:267). becoming more frequent in the later levels. pl. 9. Todorova 1978. 7:3-5. 225 (with further Balkan references). III. and more particularly. 1975. and should fall. 1975. The general concept of straight. 100). XII:6. 23. e1940). pl. This form concept is.). 99. 1985:372. LXVI:6. 7. for instance. in the Varna cemetery (Ivanov 1988. 6. 9:20) till the end. 1988:216-18. 3. 6) onwards till the end. however. Soundings C.). pl. as attested also at Drama (Fol et al. The find of a steatopygous figurine in baked clay from DtindartepeSummit (K6kten et al. while bowls with inverted rims occur from level IV (Todorova et al. Never. pl. As has been stated (note 8). pl. fig. 49:1. pl. 33:10). inverted-rim bowls like those at Diindartepe see RadunCeva 1976. XI:5. do these Karanovo VI assemblages show the upturned handles so typical for Diindartepe. et 25See fig. IV). pl.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 217 External dating of Ikiztepe I. pl. present at Goljamo DelCevo from level II onwards (Todorova et al. angularity and small bases is also evident from the Karanovo VI material from Drama (Bulgaria). At the same site. mention is made of a white or yellow "Kalkmasse" used for encrustation during et 24Seefor a quick reference. I note several points: 1. pls.pl.' 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. 1988. pls. 1945. were found in sounding F on Ikiztepe I (see Alkim et al. pl. but again. 2. 3 and 6 resp.g. The carinated. coming from Alisar Levels 14M and 12M (Von der Osten 1937:78 and Fig. Lichardus 1991. 1989. 6. additional marking of the carination and the rims from Karanovo VI does not recur in Diindartepe. exact parallels cannot be found. in my opinion. however. and having separated the two assemblages from the "Copper Age/Early Bronze Age II-III" material on both sites. 37:2. 56:1. 10). within the same time-span as Dtindartepe-Summit and Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F (see also further below). and Lichardus-Itten al. At Vinica the same form concept is also noted from the earliest level (RadunCeva 1976. etc. e. The small bases and the conical. 1985:379and fig.
a few points may be adduced to pull Central Anatolia within the sphere of the Karanovo VI culture. 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. like graphite-painted decoration. deviate from the rest of the assemblage in their shape. Be that as it may. for instance. the evidencefrom Mersincan be adduced. of course. for that matter. These are. does not occur in Central Anatolia. large lids and all the other decorative techniques. However. made with the local techniques in regard to tempering and firing. however. Lichardus. casts doubt on the four-phase periodization put forward by Todorova. respectively). 1969:68). The white-painted pottery from the Black Sea. is stratigraphically or time. any example of a "classic" Karanovo VI assemblage. 63:3. we have. be dated to the secondhalf of the fourthmillennium.27The graphite slip creates a shimmering black surface and is a rather 26As a final argument a date late in the fourthmillennium for B. inverted rims and encrustation. and perhaps by some form concepts and one particular decoration technique (conical body-wall. both regions had developed along different lines. the figurines. the characteristic "fruit-stands" from Alaca and Ali?ar do not occur at the Black Sea littoral. white paintedsherdsoccur in Level XIIA. a 27Probably clay-slipwith graphitemixedin it.Here. For the other pottery groups on Diindartepe (or. extravagantly angled vessels.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. Moreover. of a different conception. stored in the Ankara ArchaeologicalMuseum. .C. which has flint-scraped Coba-bowlsin its assemblage. Eggertand Liith 1987). fig. 1989:92-4). in any case. there are the two Karanovo VI/Gumelnitsa figurine fragments from Ali?ar already referred to..XIIA follows LevelXIIB in ever. All the characteristic pottery from Karanovo VI. which would perhaps place it near the Diindartepe decoration (Fol et al. The contact-zone function of Northern Anatolia was apparently weak at this stage. only to become strong again during the third millennium B. The carinated bowls at Diindartepe. though a few white-painted sherds were found in Level 14M from Ali?ar (Von der Osten 1937:57.These bowls were very wide-spread in Southeast Turkey and Northern Syria and can be dated around 3600/3500B. proposing instead a two-phase system for Karanovo VI (Fol et al. on Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F) correspondences to the Karanovo VI assemblages on the Balkans are lacking. on the basis of evidence from Drama. and secondly. I noted these sherdswhen reviewing some of the Ali?ar pottery.C.C. the presence at Ali?ar 14-12M of graphite-slipped sherds. howinsecure(cf. At this point. They are unpublished. as is evidenced by the metal finds. which. It is more reasonable to see the Turkish sites as of basically local development. while in close contact with the Karanovo VI communities. as already mentioned. it should be noted that the internal development of the Karanovo VI period is far from secure. after an interval of nearly a thousand years. neither at Diindartepe nor at Ikiztepe. are totally absent in the Black Sea littoral. First.it is interesting to observe that. 4). however.218 ANATOLIAN STUDIES the Karanovo VI phase.C. Recently. MersinXIIA should then.
