96
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
7000 cal BC has generally been regarded as the di-
viding line between the pre-pottery Neolithic and
the pottery Neolithic in Southwest Asia. As Neolithic
sites with a domestic economy in Western Anatolia
and further west were founded after 7000 cal BC, it
has been premised that the Neolithic way of life in
these regions started with pottery as part of the Neo-
lithic package. Therefore, declarations of the absence
of pottery in some Neolithic sites in the West are
met with widespread scepticism (Reingruber 2015),
despite the fact that pottery technology was not em-
braced by all Neolithic communities at the same
time in the East, such as those in the Southern Le-
vant and Cyprus (Nieuwenhuyse, Campbell 2017.
168). The basal levels of all Neolithic sites such as
Yesilova, Ege Gübre and Dedecik-Heybelitepe in
Western Anatolia founded after 6500 cal BC revealed
pottery. However, the situation at a few sites in the
region which were founded in the first half of the
7th millennium BC is a rather complex one. The basal
level of Çukuriçi Höyük (XIII) dating to 6680–6600
cal BC yielded only a few ceramic sherds (Horejs
Ulucak Höyük>
the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
Department of Archaeology, Trakya University, Edirne, TR
arkeocevik@gmail.com
ABSTRACT – It has been increasingly clear that pottery was adopted as a continuous technology dur-
ing the first quarter of the 7th millennium BC in a wide region, from Upper Mesopotamia through
Central Anatolia and the Lakes District region. However, the absence of pottery in the basal level at
Ulucak Höyük shows the presence of a pre-ceramic sequence in western Anatolia, before c. 6600/
6500 cal BC. This article discusses the earliest pottery assemblage from Ulucak (6600/6500–6200
cal BC) and compares it with the later ceramic sequences at the site. Ultimately, the functional and
typological developmental sequence of Neolithic pottery at Ulucak Höyük and its temporo-spatial
relations with other Neolithic sites in Anatolia will be assessed.
IZVLE∞EK – Vse bolj je jasno, da je bilo lon≠arstvo kot tehnologija sprejeto neprekinjeno v prvi ≠etr-
tini 7. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. na ∏irokem obmo≠ju od zgornje Mezopotamije do osrednje Anatolije in ob-
mo≠ja jezer. Kljub temu odsotnost lon≠enine v najglobljih plasteh na najdi∏≠u Ulucak Höyük ka∫e
na obstoj predkerami≠ne sekvence v zahodni Anatoliji, in sicer pred ok. 6600/6500 pr. n. ∏t. V ≠lanku
razpravljamo o najzgodnej∏em zbiru lon≠enine iz Ulucaka (6600/6500–6200 pr. n. ∏t.) in ga primer-
jamo s kasnej∏imi sekvencami keramike na tem najdi∏≠u. Na koncu ocenjujemo funkcionalno in
tipolo∏ko razvojno sekvenco neolitske lon≠enine na najdi∏≠u Ulucak Höyük in njeno ≠asovno in pro-
storsko povezavo z drugimi neolitskimi najdi∏≠i v Anatoliji.
KEY WORDS – Ulucak Höyük; Neolithic; pottery; Western Anatolia; pre-ceramic
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Ulucak Höyük; neolitik; lon≠enina; zahodna Anatolija; predkerami≠ni neolitik
Ulucak Höyük>
pojav lon;enine v zahodni Anatoliji
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.6
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
97
open vessels with vegetable temper, although some
sherds from Boncuklu also contain mineral inclu-
sion. These early attempts of ceramic use, however,
cannot be followed in the subsequent periods or in
the wider region. Thus, it has been suggested that
pottery became an integral part of the material world
after it was adopted as a continuous technology start-
ing from the beginning of the 7th millennium BC, or
even somewhat earlier (Nieuwenhuyse, Campbell
2017.172).
Sites which have both PPNB levels and successive
levels with early ceramics suggest a strong continu-
ity in material culture between the two periods
(Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2010.76; Nishiaki, Le Miére
2005.57; Cruels et al. 2017.28). The earliest pottery
horizon in Northern Mesopotamia and the Northern
Levant is characterized by mineral tempered, bur-
nished wares, dated to between 7000 and 6700 cal
BC (Campbell 2017). The nature of mineral temper
shows intra-site variation and mainly consists of ba-
salt, calcite and carbonate. The surface colour is ge-
nerally dark (grey, dark grey and black) although
light colours (cream, buff, pinkish, pale and yello-
wish brown) also occur. Possibly in order to distin-
guish them from the later mineral tempered wares
(i.e. dark faced burnished wares, DFBW) the earliest
ceramics have been labelled ‘early mineral ware’ in
Tell Sabi Abyad (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2010.75; Nieu-
wenhuyse 2017.19), ‘early dark ware’ in Tell Seker
Al-Aheimar (Nishiaki, Le Miére 2005.61), ‘black se-
ries’ in Akarçay Tepe and Tell Halula (Arimura et al.
