Anatolian Studies 43

New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from the
Turkish Black Sea 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 support@jstor.org.
British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
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 mil-
lennium 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

gave me permissionto reanalyseand republishthe potteryfrom Diindartepe,Kavak and
Tekekoyin Turkey.His help is greatlyappreciated.
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 stick-
impressionalong 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 uncalibratedyears B.C.The "Chalcolithic"periodconformsto
conventionalAnatolian chronology,i.e. Late Neolithic = end of the sixth millennium
(e.g., IliplnarPhase X), Chalcolithic= fifth and fourth millennium;Early Bronze Age
startingc. 3000 B.C.No satisfactorycriteriafor a subdivisionof the Chalcolithicperiod
have been developedyet. The "LateChalcolithic"is used here mostly as a terminustech-
nicus. By using this term, however,it is meant, on purpose,to conform with the Late
Chalcolithicin Syria and SoutheasternTurkey,i.e. the latter part of the Obeid period
and the Uruk colonizationperiod (see below). In BalkanterminologyLate Chalcolithic
equatesto, what Licharduscalls, "chalcolithiqueancien"(Lichardusand Lichardus-Itten
et al. 1985:512-13),or to Todorova's "Late Eneolithic"(Todorova 1978, table 1). A
rough time-spanfor the Late Chalcolithicwould be 3500-3000B.C.
4Probablyby coastal seafaring.On this subject,see Frey 1991:200(who, imagina-
tively, describesthe necessity for the long-distancetrade in raw materialsduring the
KaranovoVI period of having fixed and friendlylandingplaces along the route, facili-
tating accessto freshprovisions).Concerningnavigationmethodsan interestingparallel,
if only in spirit,may be found in the sailingsof the Trobriandislanderson a Kula expe-
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,
41), attributingthe 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
for a "metalworkingkoine of provincesaroundthe Black Sea" at least since Karanovo
VI times (Makkay 1985:7).His conclusionin the same article,that (speakingof tabbed
208 ANATOLIAN STUDIES
Fig. 1 Map of Southeastern Europe and Turkey, with sites mentioned in the text: 1. Diindartepe, 2. Tekek6y,
3. Kavak (Kaledorugu), 4. Ikiztepe, 5. Alaca H6yiik, 6. Biiyik Gilliicek, 7. Alisar, 8. Gelveri-Guzelyurt, 9.
Horoztepe, 10. Ciradere, 11. Pazarli, 12. Ahlathbel, 13. Etiyokusu, 14. Karaoglan, 15. Polatli, 16. Yazir
Hoyiik, 17. Demirci-huiyiik, 18. Beycesultan, 19. Ilipinar, 20. Troy, 21. Yortan, 22. Toptepe, 23. Emporio, 24.
Ayio Gala, 25. Tigani, 26. Vathy, 27. Kalythies, 28. Saliagos, 29. Arapi, 30. Sitagroi, 31. Dikili Tas, 32.
Kokkinochoma (Proskinites), 33. Paradimi, 34. Karanovo, 35. Drama, 36. Slatino, 37. Anza, 38. Vinca,
39. Cernavoda, 40. Durankulak, 41. Vinica, 42. Goljamo Delevo.
these contacts. Purpose and intensity would, moreover, have varied through
time, on account of local factors affecting the different cultures. Neither a
homogeneous Precucuteni assemblage as recently found in inland Anatolia,5 nor
the Early Bronze Age stages at Alaca Hoyiik with the "royal tombs", nor the
contemporary levels at other North and Central Anatolian sites can, in my view,
satisfactorily be explained by a mere exchange mechanism. On the other hand,
the Karanovo VI/Gumelnitsa type copper tools found in Diindartepe, or the
presence of graphite-slipped sherds at Ali?ar (see below), probably hint at the
sort of exchange Sahlins has called "balanced reciprocity" (Sahlins 1972:194-5,
219-20), where relations between communities are regulated and secured partly,
as in our example, through valuables and technological novelties.
pendants)"the broad distributionof these pendanttypes suggestsa continentwidesys-

tem of exchangeof ideasandgoods developedin accordancewithoverseastradeand con-
nections with specializationin metallurgy"(ibid.: 11; my emphasis)can reasonablybe
generalizedto incorporatethe materialas well as immaterialproductsof other branches
as well. In a similarvein the centralrole of the Black Sea is emphasizedby Fol et al.
1988:7and by Frey 1991.
SGelveri-Giizelyurt,near Nigde. Excavationsin 1990 led by Prof. Ufuk Esin from
IstanbulUniversity.Precucutenifinds from Gelveriwere alreadyreportedin the 1950s
by Tezcan 1958, Fig. 5. See furtherOzdogan, in press. Ozdogan, in the same article,
refersmoreoverto Cucuteni-related potteryfrom the Alisar deepsounding,as well as to
a paintedvariety,found on recentsurveysin CentralAnatolia by a Japaneseteam.
BALKAN-ANATOLIAN CONNECTIONS 209
To the aforementioned Balkan-Anatolian networks existing along the

Black Sea coast, an important third branch can be added.
Northern and Central Anatolia have some excellent ties with the Aegean
islands off the coast of Western Turkey.6 While, however, the Balkan-Anatolian
line seems to be continuous and long-lasting, the Aegean contacts with Anatolia
prove to be restricted to a far shorter time frame, probably in the last centuries
of the fifth millennium B.C.Two aspects of this time-span not commonly recog-
nized in the literature and directly bearing upon our subject should be
mentioned.
Firstly, there are very close connections in several kinds of pottery between,
on the one hand, the North and Central Anatolian sites of Ikiztepe Mound II
(to be specific, the assemblages called "EBA I"),7 Biiyiik Giilliicek, and the
earlier Chalcolithic material from Alaca H6ytik,8 and on the other, Tigani
(I-III) on Samos, Ayio Gala and Emporio X-VIII on Chios, Kalythies on
6Earliernoted by Furness 1956:197,199, 205, who correlatedwhite-paintedpottery