(contra Renfrew 1987:265). but changesin the ceramics being seeminglyabsent. in press.C. and pl. there are strong parallels between the North and (c) Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age/Copper Age pottery and that from Cernavoda III-II. however. 4:9. or similar ones called "Early Bronze II/III" at the Black Sea sites and the inland settlementsare all highly different in the general composition of the vessel repertoire. I from Oltenita-Renie (CernavodaI).C. applied all over the interior of open bowl shapes. however. There seems indeed to have been a profound and widespreadshift in the archaeologicalrecord at the transitionfrom the fourth to the third millennium B. Conclusions What should be stressedabout the delineationof severalLate Chalcolithic from pottery assemblagesin North and CentralAnatolia is their distinctiveness almost all the pottery following them in the third millenniumB. from the Varnacemetery).not necessarilyhave been a large gap betweenthe Late Chalcolithicperiod as definedhere. The applicationof graphiteas a surface treatmentmay link Ali?ar up with the Karanovo VI phase.C. one may opt for a long and slow developmentof the traditionat this site. and through pottery of Central Anatolian type in the Late Uruk influenced level VIA at Arslantepe(see Ozdogan 1991.pl. 10. than commonly accepted.it is interestingto note that Makkay. some indicationsthat at least part of Anatolia's Early BronzeAge/Copper Age assemblagescan be dated severalcenturiesearlierin the third millennium B. We have. decoration techniquesand technologicalaspects.C. in their treatment of the Cernavodaevidence emphasizedthe close links existing between CernavodaI and III (1968:47).The assemblage called "Copper Age" at Alaca Hoyiik. In order to accept this proposition it would be necessaryto reconsiderthe dating and successionof the materialculturesin the thirdmillenniumB. Without going into details. when graphite was widely used for decorating ceramics.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 219 common surface treatment there. this shift is far from clear. There should. The dating of Ali?ar14-12M and of the later Chalcolithicof Alaca Hoyiik to the Late Chalcolithicperiod has recentlybeen underlined throughthe finding in of Central Anatolian "fruit-stands" a solid Late Uruk context at Tepecik. in these parts of Turkey.bone idols (Lichardus1991:172.it is possible to place Varna and the last stage of the Karanovo VI phase close to the beginningof the Anatolian Early BronzeAge. and (d) Morintz and Roman. In fact.seen that at Ikiztepeas well as at Diindartepethe Early Bronze Age settlementswere located in new areas of the mounds. 4:8. On basis of these considerations. with further references). and the Early BronzeAge/CopperAge assemblagesfrom North and CentralAnatolia.Thereare. date for late KaranovoVI 28Inthis respect.the shapes used. and idem. one chain of evidence for updating the Early BronzeAge in Anatolia. the materialculture from this transitionperiod is not known so far.28 Acceptinga late fourth milenniumB. such as temperingand firing methods. consists of the followingpoints: (a) The "CopperAge" deposit at Alaca Hoytik being almost 5 metresthick.However.stresses in the strong resemblances severalgold objects from Varna and the "royal graves"at . in fact. Varna and CernavodaI in their uses of T-shaped. as already referredto.C. (b) Lichardus recentlypointed out the close pottery-making similarities existing between his evolved Karanovo VI phase.in variouswritings.
in view of the geographical distance and the lack of similar material in Western Anatolia.C. He. 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. 6. etc.e. Remarkable. 1985). the earlier Chalcolithic material from Alaca Hoyiik and Biiyiik Giilliicek towards the end of the fifth millennium B. mostly of a local nature. in fact. make it possible to insert them in a Karanovo VI network of long distance contact. as well as Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F all have Late Chalcolithic assemblages. II-III. and its first half in particular. involving seafaring along the coasts of the Black Sea. The later phases are all contemporary. Emporio X-VIII. contemporary with Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic and the later part of the Karanovo VI period. however. It is not impossible that these contacts went by sea. the islands in the Eastern Aegean.C. 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. Some form concepts as well as a decorative technique for a certain type of pottery vessel. 2. 3. wide-reaching economic and cultural entities: the Karanovo VI-Varna complex and the Mesopotamian Uruk complex. in Early Bronze Age I. Contrary to common opinion. Diindartepe. the earlier and later Chalcolithic from Alaca Hiyiik. is still hardly known.. between North and Central Anatolia. The fourth millennium in Anatolia. I may sum up the main points of my analysis of the Diindartepe material as follows: 1. . we can date Ikiztepe II/"EBA I". contemporary with the Karanovo IV period. Bulgaria and the region around Anza. Intensity of contact would have differed for each community. 5. thus relating different communities. but probably related parts in these contacts. are the strong correspondences between Samos Tigani II-III and Biiyiik Gilliicek. The implications of this conceived network are that we have to view the Late Chalcolithic period as a period of international contacts. as well as contemporary with Samos Tigani (I).C. it seems that the different communities played different. The inland sites in Central Anatolia were in one way or another connected with the North Coast of Turkey. except for the recent discoveries at Gelveri-Giizelyurt and the surveys in Central Anatolia. and between Samos Tigani III and IV. 4. together with the presence of some figurines and copper tools from these sites. but also with the Uruk colonies to the South. Northern Greece (Thrace and Macedonia). depending on local interests and potentials. Although we are hampered by scanty evidence. Concluding. Viewing both systems as more Alaca Hoyik. Inbetween these areas the degree of contact was variable. They hint at ongoing contacts with the Balkans. and are to be dated towards the end of the fourth millennium B. i. (see chronological table). There exist large gaps in the sequence of Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and I. via Arslantepe and Tepecik. The North Anatolian sites possibly served as anchorages in the transport of the raw materials. There must have been strong contacts during the end of the fifth millennium B.220 ANATOLIAN STUDIES and Varna as fixed. Central Anatolia has probably been part of this network. impliesonly a small gap for the phases in question(Makkay 1976. as evidenced by some figurine fragments from Ali?ar and the use of graphite in pottery manufacture on the same site. Tekekoy and Kavak.