1999.239; Cruells et al. 2017.37), ‘Kerkh Ware‘ in
Tell El-Kerkh 2 (Tsuneki, Miyake 1996.114), ‘mine-
ral tempered burnished ware’ in Salat Camii Yanı
(Miyake 2017.56) and ‘sandy ware’ in Yumuktepe
(Balossi-Restelli 2004.115; 2017.84–85). The aver-
age thickness of the vessel walls of this period is
2019.77), while none have been
found in the basal level at Ulucak
(VI), exposed in Trench L13 and
partly in L12 and K13. Ulucak VI
consists of at least three sub-pha-
ses and is dated to 6850–6500
cal BC by sixteen 14C dates (Çe-
vik 2016; Çevik, Erdogu 2020).
Nonetheless, a few ceramic sherds
coming from a fill between Level
V and the latest phase of Level VI
may indicate that sporadic occur-
rences of pottery at Ulucak can
be dated to post-6600 cal BC. In
fact, a similar situation is observ-
ed in the earliest level of Ugurlu
(VI) on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros). The latest
phase of Ugurlu VI, dated to 6600 cal BC, yielded
a number of ceramic sherds, although the earlier
phase (6700 cal BC) is devoid of pottery (Erdogu
2017.79). What this indicates is that pottery techno-
logy is yet unknown during the initial phase of Neo-
lithic occupation (c. 6850–6600 cal BC) in Western
Anatolia and possibly also at Knossos on Crete (Ef-
stratiou et al. 2013). This technology was adopted
by the Neolithic communities in the region at around
6600 cal BC, or slightly later. However, the term ‘Ini-
tial Neolithic’ for this earliest occupational phase is
more appropriate, as the pre-ceramic sequence in
western Anatolia is represented by a full-fledged ag-
ricultural and herding system (Çakırlar 2012).
The Neolithic pottery from the later phases of Ulu-
cak Höyük (Levels Vb through IV) has already been
published (Çilingiroglu 2012). Thus, this paper pre-
sents the earliest pottery assemblage (Vc-e) from
Ulucak, dating to 6600/6500–6200 cal BC. A compa-
rison with the later pottery sequence at the site is
then presented. Ultimately, the developmental se-
quence of the Neolithic pottery from Ulucak Höyük
will then be contextualized within the wider region,
including Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia.
The early ceramic sequence in Anatolia and
Northern Mesopotamia: an overview
The earliest pottery in Southwest Asia is dated from
the 9th millennium BC through the early 8th millen-
nium BC, seen at Boncuklu Höyük (c. 8300–7800
cal BC) in Central Anatolia (Fig. 1) and Kfar Haho-
resh (c. 8750–7500 cal BC) in the Southern Levant
(Spataro et al. 2016; Fletcher et al. 2017; Biton et
al. 2014). These earliest ceramics in PPNB contexts
are not frequent and generally consist of thick-walled
Fig. 1. The Neolithic sites mentioned in the text.
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
98
about 10mm, while the shapes are rather simple in-
cluding hole-mouth convex sided bowls and hemi-
spherical bowls with flat bases. Ledge handles and
pierced knobs are also typical. Decoration do not
appear to have been characteristic during this early
stage of pottery production, although some painted
sherds were recorded in Tell Sabi Abyad and Tell Se-
ker Al-Aheimar (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2010.79–80;
2017.20–21; Nishiaki, Le Mière 2005.62).
This earliest pottery horizon is replaced by plant tem-
pered coarse ware in Upper Mesopotamia (Akker-
man et al. 2006; Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2018.12; Ari-
mura et al. 2005.238–239; Özdogan 2009.30), while
‘mineral tempered dark face burnished wares’ rep-
resent the dominant ware type both in Cilicia and
the Northern Levant (Balossi-Restelli 2004; Odaka
2013). Although the variety of shapes and the
amount of ceramics increased after around 6700
cal BC, the real quantitative increase in the pottery
assemblage appears to have taken place during the
last quarter of the 7th millennium onwards (Nieu-
wenhuyse, Akkerman 2019.112). It is in this later
period that the shapes of the vessels are also diver-
sified, including distinctively articulated necked jars,
carinated bowls, plates and large storage jars which
show utilitarian aspects of pottery use, from storage
to food preparation and drinking (Akkerman et al.
2006.147–148). ‘Red slipped/washed wares’ first ap-
peared in the Amuq B horizon, although they never
became an important component of the pottery as-
semblage (Çilingiroglu 2009.204). With regard to
decoration, impressed wares are both seen in Cilicia
(Yumuktepe XXIX-XX) and Upper Mesopotamia after
around 6700 cal BC, while painted decoration in-
creasingly predominated starting from the last quar-
ter of the 7th millennium BC onwards (Nieuwenhuy-
se, Akkerman 2019.107; Tekin 2017.110; Arimura
et al. 2000.237).
Technological traits (mineral temper, closed shapes
with handles, and burnishing) suggest that cooking
may have been one of the functions of the earliest
ceramics (Le Miére 2017.14; Nieuwenhuyse, Camp-
bell 2017.181). However, their low frequency, re-
stricted shapes and smaller capacity, suggest against
their use in everyday commensality within the rou-
tine domestic sphere (Nieuwenhuyse, Campbell
2017.182). Thus, even if they did function as cook-
ing utensils that held food or drink, this may still
have been related to a special event, with a special
type of contents or for a selected number of people.
In general, these early vessels are not considered to
be a stage that led to a culinary revolution (Nieu-
wenhuyse, Campbell 2017.182).