as well as horned handles, found in Ayio Gala lower and upper cave resp., and in
Tigani, with those from Biyiuk Giilliicek and Alaca Hoyuk. Cf. ib. 207: "(...) the
Biiyiik Gtillticekfinds, which include horned handles and white-painteddecoration,
leave no doubt that therewas some connectionbetweenCentralAnatolia and the West
as earlyas the Chalcolithicperiod."Yakarrecognizedthe similarityexistingbetweenthe
Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" material and the pottery from Ayio Gala, Tigani and Vathy
(1985:241).
7Whenreferringin this articleto IkiztepeII, I mean those levels which are located
on MoundII and whichare designatedLevelII or "EBAI" (Yakar 1985:235).Thereare
in fact still earlier levels present at Ikiztepe Mound II, situated below this "EBA I"
phase. These earliest levels are called Level III, or "Late Chalcolithic" (Yakar
1985:242-3).This phase should even antedatethe final fifth millenniumB.C. date put
forwardhere for IkiztepeII/"EBAI".
8In my opinion we have in fact two differentassemblagesat Alaca Hoyuk in the
Chalcolithicdeposit (i.e. levels 14-19, also called phase IV), although they have been
interpretedby the excavatorsas representingone homogeneousphase. The horizonsare
separatedfrom each other by a gap of nearly a thousandyears. Stratigraphically, this
distinctioncannot be retracedon the basis of the excavationreports.For the sake of
convenienceI will call the earliermaterial"earlierChalcolithic",and the later material
"laterChalcolithic".The earlierphase can be dated towardsthe end of the fifth millen-
nium B.C.while the later phase conformsto the Late Chalcolithicperiod as definedin
note 3 above. To date, neitherthe existenceof a lacunain the sequenceof Alaca H6yiik,
nor the mixed aspect of its Chalcolithicdeposit have been recognizedin the literature.
AlthoughOrthmann(1963:35,67) notes a differencein shapesand manufacturefor the
decorated(meaningthe "earlierChalcolithic")ware in contrastto the plain ware (mean-
ing the "laterChalcolithic")he concludes(whileassessingthe similarityof the decorated
Alaca pieces with BtiyiikGtilliicek)that BiiytikGilliicek and Alaca Hoyutkcannot be
contemporary,because at BuiyiikGtilliicek the plain, fine ware from Alaca Hyuik
(meaningthe "later Chalcolithic")is absent. In fact he views Bliytik Gulliicek as the
earliersettlement(Orthmann1963:66).
Huot (1982:54-5,750) tends to follow Orthmann,cf. also his chronologicalschema
on p. 769.
Yakar explainsthe differencein the potteryof Alaca Hoyuk and BtiytikGilliicek,
and the "contemporary"(see table p. 178) material from ChalcolithicAli?ar (levels
19-12M) as due to "local or sub-regionalvariations"(1985:180).
The correlationof Alaca Hoyik (i.e. the "earlierChalcolithic"material),Ikiztepe
II/"EBAI" and Biiyiik Giilliicekhas been noted by Yakar, Alkim and Ozdogan.The
"laterChalcolithic"pottery of Alaca Hoyiik closely resemblesthe materialfrom Ali?ar
level 14-12M, with fruit-stands,similarred/blackthickwalledware,carinatedbowls and
graphite-slippedpottery (cf. Orthmann1963, pls. 39, 40 (Alaca Hoyilk) with pls. 3-7
(Ali?ar)).
Rhodes and possibly some material from Vathy on Kalimnos.9 All these sites
have to be seen as more or less contemporary to each other.
A more selective orientation apparently exists in the ceramic contacts of the
Anatolian and the Eastern Aegean sites with the Balkans during the same
period. Here, horned handles seem to form the most consistent links. A cursory
survey of the published evidence showed that in the region around Nova Zagora
in Bulgaria, at Anza IV, or in Northern Greece at Sitagroi I, Paradimi and
Kokkinochoma (Proskinites) perfect parallels occur in this respect.'? These cor-
respondences make it possible to date these assemblages to the Karanovo IV
phase. In absolute years this would conform to the last quarter of the fifth mil-
lennium B.C. (cf. the chronological table)."I
Secondly, it should be pointed out that there are long gaps not only in the
stratigraphy of Alaca Hoyiik, but also in the sequences of Ikiztepe, (Mound II
being much earlier than Mound I, see below) and of Samos Tigani (between
phase III and IV). (See the chronological table.)
9Whilethe close connectionsbetween Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", Alaca Hoyiik "earlier
Chalcolithic"and BiiytikGiilliicekare firmlyestablished(cf. Alklm et al. 1988:184-7for
references),a (necessarilylimited)range of the most conspicuousAegean parallelsillu-
minatesmy point. Technique,location and structureof motifs of white-painteddecora-
tion, several vessel shapes, tab handles raised above the rim of hemisphericalbowls,
hornedhandleswith roundedor animalendingsare all remarkablysimilarin detail.
White paint combinedwith tab handle:cf. IkiztepeII/"EBAI" (Alkim et al. 1988,
pl. 26:3) with Kalythieson Rhodes (Sampson1987,pls. 54:613;55:616).A similarmotif
on Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 24:14). Similartab handles on Samos
Tigani II (Felsch 1987,pl. 58:164).
Vessel shape: carinatedpots with offset, everted necks and handles raised above
rims cf. BiiyiikGiillicek (Ko?ayand Akok 1957,pl. 25:3)with SamosTigani II (Felsch
1987, pl. 58:157, 158); open, carinatedbowls with vertical or everted, offset rims cf.
BiiyiikGtillticek(Ko?ayand Akok 1957,pl. 14:1lowerright, and pl. 23 thirdrow) with
SamosTiganiIII (Felsch 1987,pls 58:179;60:235;61:249a);while pot-typeSamosTigani
II (Felsch 1987,pl. 57:156)is also typicalfor IkiztepeII/"EBAI" (cf. Alkim et al. 1988,
pl. 31:1),Alaca H6yiik and BuiyiikGtillticek(Orthmann1963,pl. 52).
Horned handles: the typical handles from Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987,
pls. 59:181, 205, 210, 233, 236; 62:259, 260, 261, etc.) occur, in similar vein, in the
"earlierChalcolithic"phase at Alaca H6yiik (Ko?ayand Akok 1966,pl. 151 fourthrow,
fourthfrom left). The double handlefrom Alaca Hoyiik (Ko?ayand Akok 1966,pl. 151
bottom row, second from right (= op. cit., pl. 148:A1.j224)) is also attestedat Samos
Tigani (Felsch 1987, pl. 76:F4, unstratified,assignedto III). A white painted horned
handle at Samos Tigani III (Felsch 1987, pl. 59:216),conforms qua shape exactly to
horned handles from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", Biyuik Giilliicek, Alaca Hoytik and the
Samsunarea (see here Fig. 7:7, 8).
Importantconnections between Samos Tigani III and Biiyiik Giilliicek are also
handleswith animalheads:compareFelsch 1987, pls. 61:246a,254; 62:258;66:305with
Ko?ayand Akok 1957, pl. 21:2.
It is interestingto note that parallelsare particularlystrong betweenSamos Tigani
II-III and the North and CentralAnatoliansites.
I?Resp.Kancev 1973, pls. 10, 11 (from a site near Nova Zagora);Gimbutas[ed.]
1976, figs. 96, 99 (Anza IV); Renfrew et al. 1986, fig. 11.6 (Sitagroi I);
Bakalakis/Sakellariou 1981, pls. 16:6(ParadimiIII), 17 (Paradimilib), 24b:4 (Paradimi
I), IVc:2, 4 (ParadimiIa), XII:3-5 (probably ParadimiII-III); Bakalakis/Sakellariou
1981, pl. 13 (Kokkinochoma (Proskinites)). The selective aspect of the
Balkan-Anatoliancontacts may be misleading,however. The Karanovo IV period in
Bulgariais, in fact, still badly known. It is highly probable,that with increasingknow-
ledge these contactswill prove to have been more thorough.
"This date late in the fifth millenniumB.C. is based interalia on recentradiocarbon
dates from Toptepe (Turkey) (Ozdogan et al. 1991:82) and Karanovo III (Hiller
1990:205),as well as on Vin6a B-C dates, with which Karanovo IV seems to conform
best (Chapman1981:18-19).
Apart from Ozdogan (1991), connecting early Ikiztepe with the Vesselinovo
culture in Bulgaria, the date in the Karanovo IV period for Ikiztepe II/"EBA 1",
the "earlier Chalcolithic" part of Alaca Hoyiik and Biiytik Gtilliicek has never
seriously been considered.12 The existence of large gaps in the sequences of
Ikiztepe, Alaca Hoyiik and Samos Tigani has never been recognized up till now.
Analysis of the exact nature of the complex network relating different
regions and communities at several points in time, hinted at above, can only
proceed when the basic chronological problems have been overcome. Two major
drawbacks, however, still make this condition hard to fulfil. Firstly, there is a
lack of well stratified sites relevant to our subject. Secondly, the evidence avail-
able from Anatolia is far from being unequivocal; it suffers, moreover, from a
misleading nomenclature.13 The consequence is that there is still considerable
uncertainty and confusion regarding the succession and composition of material
cultures during the Chalcolithic period in Turkey.
A reanalysis of some pottery from the Turkish Black Sea littoral sites of
Diindartepe, Kavak (Kaledorugu) and Tekek6y, together with a reconsideration
of the stratigraphic and material evidence from Ikiztepe, led me to isolate an as
yet not clearly assessed Late Chalcolithic phase for this part of Anatolia.'4 It
allowed me moreover to clear up some of the above confusion.
Pottery from Diindartepe, Tekekoy and Kavak

The pottery published here is a sample of material mainly from
Diindartepe, with a few unstratified pieces coming from Tekekoy and Kavak.15
Diindartepe will be the focal point in the discussion. Excavated in four main
trenches in separate locations, the material from the site has been divided by the
excavators into three periods, viz. Eneolithic (occasionally called Chalcolithic),
12In the most recent survey of the Anatolian Chalcolithicperiod, Yakar dates
IkiztepeII/"EBAI" early in the third millenniumB.C., equatingit even with Karanovo
VII (1985:237).
'3Theretainmentof the "EarlyBronzeAge" label with the concomitanttraditional
third millenniumdating for what are essentiallyChalcolithicassemblages(startedwith
Bittel and Orthmann,continuedby Alklm and Yakar)has only recentlybeen explained
and attacked(M. Ozdogan 1991,and idem, in press).
4Diindartepe,Tekek6yand Kavakwereexcavatedby T. Ozgi9qin 1940-42,and the
resultswere publishedin two preliminaryreports,see K6kten et al. 1945 and T. Ozgii9
1948.Orthmann(1963)reanalysedsome of the pottery,but sincethen its importancehas
not been appreciated.This reviewof the Diindartepe,etc. materialwas made possibleby
a travel grant from the NetherlandsOrganizationfor ScientificResearch(NWO) and
took place in October 1990. The permission,kindly grantedby the TurkishAntiquities
Service,is greatlyappreciated,enablingalso the study of potteryfrom Btiyik Giillucek,
Ali?arand Alaca Hoyiik, stored in the AnatolianCivilizationsMuseumin Ankaraand
in the Alacahoyufklocal museum.Specialwords of thanks are due to ProfessorTahsin
Ozgiiqand to Dr. Mustafa Akkaya, Director of the SamsunArchaeologicalMuseum.
The inkingof the drawingswas done by Erickvan Driel, ArchaeologicalCentre,Leyden
University.
15Thenature of the sample stored in some boxes in the Samsun Museum, is
unknown.The sherds belong either to the Late Chalcolithic,Early Bronze, or Hittite
periods (my terminology). Material earlier than the Late Chalcolithic (e.g. the
"Eneolithic/Chalcolithic"mentionedin the reports)was not noticed, apart from three
hornedhandles(cf. here Fig. 7:7, 8) Diindartepeyieldedc. 60 labelledsherds,datablein
the Late Chalcolithic,Tekek6y 5 and Kavak 3. Some unlabelledsherdsare also taken
into accountand provisionallyassignedto Diindartepe.
Copper Age and Hittite (resp. called DiindartepeI, II and III).16Both on the
summitof Diindartepe(area B) and on the slope so-called Copper Age levels
were excavated. Although the finds from these two areas were recognizedas
strikinglydifferentfrom each other, and the peculiarcharacterof the material
from the summitarea was clearlyassessed,both assemblagesweredated as more
or less contemporary,not only by Kokten et al., (1945:397-8) and Lamb
(1949:191-2),but also, even if with some reservation,by Orthmann(1963:74).
Huot (1982:962) and Yakar (1985:245) tentatively date Dtndartepe area B
("Early Bronze II-IIIa") prior to the slope area ("Early Bronze
III/Intermediate").
My analysis will show that the pottery from the summit and from the
slope, being morphologicallyeasily separableand mutuallyexclusivein regard
to find-location, is indeed chronologicallydiverse. I cannot accept the Early
BronzeAge date for the Diindartepe-Summit levels, however,as put forwardby
Orthmann, Huot and Yakar.
The potterycoming from the slope area of Dundartepe'7can be correlated
to what has formerlybeen called "CopperAge" by Turkisharchaeologists,or
"EarlyBronzeII-III" by Orthmann(1963), Yakar (1985) and Alklm (Alkim et
al., 1988). It is perfectlysimilarto the pottery from IkiztepeI/SoundingA and
Kavak, and moreoverto the Copper Age/EarlyBronze Age assemblagesfrom
Central Anatolian sites such as Alaca Hoyiik, Pazarli, Horoztepe, Clradere,
Ahlatlibel, Etiyokusu,Polatli and Karaoglan(K6kten et al., 1945:376).18 This
later materialis, however,not my concernhere.
Area B on the Dtindartepe-Summithas been excavated to a depth of
3.80 m. (K6kten et al. 1945:369-75;Cambel 1947:265-7).The whole stratum,
starting right underneaththe topsoil, was heavily burnt. Three building levels
are reported. Houses were built in the wattle-and-daubtechnique. There are
many metal finds in these levels (Kokten et al. 1945:372-4),in contrast to the
Early Bronze Age slope area, where metal is rare. The pottery and other small
finds are, it will be argued, to be dated in the Late Chalcolithicperiod, as
definedabove (note 3). The sherdsfrom this deposit will be shown to belong to
16Thegeneralaspect of the pottery from the "Eneolithic"levels of Diindartepeis