implyingnear congruence of both cultural sets. remainsto be investigatedin what way they may have confrontedeach other.The suggestedchronothey rather logical blocks do not so much representsolid and strictboundaries. H. This table is restrictedto the issues and sites directly bearing on our subject. in particularin regardto the metal objects.location and structureof decoration. 8. The natureof the correspondent variables. (1957:218).to my knowledgeneverconsidered. Although the exact cultural and chronologicallines between Varna and Alaca Hoyiik have still been hardlyconsidered.Their presence at Ikiztepe.etc. BronzeAge II/III"date for these materialsby the literature. are strongly related to the Romanian Cernavodaassemblages. Ahlatibel.such as temper. strongparallelstwo terracotta . Much of the AnatolianEarly BronzeAge.vessel-shapeand repertoire.29 7. B. 139) showing clear Karanovo VI/Gumelnitainfluences (cf.many links betweenAlaca have been singled out and Varna. such as location of the graves at the site.mentionedin point 7. occurrence 29In in the Karanovo VI period of wheelmade bowls may perhaps be related to potterytechnology. One consequence of this updating would be an early date for at least of some30 the "royaltombs"at Alaca H6yiik. the of such a conceptionof the "history" the late fourthmillennium. 1 and 2).make a common origin for the Cernavoda and the North and CentralAnatolianEarly BronzeAge/CopperAge communitiesplausible. table Chronological The proposals and hypothesesdiscussed above may be summarizedin a chronologicalscheme. is 310neespeciallystrongconnection. 68)). Tekek6y and Kavak. It should.31 severalworkersin the field. as suggestedby the "Early the thirdmillennium. formedby two copper figurinesfrom Alaca Hoyiik Tomb H (Ko?ay 1951:157(Al. Indeed. arrangementof the accompanyingobjects.that a chronologicalsequencein the order of sites includedin the table is not suggested.. Ozgui. for particularly headsfrom EasternBulgaria(Lichardus 1988:112. suggests an Duindartepe. Dates are uncalibrated. ongoing contact-zonefunction of the Turkish Black Sea littoral for the Early BronzeAge. Etiyoku?u. whereI would like to follow T. The Anatolian pottery assemblages. however. erationsat the most for all of the tombs at Alaca Hoyuk. body position. as well as in Central Anatolia.It should be stressed. burial type. 138.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 221 it or less contemporary.be stressedthat other variby ables in both sites' sets. may be dated early in and not in the second half of it.I view an early third millenniumdate for the Alaca tombs as much more plausiblethan the later date. all differ strongly. b. as represented the pottery by assemblagesat Alaca Hoyiik. N. pl. together with the nearly complete break of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age material with the preceding Late Chalcolithic assemblages. Mesopotamian who reckonstwo gen30If not all. pls. opting further for a slight ancestryof the Varnacemetery. time framefor settlementphaseswith similarelementsof mateindicatea global rial culture.
C. 4). fig. Demircihtiyiik-Yazir HoyikKonya Plain. white paint was already popular in the last part of the fifth millennium B. at Demircihiiyiik (Ware F) (Seeher 1987. Yazir Hyuik 3500 B. on the North Anatolian sites of Ikiztepe. on the Konya Plain (Mellaart 1963. 4100 B.C. decoration of dark-coloured pottery with a thin. and Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic-Samos Tigani IV. 3600 B.C. F Alaca 'later Chalcolithic' Ali?ar14-12M LCh. the decoration returns vigorously in the later part of the fourth millennium B. 29) and Yazir Hoytik (Temizer 1960. as attested by the evidence from Central (Polatll. Central Anatolia. With a large. 7). Diindartepe and Tekekoy. I will not elaborate on this distinction now. each with different rules concerning pottery shapes associated with the decoration. APPENDIX About white paint In Turkey. The use of white paint in the late fourth millennium in Anatolia leads me to distinguish four stylistic variants.C. Bilytik Gillucek Samos Tigani II-III Karanovo IV Alaca "earlier Chalcolithic" IkiztepeII/"EBAI" Toptepe EmporiorX-VIII Ayio Gala. 28.222 ANATOLIAN STUDIES ANATOLIA AEGEAN Samos Tigani IV BALKANS Varna 3000 B. in Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic. Gelveri EmporioVII-VI later KaranovoVI CucuteniA-B ParadimiIV Vin6aD Dikili Ta IIB SitagroiIIIB-C Precucuteni Ali?ar19-15M KaranovoV/Marica Dikili Ta? IIA SitagroiIIIA Slatino 4000 B.C. in North and Central Anatolia and at contemporary sites on the Eastern Aegean islands. 63:3. fig. Ilipinar IV Diundartepe-Summit IkiztepeI/C. These groups are the Northern Anatolian region. uppercave Kalythies Saliagos3 SitagroiI(-II) Dikili Ta? I ParadimiI-III Dimini-Arapi Anza IV Vin6a B2-C2 4300 B. The decoration is still very wide-spread in the first quarter of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia. Beycesultan Ware F Demircihiiyuk. motifs used and structure and location of the motifs. and again also in the Aegean (Emporio VII-VI and Samos Tigani IV). in Central Anatolia at Ali?ar level 14M (Von der Osten 1937:57. . 4).C. unexplained gap in the fourth millennium.C. fig. pls.C.