Çatalhöyük (East) provides the early pottery se-
quence in Central Anatolia, dating from the end of
the 8th millennium BC onwards. The earliest cera-
mic horizon (Levels XII-VIII/VII) is mainly characte-
rized by plant tempered wares with thick walls,
ranging 10–25mm (Last 2005; Özdöl 2012). The
surface colour of this wares is buff, cream, light grey
and rarely red, called ‘cream burnished ware’ or
‘cream organic ware’ (Mellaart 1966; Yalman 2006).
As was the case in Upper Mesopotamia and the
Northern Levant, the shapes show restricted vari-
ety and mainly consist of bowls (Mellaart 1966;
Özdöl 2012). Bowls with convex or straight profiles,
and hemispherical bowls, are typical. Lugs and han-
dles are absent, while flat bases with rounded and
Fig. 2. Drawing of architectural remains from Level
VI through Level V in Trenches L13, K13 and L12.
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
99
angular junctions are common. A few oval bases are
also noted. Mineral tempered wares are first intro-
duced in Level VIII/VII at around 6700/6600 cal BC,
while a small percentage of light wares are part of
the assemblage in Çatalhöyük (Özdöl 2014.32; Last
2005.106). Mineral tempered pottery, locally called
‘dark gritty wares’ or ‘dark standard ware’, became a
dominant ware type between Levels VII-IV, although
it then decreased continuously in the upper levels.
This ware group is thin-walled (4–8mm) and its mi-
neral temper includes quartz and various volcanic-
originated minerals (Last 2005.105). Their surface
colour is generally black, brown and reddish brown.
Among the common shapes are hole-mouth jars with
globular bodies and vertically perforated lugs, S-pro-
filed collar necked jars, and also bowl types known
from the earlier period (Özdöl 2014.32–38; Last
1996.116). It has been suggested that the dichotomy
between dark and light surface colours in the pot-
tery assemblage may reflect the functions of the pots,
which generally consist of bowls and special forms
(Özdöl 2012). In the upper levels (IV-I), dating to
6400/6300–6000 cal BC, bowls and lighter surface
colours including cream, orange and red became
more frequent. It is of particular interest that mine-
ral tempered red-slipped and burnished wares be-
came the dominant surface treatment in Level III,
although a few red-slipped wares first appeared in
Level VI (Özdöl 2008.379; Rosenstock et al. 2019.
175). Moreover, developed forms such as sharply
carinated bowls with everted rims, vessels with pro-
nounced ‘S’ profiles and necked jars, together with
ledge handles and vertically perforated tubular lugs,
ring and footed (disc) bases are also seen in Çatal-
höyük IV-I (Özdöl 2014.38–39). Nonetheless, large
storage jars are so far only known from the West
mound sequence (Rosenstock et al. 2019.175). De-
coration including incision, relief and paint is spora-
dically found in Levels IV-I (Özdöl-Kutlu 2014.41–
42), although painted decoration is fully integrated
into the ceramic assemblage in the sequence of West
Mound in Çatalhöyük. In fact, the frequency of pot-
tery is low through the Neolithic sequence at Çatal-
höyük, while an increase in pottery production has
been recorded in the West Mound sequence (Rosen-
stock et al. 2019.175).
Mineral tempered wares, however, do not seem to
have been a common feature in the pottery assem-
blage from Central Anatolia, as the organic tempered
wares attested through the Neolithic period in Tepe-
cik-Çiftlik have shown (Bıçakçı et al. 2012.96–98).
The pottery from the earliest levels (9–5) in Tepecik-
Çiftlik, dating to the first half of the 7th millennium
Fig. 3. Drawing of Levels Vc-e in Trench L12.
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
100
BC, is characterized by plant tem-
pered wares with both dark and
light surface colours. Hole-mouth
bowls and bowls with straight
walls are typical shapes, while
handles/lugs and decoration are
not recorded in this early pottery
assemblage (Godon 2011.321; Bı-
cakçı et al. 2012.97). A few mi-
neral tempered wares, some of
which have impressed decoration
are thought to have been import-
ed (Godon 2005.97). A small
number of red-slipped sherds in
Level V, which is dated slightly
earlier than 6300 cal BC, has
been considered as an intrusion
from Level 3, where this ware type is frequently
found. Level 3 (c. 6000 cal BC) marks the diversifi-
cation of shapes such as carinated bowls, necked
jars and large-sized storage jars (Godon 2005.95).
This is also the period when the relief decoration
of Levels V-IV was replaced by incised decoration,
and the amount of organic temper increased in rela-
tion to large-sized jars.
Regarding the function of the initial pottery from
Central Anatolia, a recent study on lipids suggests
that both mineral and plant tempered wares from
Çatalhöyük were used for cooking purposes starting
from c. 6860 cal BC, although lipid residues have
been found more often in dark mineral tempered
wares when compared to plant tempered cream wa-
res (Pitter 2013). It is interesting to note that both
hole-mouth jars and bowls were used for cooking
purposes.
In the Lakes District region, Badema-
gacı is the only site where one may
infer the characteristics of the pot-
tery assemblage during the early 7th
millennium BC. The early horizon
in Bademagacı is termed the Early
Neolithic I (ENI), including Levels 9
through 5. The earliest occupation
phases at Bademagacı are dated to
c. 7000–6700 cal BC based on a sin-
gle 14C date from EN I-8. (Duru 2012.