not well known(Koktenet al. 1945:367-9;pl. LXIII:1-6;also cf. Cambel1947:264).The
pottery is describedas being black, grey or reddishbrown, burnishedand sand tem-
pered. Comparisonsare made with Ali?arand Alaca. White-filled,fingernailand other
impressodecorationis reportedto occur,thoughin smallnumbers.Excavatedin area A,
the Eneolithic deposit is at least 4-5 m. thick, while virgin soil was not reached.
Eneolithiclevels were also soundedin the railwaycut, area G.
Whetherthree unlabelledhorned handles, noted among the Diindartepesherdsin
the SamsunMuseum,belong to this Eneolithicphase is not certain(see here Fig. 7:7, 8).
A similarhandle is publishedfrom Kavak (Kokten et al. 1945, pl. LXIX:2)and indi-
cates that the horizon, representedby Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", Biytik Giilliicek, Alaca
Hoyik and Samos Tigani I-III is also presentin the Samsunregion. The white-filled
decorationmentionedmay indicatethis too.
17Seefor this pottery Kokten et al. 1945, pls. LXVII:1,LXVIII:4and Ozgtiu1948,
pls. 11:6,VII. Similarpotteryfrom Kavak:Ozgiiq1948,pl. X.
18ForIkiztepesee Alkim et al. 1988, pls. XI:13, 15-17; XII; XIII:1;XIV; XVI for
good examples.As to the other sites Orthmann'sbook is still very usefulfor a quick sur-
vey of the evidence.Characteristicfor these assemblagesare pots with impressodecora-
tion (nail, implementor shell) in a single zone around the widest diameter,as well as
large lids with impressorims. This kind of potteryis, by the way, conspicuouslyabsent
from the Early BronzeAge sequenceat Ali?arHiuyuk.I alreadyreferred(note 2) to the
strong parallelsexisting betweenthis materialand the pottery from CernavodaIII-II.
one, homogeneous assemblage and are morphologicallyand technologically

related.
Within the pottery of Late ChalcolithicDiindartepeseveralgroups can be
distinguishedempirically.19
1. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration
(Figs. 2; 3:1-7). (Kbkten et al. 1945:371-2).The clay contains fine to medium
sand as non-plastics, mostly with additions of chaff and/or crushed shell.
Surfaceswere generallymediumburnishedon the exterior.The interiorwas, by
contrast,usually left unburnished.Colours:some of the sherdshave been fired
secondarily(to an orange-redcolour throughout)probablydue to the conflagra-
tion of the deposit. Several of these refired sherds had turned into a sort of
"clinky"stone ware (Fig. 3:1-3). The original colours were either a black ex-
terior, a brown-redinterior and a similar colour separation on the fracture
(Fig. 2:6; 3:5), or else dark-brownor blackishthroughout(Fig. 2:2, 5). As such,
this group is related to groups 2-4, showing a similar interior and exterior
colour contrast.
The fragmentsin the sampleall belong to plain-rimmed,sharplycarinated,
small to medium-sizedbowls (diametersvaryingfrom 13 to 24 cm.), with small,
flat or slightly concave bases (diametersaround 7 cm.). Characteristicof the
form-conceptis a slightlyconcave wall betweencarinationand base. Upturned-
lug handles at the carination (perhaps two opposite each other) are typical.
Always associatedwith these handlesare stringholes,eitherpiercedthroughthe
handle itself, or else above or next to it. Most probablythese stringholeswere
used for attachinglids to the vessels.Indeed,it is not unlikelythat some of these
bowls were lids themselves,consideringthe upturnedposition of the handles.
The fact that in two instancesthe "bases"were decoratedon the outside may
corroboratethis option (Fig. 3:1).
Decorationis rectilinear,in sharplyincisedor groovedlines, located on the
exterior,both on the shoulderand below the carination.Motifs are variations
on simple geometricpatterns,such as horizontalV-shapescreatingfish-bones,
upturned V's and zig-zags. These are repeated and mirroredall around the
vessel, occasionallylimitedby borderlines.Isolatedmotifs do not occur. Several
of these sherds have a matt, yellow-white,thin slip or wash, encrustedin and
over the decoratedzones (Fig. 3:1-4, 6).
Sherds of this type were found at Diindartepe,Kavak, and Tekekoy. A
good parallelexists at IkiztepeI/SoundingF (Alkim et al. 1988:210,pl. 50:11).
2. Black burnishedfine pottery with white-painted decoration (Figs. 3:8; 4;
5:1-3). (Kokten et al. 1945:370-1).Non-plasticsare fine or medium-coarsesand
with mica inclusions,while occasionallyfinely choppedchaff is added (Fig. 4:3,
5; 5:2, 3). The exterior surfaces are invariably highly burnished, while the
interioris smoothedor lightly burnishedonly.
Colours are highly contrasting:black for the exterior,red for the interior.
This contrast was certainlyintentional,as it was createdusing a specific firing
process (cf. the interpretationsof Alklm et al. 1988:172-3).Loe Jacobs (Pottery
Technology Institute, Leiden University) kindly provided some relevant
information:
the nature of the sample (cf. note 15), the taxonomic value of the
19Considering
groupingis almost nil, the classificationbeing partly typological,partly technological.
The vessels are placed upside down in the fire, and fired in an oxidizing
atmosphere. At the end of the firing they are subjected to a short reduction
process by extinguishing the fire, and closing off the oxygen flow by cover-
ing the vessels (with sand for instance). In that state the pots cool down.
This process creates black exterior colours. The interior colours to shades
of red or brown, dependent on the amount of oxygen remaining inside the
vessel. Moreover, a red/black colour separation is always present on the
fracture, while often the exterior rim is coloured similarly to the interior,
probably due to insufficient covering (perhaps intentionally) during the
reduction process.20
The sherds have a mean wall-thickness of 6 mm. and are well made. Shapes
are usually slightly restricted bowls, with incurving or carinated profiles. Rims
are generally plain, while the rim of Fig. 4:2 is pinched. Diameters fall between
20 cm. and 28 cm. Several of the bowls are fitted with rudimentary knobs
(Fig. 4:1, 4). Apart from bowls there are also hole-mouth pots with horizontally
or vertically placed handles (Figs. 4:5; 5:1). No bases were found, but these were
probably flat or concave (cf. Fig. 6:8, 9). Cf. also Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 20:11,
for a concave base from Ikiztepe I (Sounding C, with white paint).
The decoration consists of painted, thin and straight lines, of a white,
diluted clay-slip (see appendix for a technological analysis). It is applied after
burnishing, before firing. Often, the paint is hardly visible anymore. It should be
pointed out here, that in contrast to the white-painted pottery of the Ikiztepe
II/"EBA I" horizon, the decoration at Diindartepe and Ikiztepe I is only applied
to the exterior and never to the interior of the vessels. The motifs consist of
bundles of parallel lines set obliquely to each other, crossing each other, oc-
casionally creating lozenge patterns. They extend from rim down to the base, as
indicated by the Ikiztepe I base-part referred to above. Occasionally the decora-
tion seems to cover the whole vessel (Fig. 4:3), in other instances patterns are
interrupted by handles or rudimentary knobs. Slightly deviating in shape from
the usual white-painted pottery is a sharply carinated, inverted rim bowl
(Fig. 3:8). The hole-mouth pot (Fig. 5:2) is different in motif and structure of
decoration, showing a continuous triple-repeated zig-zag, not extending from the
rim downwards, but instead located on the shoulder of the pot.
White-painted sherds of group 2 further occur on Kavak, Tekek6y and
Ikiztepe I, where good parallels come from soundings C and F (Alkim et al.
1988, pls. 13:6, 8; 17:12, 13; 19:6; 20:11; 21:3, 4 (C); 49:3, 5, 6; 51:3 (F)).
3. Black burnishedfine pottery like group 2, without paint (Figs. 5:4, 5;
6:1-5). (K6kten et al. 1945:370). This group has exactly the same characteristics
as the painted variant. Most characteristic is the similar colour contrast on the
exterior and interior surfaces as well as on the fracture. Mean wall thickness is
6 mm. The repertoire of shapes seems larger than in group 2, including open,
sloping-sided bowls, and jars with small mouth diameter and a tall neck (Fig.
5:4 and Fig 6:4 resp.)
For characteristic parallels at Ikiztepe I, see sounding C (Alkim et al.
1988:pls 13:7; 18:2-6; 19:7-9; 20:10, 13; 22:8).
20Comparable firingprocessesappearto have been used in the Arapi phase. Here,

colouredpotteryalso has a black burnishedexterior,a red interior,a small red exterior
rim and a black/redcolour separationon the fracture.See Hauptmannand Miloj6icfor
detailson firingmethods(1969:50-1).
4. Black burnished medium-coarse pottery (Fig. 6:6-10). Much similar to

group 3, but slightlyless fine-temperedand finished.Some sherdshave crushed-
shell temper. Fragments are generally thicker-walled (mean 8 mm.). The
red/blackcolour contrastis also apparenthere.
5. Otherplain wares(Fig. 7:1-5). These sherdsprobablybelong to different
groups,but are lumpedtogetherhere. They possiblycorrelatewith Ikiztepeware
groupsh5 and h6. The carinatedbowl (Fig. 7:1) can be relatedto the carinated
bowls from group 1 here, in regardto generalproportions.The pot-fragments
on Fig. 7:2-3 are well-finishedand brown burnished,while those on Fig. 7:4, 5
are representingreally coarse kitchen ware, coarsely temperedwith pebble grit
and/orchaff, unburnishedand unevenlywalled.
The carinatedbowl may be comparedwith IkiztepeI/SoundingC (Alkimet
al. 1988, pl. 11:1);for Fig. 7:5 see op. cit. pl. 19:4;20:4;22:1, 2, 4.
The pottery from the area B on Dtindartepe-Summit is assumedto belong
to one single and homogeneous assemblage.The following technologicaland
morphological aspects interrelating the five groups should be taken into
account:
1. chaff additionsas non-plastics,which occur in all groups;
2. a well-controlledfiring process, aiming at creating black exterior and
red interiorcolours, occurringin groups 1-4, and linkingdifferentform
and decorationconcepts;
3. crushed-shelladditionsas non-plastics,attestedin groups 1 and 4;
4. white-painteddecorationon a sharplycarinatedbowl typologicallyfit-
ting in group 1 (Fig. 3:8);
5. a plain ware bowl with invertedrim (Fig. 7:1), which can be connected
with the group 1 bowls.
The stratigraphicevidencefrom Ikiztepe,60 km. furtherto the west, con-
firmsthe grouping.
Ikiztepe
At Ikiztepe, a perfectlysimilar assemblageto the one suggestedfor Late
ChalcolithicDiindartepeis presentin soundingsC (on the northwesternslope of
IkiztepeI) and F (on the saddle between IkiztepeI and II). The materialfrom
soundingA (top of Ikiztepe I) conforms ratherwell to the "EarlyBronze Age
II-III", or "CopperAge" finds referredto above (cf. note 18). The finds from
area C and to a lesser extent those from area F (which has some later mix) on
the one hand, and the materialfrom area A on the other, e.g. at Diindartepe,
are mutually exclusive in regard to find-location,as well as in terms of mor-
phology and technology.This point is not stressedin the publication.A check
on findspotsand potterytypes will clarifymy distinction.
Black burnished, white-painted pottery like Diindartepe group 2, for
instance,neverturnedup in area A, and was only found in areasC and F.21The
same is true for the Dtindartepegroups 3 and 4, i.e. black burnishedpottery
without paint. Similarprofiles to those noted at Diindartepefor these groups,
will appearat Ikiztepeto stem from soundingC, and none of them from area A.
The single parallelfor Diindartepegroup 1 at Ikiztepecomes from soundingF.
By contrast,the "CopperAge" materialfrom Ikiztepeis all concentratedin
soundingA, while the yield from C is negligible.
21Alklmet al. 1988:195:"In SoundingA at IkiztepeI (...) white painted[ceramics]

were not encountered."
Like the deposit in the Duindartepe-Summit area, the upper portions of