Die aufgetragene Bemalunghat die Politurangegriffen (auch Feuchtigkeitgreift eine ungebranntePolitur an!). and ThermiB)..Troy I.. and beginningof the third millenniumB. had an effect on the surfacebelow it also.It is strikingthat on almost all pieces the white paint is not visible. creating analogouseffects. Karaoglan and Maltepe) and Western Anatolian sites (Yortan.Saliagos "Painting carried out after the burnishing of the pot. These lines seem to me to be tracesof paint which has blistered and come off. in no way of the availableliteratureconcerningthe techniqueof whiteexhaustive. "Thepaint is eitherthin and burnishedwith the surfaceor crustedon after burnishing." Ware F (Seeher1987:67). For this reason the surface has a bumpy appearance. 1988:174).. Diese Farbe erscheint Oft heute milchichgrau.black inner surfacesshow lozenge ornamentations in grayishlines. after the "Even if white paint has been used. these decorations were administered.Level 14M "In wenigen Fallen sind die Reste der eigentlichenMalfarbeerhalten. area under utilizationand the passageof time so that only an unburnished vessels were burnished." (Alkim et al. It was applied after burnishing." (Renfrewand Evans 1976:41)." Konya Plain surveymaterial (Mellaart1963:201).but before firing. it has disappeared because of "The highly burnished. .Ali?ar. the paint itself of Seeher 1987:69-71for an exhaustivesurveyof the occurrences white paint 32See in Anatolia.BeycesultanLate Chalcolithic1 "The white paint is invariablymatt and often thick.C..Ahlatllbel. a quick.survey painted decorationrelevantto our context suggeststhat since its occurrenceat the end of the fifth millenniummore or less similartechniqueshave been used until the end of the fourth.." (Von der Osten 1937:57)..Demircihiiyiik..KusuraA." (Mellaartand Lloyd 1962:81).The white paint is often faded and has sometimes worn off. Poliochni. partiallyor wholly destroyingthe 'mechanical slip' producedby the burnishingprocess.A few SoutheastEuropeanparallelshave been included.. Asarclk Htiytik. ist die Art der Bemalung jedoch nur am Fehlen der Politurzu erkennen. it may be that a carboniferous paint was used which lost its color throughaccidentalheating...die demnachrelativdick aufgetragen gewesensein muB.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 223 Etiyoku?u.32 As a preliminary some experiments to with white paint. und so sind die Mallinien nach der Auflbsung der Farbe im Boden nur noch an der zerst6rtenPoliturzu erkennen. Ikiztepe I pottery the paint remained.The small particlespresent in the paste have contractedin the processof burnishingand absorbedwaterwhen a decoration with wet brush was applied.
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 darker surface. (a) that the white paint is applied after burnishing of the vessel. von einer gewissen Entfernung betrachtet. In beiden Fallen verleiht es.. Alklm et al.B. having at his disposal for reference the same Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" sherds used earlier (cf. in den bemalten Zonen. oft kaum noch erkennbarer Farbe angebracht. unversehrt erhalten blieb. citation above). From a first observation it could be concluded that the pottery [i. 'verbrannt' war. da sie sonst schwarz umgefarbt worden ware. weiBliche Farbe ist ziemlich dick aufgetragen (. 1988:174 and n. Arapi "Bemalung vor dem Brand.] 33Thesame instituteearlierstudiedthe white paint on some sherdsfrom IkiztepeII." (Kamil 1982:17). 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.." (Roman 1971:69) Baile Herculane II "Die Linienmuster sind auf dunkler oder-seltener roter Gefal3oberflache mit weiBer. da der Uberzug an den mit dem Pinsel bertihrten Stellen einfach 'verbrannt' war.. cf.)..224 ANATOLIAN STUDIES "(. Emporio X-VI ( ...e. Loe Jacobs from the Institute of Pottery Technology at Leiden University did some research on the subject. polished surface. the sherds in question were brown-black throughout. 98.) die Malmasse [besteht] aus weiBer Erdfarbe. Die [weiBe] Malfarbe mu3 einen hohen Sauregrad enthalten haben. almost all the instances show.) matte. 38).." (Orthmann 1966:26).) nach einer vorangehenden starken Polierung. and (c) that the white paint had occasionally affected the burnish. . We pursuedthe analysisa bit further.. (. . . Yortan pottery Summarising.." (Hauptmann and MilojCic 1969:25 and n... . Die Bemalung ist abgefallen und die bemalten Zonen weisen jetzt eine braune Schattierung auf.. .. da der Uberzug.. "(. Auch diese Bemalung hat einen 'sauerlichen' Charakter.33His report follows: Some technical notes on white-painteddecoration Some preliminary research was done on the subject concerning the way dull light-coloured lines were applied over a dark.) encrusted .. wo er von schwarzer Farbe ist... some Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" white-painted sherds] was fired under neutral to reducing conditions [N. (b) that the white paint is hardly visible anymore (attributed to the workings of time and soil). die erst nach dem Brand auf die Gefal3oberflache aufgemalt wurde.. The experiments were carried out using a commercial clay D 3004. wahrend er in den unbemalten Zonen." (Hood 1981:225). den Eindruck von Graphit. applied after the burnishing and firing. For the white linear decorations a white commercial clay D 4025 was used. . Yortan pottery ".