20). EN I levels reveal mica temper-
ed wares with pink, beige, dark grey
and greyish brown surface colours
(Duru 2007.347; 2012.18). Their sur-
face is poorly burnished. The form
variety is restricted and consists of
hemispherical bowls with slightly inverted or evert-
ed rims and hole-mouth jars with flat bases. In ad-
dition to a few vertically placed pierced lugs in Le-
vels 7–5, some new forms are added such as vessels
with flattened rims, sharply carinated jars and flar-
ing shallow bowls. Since these developed forms
have generally been recorded in Anatolia during
the second half of the 7th millennium BC, this has
led to the reconsideration that the pottery from Le-
vels 7–5 either belong to a time-period later than
mid-7th millennium BC, or these shapes were expe-
rienced earlier in this region than elsewhere. Cer-
tain changes occurred during the EN II period (Le-
vels 4–1) in Bademagacı (Duru 2012.19). The sur-
face colour tended to be darker, with tones of brown
and grey. Earlier shapes continued, while the num-
ber of carinated, slightly ‘S’ profile large bowls with
an everted rim increased. Oval forms, disc bases and
tubular lugs were introduced. Large-sized storage
Fig. 4. Jars from building closing deposit (Building 54).
Fig. 5. Distribution of ware types in levels Vc-e.
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
101
jars have only been attested in the
latest phase of EN II (Duru 2003.
559). Decoration is rarely seen, in-
cluding relief and paint. Mineral tem-
pered wares from Hacılar IX-VI ap-
pear to have been contemporary
with EN II in Bademagacı. Light sur-
face colours including cream, light
grey and buff dominate in the pot-
tery assemblage of Hacılar IX and
VIII, although red surfaces are also
present (Mellaart 1970). Nonethe-
less, the frequency and quality of
the red-slipped burnished wares in-
creased in Hacılar VII-VI. Tubular
lugs, pierced knobs, oval bases and
sporadic paint decoration are found
starting from Level IX onwards.
Painted wares increasingly became
dominant after Hacılar V.
The following can be inferred from the brief survey
of the early pottery sequence in Anatolia and Upper
Mesopotamia:
● Pottery was integrated into the material culture
of the wider region around 7000–6700 cal BC. This
early sequence appears to have been homogeneous
in terms of both the low quantity of sherds and re-
stricted variety of forms consisting of mainly bowls
with flat bases. Lugs and handles are not found in
the earliest ceramic assemblage from Cilicia, Central
Anatolia and Lakes District, although pierced knobs
and ledge handles sporadically accompanied the
vessels in Upper Mesopotamia.
● The earliest pottery horizon started with mineral
tempered wares in Upper Mesopotamia, the North-
ern Levant, Cilicia and the Lakes District, while in
Central Anatolia it began with plant tempered wares.
Mineral temper remained the characteristic feature
of the pottery assemblage throughout the Neolithic
period in Cilicia and Lakes District regions, whereas
it was introduced to Central Anatolia at a slightly
later date, possibly more or less at the same time
when plant tempered wares become dominant in
Upper Mesopotamia. Nonetheless, plant temper per-
sisted through the Neolithic period in the Cappado-
cia region.
● The early pottery sequence in the region can be
characterized by both dark (brown, grey or black)
and light surface colours (cream, buff, beige). Red-
slipped burnished wares are a later phenomenon
that were found in the late 7th (Lakes District) and
early 6th millennia BC (Central Anatolia). Impressed
decoration on DFBW appears to have been a main
decorative technique in Cilicia and Upper Mesopota-
mia (from c. 6700 cal BC onwards), while painted
wares become predominant during the late 7th (Up-
per Mesopotamia) and early 6th millennia BC (Lakes
District and Central Anatolia).
● Pottery production started in small numbers with
simple shapes, and gradually developed over a few
centuries. Nonetheless, it was fully integrated into
the material culture after the late 7th millennium BC,
as has been shown by the diversification of shapes
including necked jars, carinated vessels and storage
jars, as well as by variations in handles/lugs and ba-
ses types.
● Both technological traits and lipid analysis suggest
that mineral tempered wares were used for cooking.
Stratigraphical and contextual setting of the
early pottery in Ulucak
Ulucak Höyük is located 25km east of Izmir in west-
central Turkey (Fig. 1). The Neolithic occupation at
the site, which is designated by Levels VI through IV,
is dated from 6850 to 5700 cal BC. As has been ex-
plained above, Ulucak VI (6850–6500) is devoid of
pottery. If a few body sherds are not intrusive, which
can be dated to sometime around 6600–6500 cal BC,
then they do not display any difference than those
found in the earliest phase of Ulucak V. The earliest
Fig. 6. Fabrics of cream (a), brown (b), red (c) and grey (d) wares.