Ikiztepe I/Sounding C had been heavily burnt (see Alkim et al. 1988:153, men-
tioning burnt remains more than 1 m. thick; idem, 154, referring to sherds com-
pletely deformed by the conflagration; and 155, "charred section of a floor",
and "carbonized wooden beams"). Also the deposit in sounding F had been
heavily burnt, in fact on at least two different occasions, once during the "Early
Hittite" phase (see Alkim et al. 1988:197) and at an earlier time--on the basis of
the finds (see below) at the same time as the conflagration attested in sounding
C (Alkim et al. 1988:198, see under square D 3/III 14).
The sequence at Ikiztepe is further complicated by the fact that both Yakar
and Alkim failed to stress the dissimilarity in finds from Ikiztepe I/Sounding C
and those from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", while actually the two assemblages are
highly distinctive. Yakar in fact appears to mix up the ceramic assemblage of
Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" (characterized by horned handles and Biiytik Giilliicek type
vessels and decorations) with that of Ikiztepe I/Sounding C, lumping them under
the label "Early Bronze I-II" (1985:240). This mixing of finds is due to the mis-
leading occurrence of white-painted decoration in both assemblages. Alkim on
the other hand, on the basis of the white paint, does separate sounding C from
the sounding on Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", but opts for a developing tradition, viz.
"(...) the potsherds with white-painted decorations from Sounding C at Ikiztepe
I seem to continue this tradition [i.e. the white-painted one, LT] of EB I [i.e.
Ikiztepe II/'EBA I', LT], so it is likely that they may belong to a later period,
namely to EB II." (Alkim et al. 1988:196).
Contrary to the excavators' views, I believe that Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and
Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F represent two entirely different horizons, not even
in chronological succession, having different sets of material culture items and
with different form concepts in regard to ceramics.
The cause of this confusion is that neither author recognized the structural
difference in the white-painted decoration from Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and that
from Ikiztepe I/Sounding C. Indeed, the technique used is very similar (see
appendix), while the motifs also at first glance show some resemblance (cf. the
parallel or crossing line bundles of Diindartepe with those from Ikiztepe
II/"EBA I"). However, location of the decoration and the pot-shapes associated
with this decoration are structurally different.
The Ikiztepe I/Sounding C white paint, like its Diindartepe counterpart, is
applied only to the vessel-exteriors, while the white paint from Ikiztepe II/"EBA
I" is either applied to the interiors of open, hemispherical bowls, and more often
than not combined with white-filled, grooved decorations on the exteriors;22or
else to the exteriors of carinated pots with offset necks.23More often, such pots
are decorated with white-filled grooves, or unfilled incisions.
Notwithstanding the similarities in technique and, superficially, in motifs,
my view of the distinctiveness of the two white-painted groups at Ikiztepe is
strengthened by the fact that the sets are mutually exclusive in regard to find-
spot (Ikiztepe II and I) and that both co-occur with a different vessel-repertoire.
The evidence collected so far makes it clear that Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and
Ikiztepe I are chronologically separable. Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" can be put in the
same time horizon as Karanovo IV (cf. notes 9 and 10); Ikiztepe I is Late
Chalcolithic, as was already assumed.
22Alkimet al. 1988:182-3, pls. 24:5, 10, 14; 25:5, 11; 26:3, 5; 27:6, 15; and pls. 25:4,
6, 7, 9, 10; 26:1, 2; 27:1, 3 resp.
23Alkimet al. 1988, pls. 30:7; 31:1; 35:27.
External dating of Ikiztepe I, Soundings C, F and Diindartepe-Summit

Having established the sounding C and F levels from Ikiztepe I and the
material from Diindartepe-Summit as contemporary to each other, and having
separated the two assemblages from the "Copper Age/Early Bronze Age II-III"
material on both sites, and isolating them from the much earlier Ikiztepe
II/"EBA I" (= Karanovo IV) horizon, I now have to furnish further corrobora-
tive evidence for the Late Chalcolithic date of the assemblages in question. I
note several points:
1. Several female figurines in baked clay, of undeniably Karanovo
VI/Gumelnitsa type with pierced ears, were found in sounding F on Ikiztepe I
(see Alkim et al. 1988:216-18, 225 (with further Balkan references); pls. 56:1, 6,
7, 9, 10; 99, 100).24The parallels between Ikiztepe I/Soundings F and C have
already been stressed.
Connected with this correlation are two head fragments with similar pierc-
ings, coming from Alisar Levels 14M and 12M (Von der Osten 1937:78 and Fig.
85:c506, e1940). As has been stated (note 8), Ali?ar 14-12M is contemporary
with the "later Chalcolithic" part in the Alaca Hoyiik sequence, and should fall,
in my opinion, within the same time-span as Dtindartepe-Summit and Ikiztepe
I/Soundings C and F (see also further below).
2. The metal finds from Diindartepe-Summit (see K6kten et al. 1945,
pl. LXVI:1-3) have excellent parallels in the Karanovo VI horizon (see
Todorova 1978, pl. XI:5, 3 and 6 resp.), and more particularly, in the Varna
cemetery (Ivanov 1988, pl. 22; Lichardus 1991, fig. 10).
3. The find of a steatopygous figurine in baked clay from Dtindartepe-
Summit (K6kten et al. 1945:375, pl. LXVI:6; = Alkim et al. 1988, pl. 101:210 for
good photographs) can be related to the typical, grooved figurines from the
Cucuteni A phase.25
4. The carinated, grooved bowls of Dtindartepe group 1 have conceptual
parallels in the Karanovo VI period. The small bases and the conical,' even
slightly concave walling below the sharply inverted shoulders are features which
are basic characteristics of many pottery shapes from the Karanovo VI period
(cf. Todorova 1978, pls. III, IV). This form concept is, for instance, present at
Goljamo DelCevo from level II onwards (Todorova et al. 1975, pl. 9:20) till the
end, while bowls with inverted rims occur from level IV (Todorova et al. 1975,
pl. 37:2; 39; etc.), becoming more frequent in the later levels. At Vinica the same
form concept is also noted from the earliest level (RadunCeva 1976, pl. 7:3-5, 6)
onwards till the end. For more or less similarly carinated, inverted-rim bowls
like those at Diindartepe see RadunCeva 1976, pls. 23, etc. Never, however, do
these Karanovo VI assemblages show the upturned handles so typical for
Diindartepe, while the careful, additional marking of the carination and the rims
from Karanovo VI does not recur in Diindartepe.
The general concept of straight, conical vessel walls, angularity and small
bases is also evident from the Karanovo VI material from Drama (Bulgaria),
but again, exact parallels cannot be found.
White encrustation over incised/grooved decorated zones was used from the
Marica/Karanovo V period (Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten et al. 1985:267), as
attested also at Drama (Fol et al. 1989, pl. 33:10). At the same site, however,
mention is made of a white or yellow "Kalkmasse" used for encrustation during
24Seefor a quick reference,Lichardusand Lichardus-Ittenet al. 1985:379and fig.

49:1, 5, 6; or Todorova 1978,pl. XII:6.
25Seee.g., Lichardusand Lichardus-Ittenet al. 1985:372,fig. 49:3.
the Karanovo VI phase, which would perhaps place it near the Diindartepe dec-
oration (Fol et al. 1969:68).
At this point, however, it should be noted that the internal development of
the Karanovo VI period is far from secure. Recently, Lichardus, on the basis of
evidence from Drama, casts doubt on the four-phase periodization put forward
by Todorova, proposing instead a two-phase system for Karanovo VI (Fol et al.
1989:92-4).
Be that as it may, we have, of course, neither at Diindartepe nor at
Ikiztepe, any example of a "classic" Karanovo VI assemblage. All the character-
istic pottery from Karanovo VI, like graphite-painted decoration, extravagantly
angled vessels, large lids and all the other decorative techniques, are totally
absent in the Black Sea littoral.
It is more reasonable to see the Turkish sites as of basically local develop-
ment, while in close contact with the Karanovo VI communities, as is evidenced
by the metal finds, the figurines, and perhaps by some form concepts and one
particular decoration technique (conical body-wall, inverted rims and encrusta-
tion, respectively). The carinated bowls at Diindartepe, made with the local
techniques in regard to tempering and firing, deviate from the rest of the assem-
blage in their shape. For the other pottery groups on Diindartepe (or, for that
matter, on Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and F) correspondences to the Karanovo VI
assemblages on the Balkans are lacking.26
Contacts between North and Central Anatolia during the Late Chalcolithic
While the connections between the Turkish Black Sea littoral sites and the
Central Anatolian communities of Alaca Hoyiik and Biiyiik Giilliicek were par-
ticularly strong in the last quarter of the fifth millennium B.C.,it is interesting to
observe that, after an interval of nearly a thousand years, both regions had
developed along different lines. The contact-zone function of Northern Anatolia
was apparently weak at this stage, only to become strong again during the third
millennium B.C. The more or less contemporary assemblages of Alaca H6yiik's
later Chalcolithic and Ali?ar levels 14-12M have a totally distinct pottery reper-
toire compared to the Late Chalcolithic from Ikiztepe and Diindartepe. The
white-painted pottery from the Black Sea, for instance, does not occur in
Central Anatolia, though a few white-painted sherds were found in Level 14M
from Ali?ar (Von der Osten 1937:57, fig. 63:3, 4). These are, however, of a dif-
ferent conception. Moreover, the characteristic "fruit-stands" from Alaca and
Ali?ar do not occur at the Black Sea littoral.
However, a few points may be adduced to pull Central Anatolia within
the sphere of the Karanovo VI culture. First, there are the two Karanovo
VI/Gumelnitsa figurine fragments from Ali?ar already referred to; and secondly,
as already mentioned, the presence at Ali?ar 14-12M of graphite-slipped
sherds.27The graphite slip creates a shimmering black surface and is a rather
26As a final argumentfor a date late in the fourthmillenniumB.C. the evidencefrom