This is because the clay slip no longer sticks.Colour:E and I brown-black. When the clay slip is applied in a less diluted condition. I low burnished.I mediumsmoothed. The outer surfacewas polished with a well roundedpebble. Moreoverat this stage the surfaceis alreadyslightly soaking. which gives a red firing colour under oxidizing conditions.Grooves are burnished-in.D 24 cm. to have sunk somewhatinto the shiny background. After firing. In this case there is some differencein level with the underground. I = interior. the colour contrast was.I roughlysmoothed.Mediumcoarse sand.becausemost gloss is obtainedin a quick way then. no contour fading is caused by the polishing. I roughly burnished. When doing so. Colour:E medium-coarse and I darkbrown.Fine-mediumsand. 65:16/16.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 225 The experimentwas carriedout as follows: a small pot was kneadedfrom clay D 3004. crumblyline. Medium 1: no label. sand. the result is a somewhat dry. I brown-black. E medium burblack core. E medium burnished. 2: DiindartepeOT/b 838 = Orthmann1963. 1945. E low burnished. Mediumcoarse sand. This is the best moment for polishing. when the clay was in a state of having lost all its plasticity.When the paintingis done with a very liquid clay slip. Unpublished.Colour:orangethroughoutdue to secondaryfiring. The moisturefrom the dilutedclay slip is directlysoaked into the surThe slip does not flow face. This gives the freshlyappliedline a taut appearance. 4: Tekekoy TK 108. This is necessary in orderto be able to apply firm and quicklydrawnlines with a stronglydiluted clay slip.I roughlysmoothed. 3: no label. I darkbrown-black. clay. however. 68:18/06. .pl.D 19 cm. as might be the case when painting is done on a soft or leatherhard out then. pl. Carinated bowls with invertedrim and incised or grooved decoration [Drawings scale 1:2. Unpublished. 5: Diindartepe OT/b 552.as might occur when polishingis surface.The paintedlines on the Chalcolithicsherdsfrom done on a leatherhard Ikiztepeare. pl. but below carinationsmoothed only.D 19 cm. CATALOGUEOF ILLUSTRATEDPOTTERY name for Diindartepe. sherds are stored in the Samsum all OT/b ArchaeologicalMuseum] Fig. At this point it is still possibleto polish the lines. but = Kbkten et al. pl. nished. 13 cm. LXV:5 (Duindartepe). while surface shows also chaff-facing. 205 = Orthmann 1963. D Colour:E black. E = exterior. The contrast betweenthe polished surfaceand the dull lines was obtained because the painting was carriedout with diluted white clay slip over the polished surface. Another advantageof this way of working is that in spite of the freshly applied lines the object can still be handled. moreover. there is no noticeabledifferencein The dull lines in fact seem level betweenthe paintedlines and the underground.which is an optical illusion.E mediumburnished.enhanced by a light to dark contrast of dull gray lines on a shining black surface. LXIV:I (Diindartepe). = Oksiiriiktepe. D 20 cm. Medium sand. E rim mediumburunevenlywalled. Two holes piercedthrough shoulder opposite handle. nished. Colour:E black.but was not yet completelydry. 1945. All pottery is handmade.brown fracture. = Area B on Diindartepe-Summit. 2. but = Kkten et al. some chaff added. which is an alternative OT D = diameter.not polished.Mediumsand and crushedshell. 6: Kavak (Kaledorugu)A.
due to secondaryfiring.Colour: E orange. I red. yellowish-white 2: DiindartepeOT/b 2296. but worn off. I and fracture all orange.same colour separationon fracture. Colour:E orange. orange. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration.D base 8 cm. Deeply incised. E medium burnished.Mediumsand and mediumcrushed shell.I low burnished.I low burnished. 3:4. I orange. Unpublished.Fine sand.Unpublished. Black burnished. Unpublished. E highly burnished. Unpublished. 6: Dtindartepe OT/b 660. burnished. The white paint is very faintly preserved. again Fig. Traces of yellowish-whitepaste or wash over groovedzone on shoulder.Medium sand and medium-coarse crushed shell.fine pottery with white-painteddecoration .Medium sand and finely crushed shell. Medium-coarsesand. Unpublished. Colour: E and I orange. I mediumburnished. Tracesof yellowish-white paste or wash in and over decoratedzone. 3: DiindartepeOT/b 466. orange.I lightly smoothed. crackedat places.Colour:E black. E low burnished. E medium smoothed.Mediumsand and medium-coarsecrushed shell.Fine sand. E highly burnished.while decoratedzones are unburnishedand have faint traces of yellowish-whitepaste or wash over them. I slightly smoothed. Black burnished. 4: Tekekoy TK 114.same colour separationon fracture. E mediumburnished. possibly Diindartepe. Colour: E. Yellowish-white paste or wash in and over decoratedzone.Below carinationvessel. due to secondaryfiring.fine pottery with white-painteddecoration 1: DiindartepeOT/b 685. LXIII:7. One rudimentary knob below rim. D 23 cm.D 22 cm. Unpublished. Colour: E black. Colour: E and I and fractureorange. same colour separationon fracture. same colour separationon fracture. E medium burnished.Colour: E black.Fine-mediumsand and chaff.D 21 cm. due to secondaryfiring. 3: DiindartepeOT/b 1422. Colour: E. I red-brown. I lightly smoothed. Unpublished. Colour:E black. making the sherd dinky hard. fracture red. 3:1-7. Tracesof encrustedpaste or wash in and over groovedzones. 4. Unpublished.Colour:E black. 8: no label. Colour: E I orange-red.I smoothed only.I roughly smoothed. 8.D base 8 cm.White paint above carination. I grey-brown. 2: DiindartepeOT/b 842. Piece is overfired.due to secondaryfiring. E burnished.I medium smoothed.Medium-coarse sand and pebble grit inclusions.Medium-coarse sand and crushedshell Fig. E medium smoothed. all due to secondaryfiring. all due to secondaryfiring making the sherd also dinky hard (stone ware aspect). 3:2 (no join). pl. 4: DiindartepeOT/b 681. 1945.Mediumsand and mediumcrushed E medium burnished.fractureorangetoo.D not measurable. Unpublished. I red-brown.E medium-highburnished. Two holes piercedthroughwall below carination at both sides of handle. Piece to be located near base. I and fractureall shell. Unpublished.Mediumsand and medium-coarse crushed shell.probablysecondarily.I not burnished. I dark brown. 7: DiindartepeOT/b 662 = Kokten et al. E zone without decorationis mediumburnished. I medium smoothed. I medium smoothed. D 27 cm. 1: Diindartepe OT/b 1398.while unclearor nonexistenton right half. Cf. Fig.Shallowgrooves.I black. Very probablyfrom same bowl as Fig.226 ANATOLIAN STUDIES left while rest of E rim is deliberately without burnish. 5: DiindartepeOT/b 647.same colour separationon fracture. Unpublished.