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
102
phases of Ulucak V(c-e) have been exploited in tren-
ches of L13, L12 and K13, covering an area c. 135m2
(Fig. 2). These three early sub-phases of Ulucak V
differed from the upper layers by the absence of clay
images including figurines and stamps, and are dated
to 6530–6200 cal BC, based on 33 radiocarbon sam-
ples including both short- and long-lived species (Çe-
vik, Erdogu 2020). Three successive building phases
of Level Vc-e are stratigraphically well defined in L12,
whereas open spaces with cobble-paved hearths and
patchy traces of pebble paved surfaces characterized
the remains uncovered in L13 and K13. As such,
only the pottery assemblages from Trench L12 will
be evaluated here. The earliest phase (Ve) is repre-
sented by three post-framed buildings (nos. 58–59
and 40) that have common walls. In Level Vd, Buil-
ding 54 was directly constructed on Building 58,
while the other two buildings (40 and 59) no longer
survived (Fig. 3). No building has been recovered in
Level Vc, but a circular stone wall and two ovens
have been recorded. All buildings of the earliest two
phases were burnt. The entire inventory of Building
58 was emptied before Building 54 was erected. The
burnt debris of the walls and the roof of Buildings
54 and 59 were removed. In fact, the deliberate clos-
ing of these two buildings is also suggested by the
structured deposits covered by lime plaster that were
recovered immediately above the buildings. It is in-
teresting to note that vessels were part of these buil-
ding’s closing deposits. A bowl sherd (Fig. 7d), with
a repairing hole, was found together with the man-
dible of animal, a bone tool and a few chipped stone
tools in the closing deposit of Building 59 (Ve). Be-
sides two beakers and a jar with a convex body
from the floor of Building 54 (Vd), a total of five pots
together with scapulae and a grinding stone were
found in a closing deposit of the same building. One
of the two jars from this latter deposit was placed
upside down, sealing the one below, possibly indi-
cating some ritual role (Fig. 4).
The pottery of Ulucak Early Vc-e
Pottery from Ulucak Vc–e is characterized by mine-
ral tempered wares with thin walls. Three main ware
types can be defined according to their surface co-
lours, including dark brown/grey, cream/buff and
red/reddish brown (Fig. 5). However, cream/buff and
dark brown/greyish brown wares dominated the
pottery assemblage through the early sequence, al-
though the amount of red surface colours gradually
increased towards the upper layers. One may also
see a sharp increase in the amount of pottery from
Level Ve through to Level Vc. The total volume of
excavated soil from each level is 5m3 (Ve), 7.5m3
(Vd) and 14.25m3 (Vc). Accordingly, the 88 sherds
from Level Ve represent a density of about 18 sherds
per cubic meter of soil, while ceramic density in Vc
is more than ten times higher, at about 197 sherds
per cubic meter of soil.
The paste of the dark brown and grey wares is po-
rous and coarse, and includes white and grey grits
(Fig. 6.b-d). However, the matrix of the paste of
cream/buff (Fig. 6.a) and red wares (Fig. 6.c) is less
porous, while their texture is rather denser. The
temper of the latter wares shows a high variety of
density and typology. The core of the fabrics sug-
Fig. 7. Bowls from Levels Vc-e.
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
103
gests a diversity in firing tech-
niques. The cream/buff wares
are fully oxidized, while brown
wares are generally not fully
oxidized, as has been suggest-
ed by bitone cores with black
and orange. Most of red-slip-
ped wares are fully oxidized,
although some have a black
colour in the middle and
orange external part. Almost
all vessels are burnished from
poor to medium, and generally
have mottled surfaces. None-
theless, from Level Vc onwards
medium and fine burnished
wares become frequent.
Hole-mouth bowls (Fig. 7.i) and
slightly S-profiled bowls with
thin walls (4–9mm) and flat rounded bases are com-
mon in the earliest phase (Ve) (Fig. 7.a-b; Fig. 9.a, c).
Vertically placed tubular lugs are known from this
phase onwards. In the subsequent levels (Vd-c) hole-
mouth jars with simple, inverted and slightly everted
rims, and slightly S-profiled jars with globular bod-
ies, are integrated into the pottery assemblage (Fig.
8.a-d, g-k). Horizontally placed pierced knobs and
tubular lugs are typical on these jars. Among the
common bowl shapes are hole-mouth, hemispherical
and those with straight walls (Fig. 7.c-h). Besides
the bowls and jars, a few beakers (Fig. 8.e-f) were
also recorded. Disc and flat bases with angular junc-
tions are commonly seen (Fig. 9. b, d-g). The walls
of the vessels become thicker in Level Vc (2–17mm).
No decorated pottery has yet been found in the ear-
lier sequence of Trench L12. However, a few red-on-
cream painted sherds consisting of simple strips are
known from trenches L13 and K13 (Fig. 10). These
painted sherds resemble those found in Hacılar IX
and VII (Mellaart 1970.Figs. 47, 49), and definitely
belong to the phase earlier than Level Vb, although
their precise subphase has yet to be determined.
The earliest pottery from Ulucak shared certain simi-
larities with those found in the Lakes District. First,
pottery production in these two regions began with
mineral tempered wares. Cream/buff and grey sur-
face colours, and the base types (flat/disc), may be
compared with the pottery from Bademagacı EN I-II
layers and Hacılar IX-VIII. However, in this region
there seems to have been no equivalent to the dark
brown burnished wares, which are a very distinctive
feature of the early pottery assemblage in Ulucak.