Mersincan be adduced.Here, white paintedsherdsoccur in Level XIIA, which, how-
ever, is stratigraphicallyinsecure(cf. Eggertand Liith 1987).XIIA follows LevelXIIB in
time, which has flint-scrapedor Coba-bowlsin its assemblage.These bowls were very
wide-spread in Southeast Turkey and Northern Syria and can be dated around
3600/3500B.C. MersinXIIA should then, in any case, be dated to the secondhalf of the
fourthmillennium.
27Probably a clay-slipwith graphitemixedin it. I noted these sherdswhen reviewing
some of the Ali?ar pottery, stored in the Ankara ArchaeologicalMuseum. They are
unpublished.
common surface treatment there, applied all over the interior of open bowl
shapes. The applicationof graphiteas a surface treatmentmay link Ali?ar up
with the Karanovo VI phase, when graphite was widely used for decorating
ceramics.
The dating of Ali?ar14-12M and of the later Chalcolithicof Alaca Hoyiik
to the Late Chalcolithicperiod has recentlybeen underlinedthroughthe finding
of Central Anatolian "fruit-stands"in a solid Late Uruk context at Tepecik,
and through pottery of Central Anatolian type in the Late Uruk influenced
level VIA at Arslantepe(see Ozdogan 1991, and idem, in press, with further
references).
Conclusions
What should be stressedabout the delineationof severalLate Chalcolithic
pottery assemblagesin North and CentralAnatolia is their distinctivenessfrom
almost all the pottery following them in the third millenniumB.C.The assem-
blage called "Copper Age" at Alaca Hoyiik, 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,the shapes used,
decoration techniquesand technologicalaspects, such as temperingand firing
methods. There seems indeed to have been a profound and widespreadshift in
the archaeologicalrecord at the transitionfrom the fourth to the third millen-
nium B.C. (contra Renfrew 1987:265).However, this shift is far from clear. In
fact, the materialculture from this transitionperiod is not known so far. We
have, however,seen that at Ikiztepeas well as at Diindartepethe Early Bronze
Age settlementswere located in new areas of the mounds.
There should, however,not necessarilyhave been a large gap betweenthe
Late Chalcolithicperiod as definedhere, and the Early BronzeAge/CopperAge
assemblagesfrom North and CentralAnatolia. In order to accept this proposi-
tion it would be necessaryto reconsiderthe dating and successionof the ma-
terialculturesin the thirdmillenniumB.C. in these parts of Turkey.Thereare, in
fact, some indicationsthat at least part of Anatolia's Early BronzeAge/Copper
Age assemblagescan be dated severalcenturiesearlierin the third millennium
B.C. than commonly accepted.
Without going into details, one chain of evidence for updating the Early
BronzeAge in Anatolia, consists of the followingpoints: (a) The "CopperAge"
deposit at Alaca Hoytik being almost 5 metresthick, but changesin the ceram-
ics being seeminglyabsent, one may opt for a long and slow developmentof the
pottery-makingtraditionat this site; (b) Lichardusrecentlypointed out the close
similarities existing between his evolved Karanovo VI phase, Varna and
CernavodaI in their uses of T-shaped,bone idols (Lichardus1991:172,pl. 4:8,
from Oltenita-RenieI (CernavodaI), and pl. 4:9, 10, from the Varnacemetery);
(c) as already referredto, there are strong parallels between the North and
Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age/Copper Age pottery and that from
Cernavoda III-II; and (d) Morintz and Roman, in their treatment of the
Cernavodaevidence emphasizedthe close links existing between CernavodaI
and III (1968:47).
On basis of these considerations,it is possible to place Varna and the last
stage of the Karanovo VI phase close to the beginningof the Anatolian Early
BronzeAge.28Acceptinga late fourth milenniumB.C. date for late KaranovoVI
28Inthis respect,it is interestingto note that Makkay,in variouswritings,stresses

the strong resemblancesin severalgold objects from Varna and the "royal graves"at
and Varna as fixed, it may thus be suggested that at least some of the Anatolian
assemblages dated "Early Bronze Age II-III" by Orthmann and Yakar are to be
put earlier, i.e. in Early Bronze Age I.
Concluding, I may sum up the main points of my analysis of the
Diindartepe material as follows:
1. There must have been strong contacts during the end of the fifth millen-
nium B.C. between North and Central Anatolia, the islands in the Eastern
Aegean, Northern Greece (Thrace and Macedonia), Bulgaria and the region
around Anza. Inbetween these areas the degree of contact was variable.
Remarkable, however, are the strong correspondences between Samos Tigani
II-III and Biiyiik Gilliicek, in view of the geographical distance and the lack of
similar material in Western Anatolia. It is not impossible that these contacts
went by sea.
2. Contrary to common opinion, we can date Ikiztepe II/"EBA I", the
earlier Chalcolithic material from Alaca Hoyiik and Biiyiik Giilliicek towards
the end of the fifth millennium B.C. contemporary with the Karanovo IV period,
as well as contemporary with Samos Tigani (I), II-III, Emporio X-VIII, etc.
(see chronological table).
3. There exist large gaps in the sequence of Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" and I, the
earlier and later Chalcolithic from Alaca Hiyiik, and between Samos Tigani III
and IV. The later phases are all contemporary, and are to be dated towards the
end of the fourth millennium B.C., contemporary with Beycesultan Late
Chalcolithic and the later part of the Karanovo VI period.
4. The fourth millennium in Anatolia, and its first half in particular, is still
hardly known, except for the recent discoveries at Gelveri-Giizelyurt and the
surveys in Central Anatolia. They hint at ongoing contacts with the Balkans.
5. Diindartepe, Tekekoy and Kavak, as well as Ikiztepe I/Soundings C and
F all have Late Chalcolithic assemblages, mostly of a local nature. Some form
concepts as well as a decorative technique for a certain type of pottery vessel,
together with the presence of some figurines and copper tools from these sites,
make it possible to insert them in a Karanovo VI network of long distance con-
tact, involving seafaring along the coasts of the Black Sea, thus relating different
communities. Intensity of contact would have differed for each community,
depending on local interests and potentials.
Central Anatolia has probably been part of this network, as evidenced by
some figurine fragments from Ali?ar and the use of graphite in pottery manufac-
ture on the same site.
6. The implications of this conceived network are that we have to view the
Late Chalcolithic period as a period of international contacts. Although we are
hampered by scanty evidence, it seems that the different communities played dif-
ferent, but probably related parts in these contacts. The North Anatolian sites
possibly served as anchorages in the transport of the raw materials. The inland
sites in Central Anatolia were in one way or another connected with the North
Coast of Turkey, but also with the Uruk colonies to the South, via Arslantepe
and Tepecik. It is possible to state that both the North Anatolian and the
Central Anatolian sites were situated at the periphery of two complex and very
active, wide-reaching economic and cultural entities: the Karanovo VI-Varna
complex and the Mesopotamian Uruk complex. Viewing both systems as more
Alaca Hoyik. He, in fact, impliesonly a small gap for the phases in question(Makkay
1976, 1985).
or less contemporary,it remainsto be investigatedin what way they may have

confrontedeach other.29
7. Much of the AnatolianEarly BronzeAge, as representedby the pottery
assemblagesat Alaca Hoyiik, Ahlatibel, Etiyoku?u,etc., may be dated early in
the thirdmillennium,and not in the second half of it, as suggestedby the "Early
BronzeAge II/III"date for these materialsby the literature.
One consequence of this updating would be an early date for at least
some30of the "royaltombs"at Alaca H6yiik. Indeed,many links betweenAlaca
and Varna, in particularin regardto the metal objects,31have been singled out
by severalworkersin the field. It should, however,be stressedthat other vari-
ables in both sites' sets, such as location of the graves at the site, burial type,
body position, arrangementof the accompanyingobjects, all differ strongly.
Although the exact cultural and chronologicallines between Varna and Alaca
Hoyiik have still been hardlyconsidered,I view an early third millenniumdate
for the Alaca tombs as much more plausiblethan the later date, opting further
for a slight ancestryof the Varnacemetery.
8. The Anatolian pottery assemblages,mentionedin point 7, are strongly
related to the Romanian Cernavodaassemblages.Their presence at Ikiztepe,
Duindartepe,Tekek6y and Kavak, as well as in Central Anatolia, suggests an
ongoing contact-zonefunction of the Turkish Black Sea littoral for the Early
BronzeAge. The natureof the correspondentvariables,such as temper,location
and structureof decoration,vessel-shapeand repertoire,implyingnear congru-
ence of both cultural sets, together with the nearly complete break of the
Anatolian Early Bronze Age material with the preceding Late Chalcolithic
assemblages,make a common origin for the Cernavoda and the North and
CentralAnatolianEarly BronzeAge/CopperAge communitiesplausible.
Chronologicaltable
The proposals and hypothesesdiscussed above may be summarizedin a
chronologicalscheme. N. B. This table is restrictedto the issues and sites di-
rectly bearing on our subject. Dates are uncalibrated.The suggestedchrono-
logical blocks do not so much representsolid and strictboundaries;they rather
indicatea global time framefor settlementphaseswith similarelementsof mate-
rial culture.It should be stressed,that a chronologicalsequencein the order of
sites includedin the table is not suggested.
29Insuch a conceptionof the "history"of the late fourthmillennium,the occurrence

in the Karanovo VI period of wheelmade bowls may perhaps be related to
Mesopotamianpotterytechnology.
30If not all, whereI would like to follow T. Ozgui;(1957:218),who reckonstwo gen-
erationsat the most for all of the tombs at Alaca Hoyuk.
310neespeciallystrongconnection,to my knowledgeneverconsidered,is formedby
two copper figurinesfrom Alaca Hoyiik Tomb H (Ko?ay 1951:157(Al. b. H. 1 and 2),
pls. 138, 139) showing clear Karanovo VI/Gumelnitainfluences (cf. for particularly
strongparallelstwo terracottaheadsfrom EasternBulgaria(Lichardus1988:112,pl. 68)).
ANATOLIA AEGEAN BALKANS
3000 B.C. Ilipinar IV Samos Tigani IV Varna