Black burnished. Colour:E black. Fragment possibly belonging to bowl like Fig. black Fig. OT/b 2396. 4:1.D 22 cm.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 227 inclusions.but worn.D 10 cm. pl. I low burnished.D 23 cm.E highly burnished. withoutpaint burnished. Colour: E black.Mediumsand.same colour separationon fracture. unevenlywalled.fine pottery without paint. Two rudiknobs on widest diameter. mentary 5: DiindartepeUT/b 616.I mediumburnished.I roughlysmoothed. VI:5. I brown. black burnished.D 26 cm.Mediumsand and pebblegrit.D 14 cm. Medium sand.Unpublished.I mediumsmoothed. I brown.same colour separationon fracture. 65:16/14.E highlyburnished(very smooth-no individualstrokesvisible).Colour: E black.D 21 cm. E highly burnished.slightlyworn. medium-coarsepottery 1: DiindartepeOT/b 669.D 20 cm. same colour separationon fractureD 17 cm.I rim mediumburnished. Unpublished. same colour separaknobs juxtaposedhorizontallybelow rim.Fine-mediumsand and chaff./19 = Orthmann1963. D 25 cm. I brown. 4: DiindartepeOT/b 1258. I red-brown. 2: DiindartepeOT/2 1137. E has chaff-faced aspect. same colour separation on fracture.Fine-mediumsand and chaff. fine pottery 1: DiindartepeOT/b 1757= Ozgiiu 1948.I evenly smoothed only. 7: DiindartepeOT/b 524. Colour: E black. I ochre brown. same colour separation on fracture. Fine-medium sand and chaff.4-5.White paint very vaguely visible. Colour: E black. Unpublished.D 13 cm.I rim medium burnished. D tion on fracture.same colour separationon fracture. same colour separationon fracture.Colour:E black. E mediumburnished.D 13 cm.Mediumsand and pebble grit and chaff.I roughly smoothed. 6: DiindartepeOT/b 932. 5: DtindartepeOT/b 411.I wall uneven. E highly burnished.I smoothed. 6:1-5.rest mediumsmoothedonly.I medium smoothed. 5:1-3. Unpublished. Unpublished.I red-brown.On I rim vague traces of a red wash. E highly burnished. 4: Diindartepe OT/b 438 = Orthmann 1963. I low burnished. pl. 5: Diindartepe OT/b 606. E highly burnished.I low burnished. Unpublished. E rim (down till arrow)and I red-brown.Colour:E black.Colour:E black.E highly burnished (slightly worn). 3: DiindartepeOT/b 1226.Medium-coarse sand and chaff. I brown.Medium sand and pebble grit. I brown.I haphazardlyburnishedonly. E medium burnished. Colour:E black. pl. Unpublished. E rim (down till arrow) and I red-brown.D 12 cm. 6-10. Unpublished.same colour separationon fracture. 65:16/05. rest evenly smoothed. I mediumsmoothed. . same colour separation on fracture. E mediumburnished.Fine sand. Medium-coarse sand. E medium burnished.Two rudimentary 25 cm.Medium-coarse sand. Black burnished. fine pottery with white-painteddecoration. Fig. I greybrown. same colour separationon fracture. Colour: E black. Colour: E black I with redbrownrim (down till arrow). same colour separationon fracture.E highlyburnished. I orange. E highly burnished.Fine sand. Colour:E black. I red-brown. I brown. 3: Dindartepe OT/b a. E medium burnished. Unpublished.same colour separationon fracture. Unpublished.Colour:E black. and 2: Dtindartepe fine chaff. Colour:E black.