Furthermore, the early ceramics of Ulucak differed
from Hacılar IX-VI and Bademagacı EN II by the ab-
sence of vessels with pronounced ‘S’ profiles, whe-
reas these shapes are increasingly dominant from
Ulucak Vb onwards. Straight-sided bowls and those
with a slight ‘S’ profile in Ulucak are reminiscent
those from at Bademagacı EN I (9–5), although the
former have tubular lugs. The developed forms such
as carinated vessels and flattened rim jars from Ba-
demagacı EN I layers are not known from the earlier
sequence of Ulucak. Nonetheless, flattened rim jars
first occurred in the later phases of Ulucak V, as will
be detailed below. The parallels of hole-mouth jars
can be found in the wider region, including Central
Anatolia (Çatalhöyük VII-IV; Özdöl 2012) and the
Lakes District (Bademagacı EN I/8–5 and EN II, Duru
2012; and Hacılar IX-VI, Mellaart 1970). Additio-
nally, the sporadic appearance of painted sherds in
the second half of the 7th millennium BC appears to
have been common in both regions.
Comparing the early pottery sequence with
later phases at Ulucak
By taking ware types and differences in form, chro-
nological value can be drawn between the earlier
and later pottery sequences in Ulucak. Brown, grey
and cream slipped and burnished wares with thin
walls are dominant through the early sequence (Vc-
e) at the site, despite sporadic occurrences of red-
slipped burnished wares starting from the earliest
level onwards. However, red-slipped burnished wares
started to be an integral part of the pottery assem-
blage (30–35%) during the period of Late V(a-b),
Fig. 8. Jars and beakers from Levels Vc-e.
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
104
from 6200 cal BC onwards.
Nonetheless, a more promi-
nent increase of red-slipped
burnished wares (80–90%)
has been attested in Ulucak IV
after 6000 cal BC, when pot-
tery production was special-
ized (Çilingiroglu 2012). The
recent discovery of a six-room-
ed pottery workshop, which
revealed a large number of
clay loaves, unfinished coil
vessels, red hematite lumps
and the remains of pigmented
grinding stones used for pow-
dering hematite, shows that pottery production at
Ulucak was a specialized activity that took place be-
yond domestic units at the beginning of the 6th mil-
lennium BC (Çevik 2016). Evidence from this work-
shop indicates that various techniques were used to
obtain red surface colours in this later period, by di-
rect addition of hematite to the paste and by slip-
ping. Mineral temper is characteristic through Level
V, whereas plant tempered wares became part of the
pottery assemblage during Level IV. In fact, during
the early 6th millennium BC plant tempered paste
was peculiar to ceramic production and the making
of anthropomorphic figurines.
The shapes of Early V(c-e) also differed from Late
V(a-b). Bowls and jars with pronounced ‘S’ profiles,
jars with thick flattened rims and ring bases are
found starting from Ulucak Vb onwards (Fig. 11).
Although slight carinations are recorded on the belly
of some bowls, sharp carinated bowls are never in-
tegrated into the assemblage. Tubular lugs and hor-
izontally placed pierced knobs are seen throughout
the Neolithic sequence at Ulucak, whereas small un-
pierced knobs emerged after Vb. The capacity of the
hole-mouth jars in Early V is rather low, less than 5
litres. Despite a total absence of a whole pot belong-
ing to a group of jars with thick flattened rims in Vb,
their capacity appears to have been higher than
those from earlier hole-mouth jars. The volume of
jars is significantly increased in Level IV, when dis-
tinctive long-necked jars with a capacity of more than
50 litres are first attested (Çilingiroglu 2012.75).
Mud plastered silos and clay boxes in Ulucak V dis-
appeared, while their function was fulfilled with
large-sized jars after 6000 cal BC. The general ab-
sence of handles on these storage jars may suggest
that they were not transported or kept in fixed loca-
tions at domestic units. Besides large-sized jars with
simple, sharply everted and bead rims, splaying
bowls, oval forms and anthropomorphic vessels are
also integrated into the assemblage in Ulucak IV.
Decoration is rare and never become an important
component of the Neolithic pottery in Ulucak, or for
that matter in Central-Western Anatolia in general.
Paint decoration is evident starting from the earliest
sequence at Ulucak, while impressed wares (Va) and
relief decoration (Vb) are sporadically found since
the late V sequence onwards. In contrast to the in-
significant number of painted sherds, the high quan-
tity of red-slipped burnished wares in the early 6th
millennium BC suggests that these may have been
one of the media which established the symbolic
network within and between the communities in
Central-Western Anatolia.
Regarding the function of these vessels, an analysis
of organic residues from ceramics indicates that
cooking was one of the functions of the Ulucak pot-
tery (Özbal et al. 2013.107–108, 114). Milk lipids
have been found in one of the ceramic sherds from
Level IV, while eight ceramic sherds including one
from the earliest sequence yielded samples with ru-
minant (cattle, goat and sheep) and non-ruminant
(pig) fats. It is also interesting to note that some of
the ceramics appear to have been covered with bees-
Fig. 9. Base types from Levels Vc-e.
Fig. 10. Painted sherds from trenches L13 and K13.
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
105
Fig. 11. Typological development of pottery from Level V through IV.
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
106
The work was supported by TÜBİTAK fellowship
(1059B1918-02282) which allowed a study period in
La Sapienza University in Rome. We wish to thank
Jarrad W. Paul for his kind corrections to the lan-
guage in this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
wax, possibly to prevent the permeability of vessels,
as shown by the traces from a ceramic sherd in Ulu-
cak IV (Özbal 2017.224). Consequently, even at the
earliest occupation phases at Ulucak ceramics seem
to have met all requirements, including cooking, ser-
ving, drinking, and storage to a lesser extent, de-
spite the limited variety of forms and their low fre-
quency. Diversification of forms, however, has been
evidenced at Ulucak after the 6th millennium BC,
more or less at the same time as at other Neolithic
sites in Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia.