Diundartepe-Summit EmporioVII-VI later KaranovoVI
IkiztepeI/C, F CucuteniA-B
Alaca 'later ParadimiIV
Chalcolithic' Vin6aD
Ali?ar14-12M Dikili Ta IIB
BeycesultanLCh. SitagroiIIIB-C
Demircihiiyuk,Ware F
Yazir Hyuik
3500 B.C.
3600 B.C. Gelveri Precucuteni

Ali?ar19-15M KaranovoV/Marica
Dikili Ta? IIA
SitagroiIIIA
Slatino
4000 B.C.
4100 B.C. Bilytik Gillucek Samos Tigani II-III Karanovo IV

Alaca "earlier EmporiorX-VIII SitagroiI(-II)
Chalcolithic" Ayio Gala, uppercave Dikili Ta? I
IkiztepeII/"EBAI" Kalythies ParadimiI-III
Toptepe Saliagos3 Dimini-Arapi
Anza IV
Vin6a B2-C2
4300 B.C.
APPENDIX
About white paint

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

Anatolian sites (Yortan,Troy I, Poliochni,KusuraA, and ThermiB).32
As a preliminaryto some experimentswith white paint, a quick, in no way
exhaustive,surveyof the availableliteratureconcerningthe techniqueof white-
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, and beginningof the third millenniumB.C. creating
analogouseffects.A few SoutheastEuropeanparallelshave been included.
"Even if white paint has been used..., it has disappeared because of
utilizationand the passageof time so that only an unburnishedarea under
the paint remained... these decorations were administered... after the
vessels were burnished.The small particlespresent in the paste have con-
tractedin the processof burnishingand absorbedwaterwhen a decoration
with wet brush was applied. For this reason the surface has a bumpy
appearance.It is strikingthat on almost all pieces the white paint is not
visible."
(Alkim et al. 1988:174). Ikiztepe I pottery
"The highly burnished,black inner surfacesshow lozenge ornamentations

in grayishlines. These lines seem to me to be tracesof paint which has blis-
tered and come off; it may be that a carboniferouspaint was used which
lost its color throughaccidentalheating."
(Von der Osten 1937:57).Ali?ar,Level 14M
"In wenigen Fallen sind die Reste der eigentlichenMalfarbeerhalten,die
demnachrelativdick aufgetragengewesensein muB. Diese Farbe erscheint
heute milchichgrau.Oft ist die Art der Bemalungjedoch nur am Fehlen der
Politurzu erkennen.Die aufgetrageneBemalunghat die Politurangegriffen
(auch Feuchtigkeitgreift eine ungebranntePolitur an!), und so sind die
Mallinien nach der Auflbsung der Farbe im Boden nur noch an der
zerst6rtenPoliturzu erkennen."
(Seeher1987:67).Demircihiiyiik,Ware F
"Thepaint is eitherthin and burnishedwith the surfaceor crustedon after
burnishing."
(Mellaartand Lloyd 1962:81).BeycesultanLate Chalcolithic1
"The white paint is invariablymatt and often thick. It was applied after
burnishing,but before firing.The white paint is often faded and has some-
times worn off."
(Mellaart1963:201).Konya Plain surveymaterial
"Painting carried out after the burnishing of the pot.... the paint itself
had an effect on the surfacebelow it also, partiallyor wholly destroyingthe
'mechanicalslip' producedby the burnishingprocess."
(Renfrewand Evans 1976:41).Saliagos
32SeeSeeher 1987:69-71for an exhaustivesurveyof the occurrencesof white paint

in Anatolia.
"(.. .) encrusted . . ., applied after the burnishing and firing."

(Hood 1981:225). Emporio X-VI
( . .) matte, weiBliche Farbe ist ziemlich dick aufgetragen (...).

"(...) die Malmasse [besteht] aus weiBer Erdfarbe, die erst nach dem Brand
auf die Gefal3oberflache aufgemalt wurde, da sie sonst schwarz umgefarbt
worden ware."
(Hauptmann and MilojCic 1969:25 and n. 38). Arapi
"Bemalung vor dem Brand. (...) nach einer vorangehenden starken

Polierung.... Die [weiBe] Malfarbe mu3 einen hohen Sauregrad enthalten
haben, da der Uberzug an den mit dem Pinsel bertihrten Stellen einfach
'verbrannt' war....
Die Bemalung ist abgefallen und die bemalten Zonen weisen jetzt eine
braune Schattierung auf. Auch diese Bemalung hat einen 'sauerlichen'
Charakter, da der Uberzug, in den bemalten Zonen, 'verbrannt' war,
wahrend er in den unbemalten Zonen, wo er von schwarzer Farbe ist,
unversehrt erhalten blieb. In beiden Fallen verleiht es, von einer gewissen
Entfernung betrachtet, den Eindruck von Graphit."
(Roman 1971:69) Baile Herculane II
"Die Linienmuster sind auf dunkler oder-seltener roter Gefal3oberflache

mit weiBer, oft kaum noch erkennbarer Farbe angebracht."
(Orthmann 1966:26). Yortan pottery
".. .on almost every pot these white lines are considerably faded or washed
out and they do not really conform to a contrasting pattern upon the dark-
er surface.... the white substance [was] mixed with water and applied on
the already burnished surface [and probably] wore out over the millennia
under such environmental factors as the fluctuating ground water-table and
the soil conditions."
(Kamil 1982:17). Yortan pottery
Summarising, almost all the instances show, (a) that the white paint is
applied after burnishing of the vessel; (b) that the white paint is hardly visible
anymore (attributed to the workings of time and soil), and (c) that the white
paint had occasionally affected the burnish.
Loe Jacobs from the Institute of Pottery Technology at Leiden University
did some research on the subject, having at his disposal for reference the same
Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" sherds used earlier (cf. citation above).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, polished surface. The experiments
were carried out using a commercial clay D 3004. For the white linear decora-
tions a white commercial clay D 4025 was used. From a first observation it
could be concluded that the pottery [i.e. some Ikiztepe II/"EBA I" white-painted
sherds] was fired under neutral to reducing conditions [N.B. the sherds in ques-
tion were brown-black throughout.]
33Thesame instituteearlierstudiedthe white paint on some sherdsfrom IkiztepeII,

cf. Alklm et al. 1988:174 and n. 98. We pursuedthe analysisa bit further.
The experimentwas carriedout as follows: a small pot was kneadedfrom

clay D 3004, which gives a red firing colour under oxidizing conditions. The
outer surfacewas polished with a well roundedpebble, when the clay was in a
state of having lost all its plasticity,but was not yet completelydry. This is the
best moment for polishing,becausemost gloss is obtainedin a quick way then.
Moreoverat this stage the surfaceis alreadyslightly soaking. This is necessary
in orderto be able to apply firm and quicklydrawnlines with a stronglydiluted
clay slip. The moisturefrom the dilutedclay slip is directlysoaked into the sur-
face. This gives the freshlyappliedline a taut appearance.The slip does not flow
out then, as might be the case when painting is done on a soft or leatherhard
clay. Another advantageof this way of working is that in spite of the freshly
applied lines the object can still be handled. This is because the clay slip no
longer sticks. At this point it is still possibleto polish the lines. When doing so,
no contour fading is caused by the polishing,as might occur when polishingis
done on a leatherhardsurface.The paintedlines on the Chalcolithicsherdsfrom
Ikiztepeare, however,not polished.
The contrast betweenthe polished surfaceand the dull lines was obtained
because the painting was carriedout with diluted white clay slip over the pol-
ished surface. After firing, the colour contrast was, moreover,enhanced by a
light to dark contrast of dull gray lines on a shining black surface.When the
paintingis done with a very liquid clay slip, there is no noticeabledifferencein
level betweenthe paintedlines and the underground.The dull lines in fact seem
to have sunk somewhatinto the shiny background,which is an optical illusion.
When the clay slip is applied in a less diluted condition, the result is a some-
what dry, crumblyline. In this case there is some differencein level with the
underground.
CATALOGUEOF ILLUSTRATEDPOTTERY
[Drawings scale 1:2. All pottery is handmade. E = exterior, I = interior;

D = diameter;OT = Oksiiriiktepe,which is an alternativename for Diindartepe;
OT/b = Area B on Diindartepe-Summit;all sherds are stored in the Samsum
ArchaeologicalMuseum]
Fig. 2. Carinated bowls with invertedrim and incised or grooved decoration

1: no label, but = Kkten et al. 1945, pl. LXV:5 (Duindartepe).Medium
sand;E mediumburnished,I roughlysmoothed.Colour:orangethroughoutdue
to secondaryfiring.D 19 cm.
2: DiindartepeOT/b 838 = Orthmann1963,pl. 65:16/16.Mediumsand and
medium-coarsecrushedshell; E low burnished,I mediumsmoothed. Colour:E
and I darkbrown,brown fracture.D 19 cm.
3: no label, but = Kbkten et al. 1945, pl. LXIV:I (Diindartepe).Medium-
coarse sand, some chaff added; E medium burnished, I roughly burnished.
Colour:E black, I darkbrown-black.D 13 cm.
4: Tekekoy TK 108. Unpublished.Fine-mediumsand; E rim mediumbur-
nished, but below carinationsmoothed only, I low burnished;unevenlywalled.
Colour:E black, I brown-black.D 24 cm. Two holes piercedthrough shoulder
opposite handle.
5: Diindartepe OT/b 552. Unpublished. Medium sand; E medium bur-
nished,I roughlysmoothed.Colour:E and I brown-black,black core. D 20 cm.
6: Kavak (Kaledorugu)A. 205 = Orthmann 1963, pl. 68:18/06. Medium-
coarse sand, while surface shows also chaff-facing.Grooves are burnished-in,
while rest of E rim is deliberatelyleft without burnish.Below carinationvessel,