Ankara:TurkTarihKurumu.J. Rim very uneven. Medium-coarse sand. I grey-brown. Fine-medium sand. Bilgi 1988 IkiztepeI. Medium sand. Fig. E highly burnished. H. E medium burnished. D 21 cm. Sakellariou 1981 Paradimi. same colour separation on fracture. 5: no label. Unpublished. ciety. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand. E highly burnished. and C. D 19 cm. D base 13 cm. Colour: E black. fracture grit black. 2: Dtindartepe OT/b 641. fracture black. I roughly smoothed. I evenly smoothed. rest medium smoothed only.Studiesin chronology. Unpublished. D 19 cm. could be Dtindartepe. Unpublished."Orientalia N. fracture brown. I rim medium burnished. Unpublished. Evans. ology . Cambel. Liith 1987 "Mersin und die absolute Chronologie des europaischen Neolithikums. Unpublished. I orange. 7. Colour: E black. Colour: E and I ochre brown.M. 3: Diindartepe OT/b 1443. but possibly Diindartepe. I evenly smoothed. Unpublished. 6: Diindartepe OT/b 1413. medium burnished. Unpublished. and F. Medium sand. Colour: E black. D 8 cm. I roughly smoothed. U. Colour: E and I grey-brown. Colour: E black. Very neatly and thinly incised. Colour: E black.H. D base 8 cm. Medium-coarse sand. Medium sand. Medium sand and chaff. black throughout. could be Diindartepe. chaff and coarse grit inclusions. 7: no label. I low burnished. E medium burnished. Medium-coarse sand and chaff. I brown. Unpublished. same colour separation on fracture. fracture grey. medium burnished. economyand soSeries 117. Unpublished. 4: Dtindartepe OT/2 892. same colour separation on fracture. I red-brown. Colour: E black. same colour separation on fracture. at London:The BritishSchool of Archaeat Athens. D 17 cm. 16:263-270. Alkim and 0. E medium burnished. I evenly smoothed. Colour: E and I ochre brown. and A.J.S. 9: Diindartepe OT/b 1803. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alkim. Mainz am Rhein:Phillipvon Zabern.G. Coarse ware/miscellaneous 1: Diindartepe OT/2 1620. E and I low burnished. 1981 The Vincacultureof South-EastEurope. E medium burnished (slightly worn). Fine sand.. same colour separation on fracture. D 29 cm. 8: no label. Renfrew 1968 Excavations Saliagosnear Antiparos. 10: Diindartepe OT/b 69. E and I low burnished." Germania 65:17-28. Bakalakis. I grey-brown. Chapman. pebble grit and chaff. B. pebble and chaff. E low burnished.228 ANATOLIAN STUDIES 8: Diindartepe OT/b 1467. I brown-black. 1947 "Archaologischer BerichttiberAnatolien. Medium sand and pebble grit. Unpublished. black throughout. D 28 cm. Oxford:BAR International Eggert.
5 Diindartepe.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 229 / 1 2 5 Fig. 4 Tekekoy. (1:2). Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration: 1-3. 2. . 6 Kavak.
Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration: 1-7 Dtindartepe. . 8 whitepainted decoration (possibly Diindartepe). (1:2).230 ANATOLIAN STUDIES 1 2 4 3 5 5 98 4/- 6i '_ ' K 8 Fig. 3.
(1:2). 5 Diindartepe. 4. . Black burnished.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 231 I-/ 1 I 3 5 Fig. fine pottery with white-painted decoration: 1-3. 4 Tekek6y.
Black burnished. . fine pottery with white-painted decoration: 1-3. 5. (1:2). black burnished. fine pottery without paint: 4.232 ANATOLIAN STUDIES 2 4 f Fig. All from Diindartepe. 5.
6. .? . fine pottery without paint: 1-5. Black burnished. ?''6.:: Ir' !?? . medium-coarse pottery without paint: 6-10. All from Dundartepe. (1:2).:? :: : :: 10 Fig.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 233 2 3 4 5 7 1 i6 8 :. black burnished.
(1:2). possiblyDiindartepe. 7..234 ANATOLIAN STUDIES Z. Coarseware/miscellaneous: Diindartepe. 7 Caeaeieaos1 7 \\~ 4~8 1-4 5-8 Fig. .J 2 \_ 3 uate5 psiy26 Fig.
A. Kamil. KrastevIliev 1989 "Berichttiber die bulgarisch-deutschen Ausgrabungenin Drama (1983-1988). Samos II. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala.H. In Zivilisation. Thessalien.ev.] 1976 Prehistoric Society 22:173-212.] Vin6a Hood. in 1949 "New developments earlyAnatolianarchaeology. Fol. F. 1956 "Some early pottery of Samos. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu. 1951 1957 1966 Ko?ay. Bonn: Los Angeles:Universityof California. 1947 und 1949. I. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 195-201.J. Bertemesand I. Lichardus. Miloj&ic 1969 Rudolf Habelt. [ed. October 1988.] Macht. Die Kupferzeit Gumelnita-Karanovo A. 1981 and its world."In A. Frey.]. Neolithikum-Kupferzeit-Bronzezeit. S. Lichardus [eds. International Kdn. Saarbriicken: 1991 "Das Graberfeldvon Varna im Rahmen des Totenritualsdes Kodzadermenals In: VI-Verbandes. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu. N. 1987 CONNECTIONS 235 Bonn:Phillipvon Zabern." Raum und die Anfangeder kupferzeitlichen 1988 "Der westpontische ModerneGaleriedes Saarland-Museums:79-130. Ausgrabungenvon BuiyiikGillicek. Ozguii 1945 "1940ve 1941yillndaTurkTarihKurumuadina yapilanSamsunbolgesikazilan hakkindailk kisa rapor."BelletenIX:361-400. Herrschaft und Gold. Lamb. Die spdtneolithische und chalcolithische Siedlung.C. Katincarov. and N. Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. As reflected by excavation at Anza.]. Smederevska Palanka. Herrschaft und Gold." J. M. Fol and J. and V.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN Felsch..H.]