Concluding remarks
The present state of evidence suggests that pottery
production began in a wider area, from Upper Meso-
potamia through the Lakes District region, during
the first quarter of the 7th millennium BC. However,
the absence of pottery and any other clay objects
in the initial occupation phase (VI) at Ulucak clearly
shows the presence of pre-ceramic phases in central-
western Anatolia between 6850–6600 cal BC. The
pre-ceramic sequence before 6600 cal BC in the
Aegean is not only attested in Ulucak but also in
Ugurlu, on the island of Gökçeada, and Knossos on
Crete. Moreover, clay images including anthropomor-
phic figurines and clay stamps were integrated into
the material assemblage at Ulucak later than pot-
tery, around 6250/6200 cal BC. Hence, most of the
material assemblage that is conventionally known
as the ‘Neolithic package’ did not ‘arrive’ at the re-
gion in one instance. The Neolithization process of
the region, however, is beyond the scope of this
paper. The present state of evidence suggests that
the initial Neolithic and adoption of pottery in the
region should be considered separately. The social
boundaries of the local communities in western Ana-
tolia appear after the initial Neolithic to have been
continuously changed through various networks.
The earliest pottery from Ulucak V with its thin
walls and elaborated surface treatment suggests that
the technology was introduced from the outside. De-
spite some peculiarities, the early pottery assemblage
from Ulucak seems to be more akin to that found in
the Lakes District. The origin of these mineral tem-
pered wares is yet unknown, although their simulta-
neous occurrence at the same time in a wider re-
gion suggests multiple origins. Similar to other re-
gions, pottery use at Ulucak begins with low quanti-
ty items and a restricted variety of shapes. Their
number and variety of forms then increase from the
late 7th millennium BC onwards. Contrary to earlier
assumptions, pottery was not only used for serving
and storage (Çilingiroglu 2012) but also for cook-
ing, and right from its inception at the site. How-
ever, their low frequency during the initial phases of
the Neolithic may still indicate that they were used
for special occasions. The context of early ceramics
at Ulucak can be assumed from their special depo-
sits. Certain animal bones, grinding stones and bone
tools were already part of the building closure de-
posit in Level VI (Çevik 2019), while pottery was
quickly integrated into this package in the following
period. Thus, whole pots and sherds from the spe-
cial deposits found above Buildings 59 and 54 may
well have been the remains of vessels which were
used for the preparation and serving of special foods
and drinks during the feasting rituals of a building
closure.
Dark (mostly dark brown) and light (cream/buff)
slipped burnished wares with less curvy profiles re-
present more than 90 percent of the total ceramic
assemblage during the early phases of Ulucak. Ac-
cordingly, their chronological value for the third
quarter of the 7th millennium BC in Central-Western
Anatolia can be presumed. Nevertheless, pottery as-
semblages in the same region were dominated by
red-slipped burnished wares (80–90%) from 6000
cal BC onwards, when painted pottery become an im-
portant component of the ceramics in Anatolia and
elsewhere. Therefore, red-slipped burnished wares
seem to have been a significant media for Central-
Western Anatolian communities in the negotiation of
their identities at an intra and inter-regional level.
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
107
Akkermans P. M. M. G., Cappers R., Cavallo V., and Nieu-
wenhuyse O. 2006. Investigating the Early Pottery Neo-
lithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Ab-
yad. American Journal of Archaeology 110(1): 123–156.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/40026362
Arimura M., Balkan-Atlı N., Borell F., Cruells W., Duru G.,
Erim-Özdogan A., Ibanez J., Maeda O., Miyake Y., Molist
M., and Özbasaran M. 2000. A New Neolithic Settlement
in the Urfa Region: Akarçay Tepe, 1999. Anatolia Anti-
qua VIII: 227–255.
Balossi F. 2004. New Data for the Definition of the DFBW
Horizon and Its Internal Developments. The Earliest Pha-
ses of the Amuq Sequence Revisited. Anatolica XXX:
109–149.
Balossi-Restelli F. 2012. Eating at Home and ‘Dining’ Out?
Commensalities in the Neolithic and Late Chalcolithic in
the Near East. In S. Pollock (ed.), Between Feasts and
Daily Meals: Toward an Archaeology of Commensal
Spaces. eTopoi-Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume
2. Edition Topoi. Berlin: 75–95.
2017. Yumuktepe Early Ceramic Production: Dark Ver-
sus Light Coloured Wares and the Construction of So-
cial Identity. In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuyse, and S.
Campbell (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery in West
Asia. Oxbow Books. Oxford & Philadelphia: 83–96.
Bıçakçı E., Godon M., and Çakan Y. G. 2012. Tepecik-Çif-
tlik. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.),
The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Re-
search. Vol. 3. Central Turkey. Archaeology and Art Pub-
lications. İstanbul: 89–134.
Biton R., Goren Y., and Goring-Morris A. N. 2014. Ceramics
in the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: Evidence from
Kfar Hahoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science
41: 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.005
Campbell S. 2017. Absolute Dating and the Early Pottery
of South-west Asia. In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuyse, and S.