again burnished.I not burnished.Colour:E black, I dark brown. D 23 cm.
Fig. 3:1-7. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration;
8. Black burnished,fine pottery with white-painteddecoration
1: DiindartepeOT/b 685. Unpublished.Medium sand and medium-coarse
crushed shell; E medium burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E and I
orange,fractureorangetoo, all due to secondaryfiring.D base 8 cm. Tracesof
yellowish-whiteencrustedpaste or wash in and over groovedzones.
2: DiindartepeOT/b 2296. Unpublished.Mediumsand and medium-coarse
crushed shell; E medium smoothed, I slightly smoothed. Colour: E and I and
fractureorange,due to secondaryfiring.D base 8 cm. Tracesof yellowish-white
paste or wash in and over decoratedzone. Cf. Fig. 3:4.
3: DiindartepeOT/b 466. Unpublished.Medium sand and finely crushed
shell; E medium burnished,I low burnished.Colour: E orange, I red, fracture
red, all due to secondaryfiring making the sherd also dinky hard (stone ware
aspect). E zone without decorationis mediumburnished,while decoratedzones
are unburnishedand have faint traces of yellowish-whitepaste or wash over
them.
4: DiindartepeOT/b 681. Unpublished.Mediumsand and mediumcrushed
shell; E low burnished, I medium smoothed. Colour: E, I and fracture all
orange, due to secondaryfiring, making the sherd dinky hard. Deeply incised.
Yellowish-whitepaste or wash in and over decoratedzone. Piece to be located
near base. Very probablyfrom same bowl as Fig. 3:2 (no join).
5: DiindartepeOT/b 647. Unpublished.Fine sand; E mediumburnished.I
roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I grey-brown,same colour separationon
fracture.D not measurable.
6: DtindartepeOT/b 660. Unpublished.Mediumsand and mediumcrushed
shell; E medium burnished.I lightly smoothed. Colour: E, I and fractureall
orange, due to secondaryfiring. Two holes piercedthroughwall below carina-
tion at both sides of handle. Traces of yellowish-whitepaste or wash over
groovedzone on shoulder.
7: DiindartepeOT/b 662 = Kokten et al. 1945, pl. LXIII:7.Mediumsand
and medium-coarsecrushed shell; E medium smoothed, I lightly smoothed.
Colour:E orange,I black, same colour separationon fracture.Shallowgrooves.
Piece is overfired,probablysecondarily;crackedat places.
8: no label, possibly Diindartepe.Unpublished.Medium-coarsesand and
pebble grit inclusions;E medium-highburnished,I smoothed only. Colour: E
orange-red,I orange,due to secondaryfiring.White paint above carination.
Fig. 4. Black burnished,fine pottery with white-painteddecoration

1: Diindartepe OT/b 1398. Unpublished. Medium-coarsesand; E bur-
nished, but worn off, I mediumburnished.Colour:E black, I red-brown,same
colour separationon fracture.D 22 cm. One rudimentaryknob below rim.
2: DiindartepeOT/b 842. Unpublished.Fine sand; E highly burnished,I
medium smoothed. Colour:E black, I orange, same colour separationon frac-
ture. D 27 cm. The white paint is very faintly preserved,while unclearor non-
existenton right half.
3: DiindartepeOT/b 1422. Unpublished.Fine-mediumsand and chaff; E
highly burnished,I low burnished.Colour: E black, I red-brown,same colour
separationon fracture.D 21 cm.
4: Tekekoy TK 114. Unpublished.Medium-coarsesand and crushedshell
inclusions;E highly burnished,I haphazardlyburnishedonly. Colour: E black

with redbrownrim (down till arrow),I red-brown;I unevenlywalled. Two rudi-
mentaryknobs on widest diameter.White paint very vaguely visible. D 25 cm.
5: DiindartepeUT/b 616. Unpublished.Mediumsand and pebble grit and
chaff; E highly burnished,I evenly smoothed only. Colour: E black, I grey-
brown, same colour separationon fracture.I wall uneven.D 13 cm.
Fig. 5:1-3. Black burnished,fine pottery with white-painteddecoration;4-5. black

burnished,fine pottery withoutpaint
1: DiindartepeOT/b 1757= Ozgiiu 1948, pl. VI:5. Medium-coarsesand; E
highly burnished,I smoothed,but worn. Colour:E black, I brown, same colour
2: DtindartepeOT/b 2396. Unpublished.Mediumsand and pebblegrit, and
fine chaff; E has chaff-faced aspect. E highly burnished,I rim medium bur-
nished, rest evenly smoothed.Colour:E black, I brown, same colour separation
on fracture.D 13 cm.
3: Dindartepe OT/b a./19 = Orthmann1963, pl. 65:16/14.Medium-coarse
sand and chaff; E medium burnished,I roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I
brown, same colour separation on fracture. Fragment possibly belonging to
bowl like Fig. 4:1.
mediumburnished,I low burnished.Colour:E black, I red-brown,same colour
5: DtindartepeOT/b 411. Unpublished.Fine sand; E mediumburnished,I
roughlysmoothed,slightlyworn. Colour:E black, I brown, same colour separa-
tion on fracture.Two rudimentaryknobs juxtaposedhorizontallybelow rim. D
25 cm.
Fig. 6:1-5. Black burnished,fine pottery without paint; 6-10. black burnished,
medium-coarsepottery
1: DiindartepeOT/b 669. Unpublished.Fine sand;E highlyburnished(very
smooth-no individualstrokesvisible),I mediumburnished.Colour:E black, E
rim (down till arrow)and I red-brown,same colour separationon fracture.D 22
cm.
2: DiindartepeOT/2 1137.Unpublished.Mediumsand;E highlyburnished,
I low burnished.Colour: E black, I ochre brown, same colour separationon
fractureD 17 cm.
highly burnished,I mediumsmoothed.Colour:E black, E rim (down till arrow)
and I red-brown,same colour separationon fracture.D 23 cm.
4: Diindartepe OT/b 438 = Orthmann 1963, pl. 65:16/05. Fine-medium
sand and chaff; E medium burnished,I medium smoothed. Colour: E black, I
brown, same colour separationon fracture.D 10 cm.
nished, I mediumsmoothed. Colour:E black, I brown, same colour separation
on fracture.D 12 cm.
6: DiindartepeOT/b 932. Unpublished.Medium-coarsesand;E highly bur-
nished (slightly worn), I low burnished.On I rim vague traces of a red wash.
Colour:E black, I red-brown,same colour separationon fracture.D 20 cm.
7: DiindartepeOT/b 524. Unpublished.Medium sand and pebble grit; E
highly burnished,I rim mediumburnished,rest mediumsmoothedonly. Colour:
E black, I orange,same colour separationon fracture.D 21 cm.
8: Diindartepe OT/b 1467. Unpublished. Medium sand and chaff; E me-

dium burnished, I roughly smoothed. Colour: E black, I grey-brown, same
colour separation on fracture. D base 8 cm.
9: Diindartepe OT/b 1803. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand, chaff and
coarse grit inclusions; E medium burnished (slightly worn), I roughly smoothed.
Colour: E black, I grey-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D base
13 cm.
10: Diindartepe OT/b 69. Unpublished. Medium sand and pebble grit; E
highly burnished, I rim medium burnished, rest medium smoothed only. Colour:
E black, I red-brown, same colour separation on fracture. D 19 cm. Rim very
uneven.
Fig. 7. Coarse ware/miscellaneous

1: Diindartepe OT/2 1620. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand; E medium
burnished, I low burnished. Colour: E and I grey-brown, fracture grey. D
21 cm.
2: Dtindartepe OT/b 641. Unpublished. Medium-coarse sand and chaff; E
and I low burnished. Colour: E and I ochre brown, fracture black. D 29 cm.
nished, I evenly smoothed. Colour: E black, I brown, same colour separation on
fracture. D 19 cm.
4: Dtindartepe OT/2 892. Unpublished. Medium sand, pebble grit and
chaff; E low burnished, I evenly smoothed. Colour: E and I ochre brown, frac-
ture brown. D 17 cm.
5: no label, but possibly Diindartepe. Unpublished. Medium sand, pebble
grit and chaff; E and I low burnished. Colour: E black, I brown-black, fracture
black. D 28 cm.
6: Diindartepe OT/b 1413. Unpublished. Fine sand; E highly burnished, I
evenly smoothed. Colour: E black, I orange, same colour separation on fracture.
Very neatly and thinly incised. D 8 cm.
7: no label, could be Diindartepe. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand; me-
dium burnished, black throughout.
8: no label, could be Dtindartepe. Unpublished. Fine-medium sand; me-
dium burnished, black throughout.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alkim, U. B., H. Alkim and 0. Bilgi