. Belgrade:197-206.M." Kommission 70:5-127. Lichardus[ed. Fol and J.A. ModerneGaleriedes Saarland-Museums:49-66. Oxford: BAR Series 145. Hauptmann."In Srejovic. and M. Die Funde der friihen Dimini-Zeit aus der Arapi-Magula. Akok Lesfouilles d'Alaca Hoyiik. R. International symposium-The Danubian region from 6000 to 3000 B. . Vorbericht uiber die Forschungen und Entdeckungenvon 1940-1948. Das Graberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfdnge einer neuen europdischen Zivilisation. Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen6-13.-H. Ozgui and T.D. Macht. von des 1988 "Die Ausgrabungen Graberfeldes Varna(1972-1986).W. Saarbrticken: Yortan cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia. Tasic [eds. Lichardus. in 1990 "Neue Ausgrabungen Karanovo. Bericht der Rdmisch-Germanischen Das Kastro Tigani. O. 1991 "Varna-ein Umschlagplatz fur den Seehandel in der Kupferzeit?"In: J. Kalimnos and Chios.11. London: and The BritishSchool of Archaeologyat Athens/Thames Hudson. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hoyiik. Kokten. K.S. Furness." Archeologija Sofia 15/3:42-51 H.T. 1973 "Kulturnata grupa Karanovo IV v Novozagorsko. Belgrade. Ko?ay.1988. Lichardus [ed." Proceedingsof the Gimbutas. Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Ivanov. Hiller. Das Grdberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfdnge einer neuen europdischenZivilisation. 1982 Lichardus [eds.. 1937-1939." IraqXI:188-201. Southeast Yugoslavia. R. J. Neolithic Macedonia.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt:217-225. Radun6eva. Gimbutas and E. J. II. C. J." Anatolian Studies 13:199-236." Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28:251-300. in press "Pre-bronze age sequence of Central Anatolia: an alternative approach. seasons of 1930-1932. Sahlins." [To appear in the Beran Festschrift]. Morintz. An archaeological dilemma. Ozgiiy." Belleten XXI:211-219. Le neolithique et le chalcolithique entre la Mediterranee et la mer Baltique. M. Roman." In: J. Mann. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain. 1985 "Diffusionism. . 1966 "Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen. Chicago: Aldine. Lloyd. 1985 La protohistoire de l'Europe. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt:167-194. S. Ozgiiu. 1991 "Eastern Thrace before the beginning of Troy I. 1963 Die Keramik der friihen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. 1976 Vinica. Malinowski. Ozba?aran Dede 1991 "An interim report on excavations at Yarlmburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace.1988. An account of native enterpriseand adventurein the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Osten. Lichardus-Itten et al. J. Lichardus. 1963 "Early cultures of the South Anatolian plateau. Symposium Saarbriickenund Otzenhausen6.Berlin:Gebr. Ozdogan.-13. Eneolitno seliSCei nekropol. 1976 "Problems concerning Copper Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Lichardus [ed.236 ANATOLIAN STUDIES historische Epoche. The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul [1978 paperback edition used]. Roman 1968 "Aspekte des Ausgangs des Aneolithikums und der Ubergangsstufe zur Bronzezeit im Raum der Nieder-Donau. H. [1989 Penguin edition used]. Ozdogan." Dacia XII:45-128. T. 1922 Argonauts of the WesternPacific. and M." Anatolica XVII:59-121.. Los Angeles: University of California. Elster 1986 Excavations at Sitagroi I. I. M. M. M." Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16:1-26. T. 1971 "Strukturanderungendes Endaneolithikums im Donau-Karpaten-Raum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [OIP 28]." Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37:3-12. von der 1937 The Alishar Hiiyiik. Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6. Renfrew. Mellaart 1962 Beycesultan." In: III. Vol. Makkay. C. Y Miyake and N. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Part 1. B." Dacia XV:31-169. S. Orthmann. antidiffusionism and chronology: some general remarks. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age levels. 1987 Archaeology and language. A. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu:393-419. H. 1948 "Samsun hafriyatlnln 1941-1942 yili neticeleri. and P.11. W. and J. Turk Tarih Kongresi. Renfrew.11. P..1988. Sofia. Mellaart. Akok 1957 "Objects from Horoztepe. and M.-13. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Ankara 1943.] Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. 1972 Stone age economics.
H. SeliSenata mogila pri Goljamo Delkevo.BALKAN-ANATOLIAN Sampson. Apallotrioseon. The later prehistory of Anatolia. . 1987 1987 CONNECTIONS 237 E neolithike periodos sta Dodekanesa. 1958 "Aksaray9evresinden Temizer. Tezcan. V. Ankara: The eneolithic period in Bulgaria in the fifth millennium B.H. and G. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.M. Tonceva 1975 "Die aneolithische Pfahlbausiedlungbei Ezerovo im Varnasee. Seeher. derleneneserler. Athens:Tameio Archaiologikon poron kai Demircihuyuk. Kohl 1975 1985 Yakar. Todorova. Ankara 1956. S. Quittaand G.C. "Yazir Hyuigii Buluntular. Ivanov. Todorova.B. Sofia.J. 1960 1978 TurkTarih Kurumu:156-164." In: V. International Todorova.H.J.. Vasilev." Germania 53:30-46. Hopf." BelletenXXII:517-526. Oxford:BAR Series49.R. H. the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Die Keramik I. Turk Tarih Kongresi.A. Oxford:BAR International Series268.