1988 IkiztepeI. Ankara:TurkTarihKurumu.
Bakalakis,G. and A. Sakellariou
1981 Paradimi.Mainz am Rhein:Phillipvon Zabern.
Cambel,H.
1947 "Archaologischer BerichttiberAnatolien."OrientaliaN.S. 16:263-270.
Chapman,J.
1981 The Vincacultureof South-EastEurope.Studiesin chronology,economyand so-
ciety. Oxford:BAR InternationalSeries 117.
Eggert,M. and F. Liith
1987 "Mersin und die absolute Chronologie des europaischen Neolithikums."
Germania65:17-28.
Evans,J. and C. Renfrew
1968 Excavationsat Saliagosnear Antiparos.London:The BritishSchool of Archae-
ology at Athens.
/ 1
Fig. 2. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration: 1-3, 5 Diindartepe; 4 Tekekoy;
6 Kavak. (1:2).
5 5 98 4/- 6i '_ '
Fig. 3. Carinated bowls with inverted rim and incised or grooved decoration: 1-7 Dtindartepe; 8 white-
painted decoration (possibly Diindartepe). (1:2).
I-/ 1
I 3
Fig. 4. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration: 1-3, 5 Diindartepe; 4 Tekek6y. (1:2).
Fig. 5. Black burnished, fine pottery with white-painted decoration: 1-3; black burnished, fine
pottery
without paint: 4, 5. All from Diindartepe. (1:2).
3
4
1 8
i6
:;::
!??
.?. ::
Ir' ?''6;:?: ::
10
Fig. 6. Black burnished, fine pottery without paint: 1-5; black burnished, medium-coarse pottery without
paint: 6-10. All from Dundartepe. (1:2).
Z,.J 2 \_ 3
uate5 7psiy26
Fig. Caeaeieaos1
7
\\~ 4~8
Fig. 7. Coarseware/miscellaneous:
1-4 Diindartepe;5-8 possiblyDiindartepe.(1:2).
Felsch, R.
1987 Das Kastro Tigani. Die spdtneolithische und chalcolithische Siedlung. Samos II.
Bonn:Phillipvon Zabern.
Fol, A., R. Katincarov,J. Lichardus,F. Bertemesand I. KrastevIliev
1989 "Berichttiber die bulgarisch-deutschen Ausgrabungenin Drama (1983-1988).
Neolithikum-Kupferzeit-Bronzezeit." Bericht der Rdmisch-Germanischen
Kommission 70:5-127.
Frey, O.-H.
1991 "Varna-ein Umschlagplatz fur den Seehandel in der Kupferzeit?"In: J.
Lichardus [ed.]. Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbriicken
und Otzenhausen6-13.11.1988. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 195-201.
Furness,A.
1956 "Some early pottery of Samos, Kalimnos and Chios." Proceedingsof the
Prehistoric Society 22:173-212.
Gimbutas,M. [ed.]
1976 Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia.
Los Angeles:Universityof California.
Hauptmann,H. and V. Miloj&ic
1969 Die Funde der friihen Dimini-Zeit aus der Arapi-Magula, Thessalien. Bonn:
Rudolf Habelt.
Hiller,S.
1990 "Neue Ausgrabungenin Karanovo."In Srejovic,D. and N. Tasic [eds.] Vin6a
and its world. International symposium-The Danubian region from 6000 to 3000
B.C. Belgrade, Smederevska Palanka, October 1988. Belgrade:197-206.
Hood, S.
1981 Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. London:
The BritishSchool of Archaeologyat Athens/Thamesand Hudson.
Ivanov, I.
1988 "Die Ausgrabungendes Graberfeldesvon Varna(1972-1986)."In A. Fol and J.
Lichardus [eds.] Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Grdberfeld von Varna
(Bulgarien) und die Anfdnge einer neuen europdischenZivilisation. Saarbrticken:
ModerneGaleriedes Saarland-Museums:49-66.
Kamil,T.
1982 Yortan cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia. Oxford: BAR
InternationalSeries 145.
Kdn,ev, M.
1973 "Kulturnata grupa Karanovo IV v Novozagorsko." Archeologija Sofia
15/3:42-51
Ko?ay, H.
1951 Lesfouilles d'Alaca Hoyiik, 1937-1939. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu.
Ko?ay,H. and M. Akok
1957 Ausgrabungenvon BuiyiikGillicek, 1947 und 1949. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu
1966 Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hoyiik. Vorbericht uiber die Forschungen und
Entdeckungenvon 1940-1948. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu.
Kokten, K., N. Ozgui and T. Ozguii
1945 "1940ve 1941yillndaTurkTarihKurumuadina yapilanSamsunbolgesikazilan
hakkindailk kisa rapor."BelletenIX:361-400.
Lamb,W.
1949 "New developmentsin earlyAnatolianarchaeology."IraqXI:188-201.
Lichardus,J.
1988 "Der westpontischeRaum und die Anfangeder kupferzeitlichenZivilisation."In
A. Fol and J. Lichardus [eds.]. Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Graberfeld von
Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfdnge einer neuen europdischen Zivilisation.
Saarbriicken:ModerneGaleriedes Saarland-Museums:79-130.
1991 "Das Graberfeldvon Varna im Rahmen des Totenritualsdes Kodzadermen-
Gumelnita-KaranovoVI-Verbandes."In: J. Lichardus[ed.]. Die Kupferzeitals
historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988.

Bonn: Rudolf Habelt:167-194.
Lichardus, J. and M. Lichardus-Itten et al.
1985 La protohistoire de l'Europe. Le neolithique et le chalcolithique entre la
Mediterranee et la mer Baltique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Lloyd, S. and J. Mellaart
1962 Beycesultan. Vol. I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age levels. London: The
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Makkay, J.
1976 "Problems concerning Copper Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin." Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28:251-300.
1985 "Diffusionism, antidiffusionism and chronology: some general remarks." Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37:3-12.
Malinowski, B.
1922 Argonauts of the WesternPacific. An account of native enterpriseand adventurein
the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London/New York: Routledge &
Kegan Paul [1978 paperback edition used].
Mellaart, J.
1963 "Early cultures of the South Anatolian plateau, II. The Late Chalcolithic and
Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain." Anatolian Studies 13:199-236.
Morintz, S. and P. Roman
1968 "Aspekte des Ausgangs des Aneolithikums und der Ubergangsstufe zur
Bronzezeit im Raum der Nieder-Donau." Dacia XII:45-128.
Orthmann, W.
1963 Die Keramik der friihen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien.Berlin:Gebr. Mann.
1966 "Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen." Istanbuler Mitteilungen
16:1-26.
Osten, H. H. von der
1937 The Alishar Hiiyiik. seasons of 1930-1932. Part 1. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press [OIP 28].
Ozdogan, M.
1991 "Eastern Thrace before the beginning of Troy I. An archaeological dilemma."
In: J. Lichardus [ed.] Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium
Saarbriickenund Otzenhausen6.-13.11.1988. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt:217-225.
in press "Pre-bronze age sequence of Central Anatolia: an alternative approach." [To
appear in the Beran Festschrift].
Ozdogan, M., Y Miyake and N. Ozba?aran Dede
1991 "An interim report on excavations at Yarlmburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern
Thrace." Anatolica XVII:59-121.
Ozgiiu, T.
1948 "Samsun hafriyatlnln 1941-1942 yili neticeleri." In: III. Turk Tarih Kongresi,
Ankara 1943. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu:393-419.
Ozgiiy, T. and M. Akok
1957 "Objects from Horoztepe." Belleten XXI:211-219.
Radun6eva, A.
1976 Vinica. Eneolitno seliSCei nekropol. Sofia.
Renfrew, C.
1987 Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origins. [1989 Penguin
edition used].
Renfrew, C., M. Gimbutas and E. Elster
1986 Excavations at Sitagroi I. Los Angeles: University of California.
Roman, P.
1971 "Strukturanderungendes Endaneolithikums im Donau-Karpaten-Raum." Dacia
XV:31-169.
Sahlins, M.
1972 Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine.
Sampson,A.
1987 E neolithike periodos sta Dodekanesa. Athens:Tameio Archaiologikon poron kai
Apallotrioseon.
Seeher,J.
1987 Demircihuyuk. Die Keramik I. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.
Tezcan,B.
1958 "Aksaray9evresindenderleneneserler."BelletenXXII:517-526.
Temizer,R.
1960 "Yazir Hyuigii Buluntular." In: V. Turk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1956. Ankara:
TurkTarih Kurumu:156-164.
Todorova,H.
1978 The eneolithic period in Bulgaria in the fifth millennium B.C. Oxford:BAR
InternationalSeries49.
Todorova,H. and G. Tonceva
1975 "Die aneolithische Pfahlbausiedlungbei Ezerovo im Varnasee." Germania
53:30-46.
Todorova,H., S. Ivanov, V. Vasilev,M. Hopf, H. Quittaand G. Kohl
1975 SeliSenata mogila pri Goljamo Delkevo. Sofia.
Yakar,J.
1985 The later prehistory of Anatolia. the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.
Oxford:BAR InternationalSeries268.

Anatolian Studies 43

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Anatolian Studies 43

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from the

Turkish Black Sea Littoral

'This study could only be done thanksto ProfessorTahsinOzgiui,who very kindly

pendants)"the broad distributionof these pendanttypes suggestsa continentwidesys-

To the aforementioned Balkan-Anatolian networks existing along the

6Earliernoted by Furness 1956:197,199, 205, who correlatedwhite-paintedpottery

Pottery from Diindartepe, Tekekoy and Kavak

16Thegeneralaspect of the pottery from the "Eneolithic"levels of Diindartepeis

one, homogeneous assemblage and are morphologicallyand technologically

20Comparable firingprocessesappearto have been used in the Arapi phase. Here,

4. Black burnished medium-coarse pottery (Fig. 6:6-10). Much similar to

21Alklmet al. 1988:195:"In SoundingA at IkiztepeI (...) white painted[ceramics]

Like the deposit in the Duindartepe-Summit area, the upper portions of

External dating of Ikiztepe I, Soundings C, F and Diindartepe-Summit

24Seefor a quick reference,Lichardusand Lichardus-Ittenet al. 1985:379and fig.

26As a final argumentfor a date late in the fourthmillenniumB.C. the evidencefrom

28Inthis respect,it is interestingto note that Makkay,in variouswritings,stresses

or less contemporary,it remainsto be investigatedin what way they may have

29Insuch a conceptionof the "history"of the late fourthmillennium,the occurrence

ANATOLIA AEGEAN BALKANS

3000 B.C. Ilipinar IV Samos Tigani IV Varna

3600 B.C. Gelveri Precucuteni

4100 B.C. Bilytik Gillucek Samos Tigani II-III Karanovo IV

About white paint

Etiyoku?u,Ahlatllbel, Asarclk Htiytik, Karaoglan and Maltepe) and Western

"The highly burnished,black inner surfacesshow lozenge ornamentations

32SeeSeeher 1987:69-71for an exhaustivesurveyof the occurrencesof white paint

"(.. .) encrusted . . ., applied after the burnishing and firing."

( . .) matte, weiBliche Farbe ist ziemlich dick aufgetragen (...).

"Bemalung vor dem Brand. (...) nach einer vorangehenden starken

"Die Linienmuster sind auf dunkler oder-seltener roter Gefal3oberflache

Some technical notes on white-painteddecoration

33Thesame instituteearlierstudiedthe white paint on some sherdsfrom IkiztepeII,

The experimentwas carriedout as follows: a small pot was kneadedfrom

[Drawings scale 1:2. All pottery is handmade. E = exterior, I = interior;

Fig. 2. Carinated bowls with invertedrim and incised or grooved decoration

while rest of E rim is deliberatelyleft without burnish.Below carinationvessel,

Fig. 4. Black burnished,fine pottery with white-painteddecoration

inclusions;E highly burnished,I haphazardlyburnishedonly. Colour: E black

Fig. 5:1-3. Black burnished,fine pottery with white-painteddecoration;4-5. black

8: Diindartepe OT/b 1467. Unpublished. Medium sand and chaff; E me-

Fig. 7. Coarse ware/miscellaneous

Alkim, U. B., H. Alkim and 0. Bilgi

5 5 98 4/- 6i '_ '

historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988.

Вам также может понравиться