Campbell (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery in West Asia.
Oxbow Books. Oxford & Philadelphia: 133–153.
Cruels W., Faura J. M., and Molist M. 2017. Akarçay Tepe
and Tell Halula in the Context of the Earliest Production
of Ceramics in West Asia. In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuy-
se, and S. Campbell (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery in
West Asia. Oxbow Books. Oxford & Philadelphia: 27–42.
Çakırlar C. 2012. The Evolution of Animal Husbandry in
Neolithic Central-West Anatolia: The Zooarchaeological
Record from Ulucak Höyük (c. 7040–5660 cal. BC, Izmir,
Turkey). Anatolian Studies 62: 1–33.
Çevik Ö. 2016. Neolithic Pottery Production Workshop at
Ulucak Höyük, Western Turkey: Evidence for a Full Pro-
duction Sequence. Antiquity Project Gallery 90(350):
https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/cevik350.
2019. Changing Ideologies in Community-Making
through the Neolithic Period at Ulucak. In A. Marciniak
(ed.), Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the
Second Half of the Seventh Millennium. Lockwood
Press. Atlanta-Georgia: 219–239.
Çevik Ö., Abay E. 2016. Neolithisation in Aegean Turkey:
towards a more realistic reading. In Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Ana-
tolian Metal 7: Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor
10.000 Jahren/Anatolia and Neighbours 10,000 Years
Ago. Deutschen Bergbau-Museum. Bochum: 187–197.
Çevik, Ö., Erdogu B. 2020. Absolute Chronology of Cultu-
ral Continuity, Change and Break in Western Anatolia,
between 6850–5480 calBC: The Ulucak Case. Mediterra-
nean Archaeology and Archaeometry 20/1: 77–92.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3605670
Çilingiroglu Ç. 2009. Neolithic Red Slipped and Burnish-
ed Wares: Recognizing Their Broad Distribution. In H.
Saglamtimur, E. Abay, Z. Derin, A. Ü. Erdem, M. B. Bas-
türk, and E. Konalçı (eds.), Studies in Honour of Altan
Çilingiroglu. A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores
of the Upper Sea. Archaeology and Art Publications. İs-
tanbul: 203–216.
2012. The Neolithic Pottery of Ulucak in Aegean Tur-
key: Organization of Production, Interregional Com-
parisons and Relative Chronology. British Archaeolo-
gical Reports IS 2426. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Duru R. 2003. Bademagacı Kazıları 2000 ve 2001 Yılları
Çalısma Raporu. Belleten LXV: 549–594.
2007. Göller Bölgesi Neolitigi. In M. Özdogan, N. Bas-
gelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazı-
lar, Yeni Bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. İstan-
bul: 331–360.
2012. The Neolithic of the Lakes Region Hacılar-Kuru-
çay Höyük, Höyücek-Bademagacı. In M. Özdogan, N. Bas-
gelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey,
New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4. Western
Turkey. Archaeology and Art Publications. İstanbul: 1–
65.
Efstratiou N., Karetsou A., and Ntinou M. (eds.). 2013. The
Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete. New Evidence
for the Early Occupation of Crete and Aegean Islands.
INSTAP Academic Press. Philadelphia.
References
Özlem Çevik, Osman Vuruskan
Erdogu B. 2017. A Preliminary Report on the Earliest Le-
vels of Ugurlu on the Island of Gökçeada. Anatolica XLIII:
71–82.
Fletcher A., Baird D., Spataro M., and Fairbairn A. 2017.
Early Ceramics in Anatolia: Implications for the Produ-
ction and Use of the Earliest Pottery. Cambridge Archaeo-
logical Journal 27(2): 351–369.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774316000767
Godon M. 2005. New Results and Remarques about Pot-
tery Neolithic in Central Anatolia: A View from Tepecik-
Çiftlik”. Colloquim Anatolicum IV: 91–103.
2011. Cappadocia’s First Pottery Production, Tepecik-
Çiftlik Neolithic Earliest Levels. Arastırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı 29: 317–340.
Horejs B. 2017. The Çukuriçi Höyük Research Project. In
B. Horejs (ed.), Çukuriçi Höyük 1: Anatolia and the
Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. Austrian
Academy of Sciences Press. Vienna: 11–26.
2019. Long and short revolutions towards the Neolithic
in Western Turkey and Aegean. Documenta Praehisto-
rica 46: 68–83. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.5
Last J. 1996. Surface Pottery at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder
(ed.), On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–1995. British In-
stitute at Ankara. London: 115–172.
2005. Pottery from the East Mound. In I. Hodder (ed.),
Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from
the 1995–99 Seasons. British Institute at Ankara. Lon-
don: 101–138.
Mellaart, J. 1966. Excavations at Çatalhöyük-1965, Fourth
Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies XVI: 165–192.
1970. Excavations at Hacılar I-II. British Institute at
Ankara. Edinburgh.
Miyake Y. 2017. The Earliest Pottery of Salat Camii Yanı.
In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuyse, and S. Campbell (eds.),
The Emergence of Pottery in West Asia. Oxbow Books.
Oxford & Philadelphia: 55–59.
Nieuwenhuyse O. P. 2017. The Initial Pottery Neolithic at
Tell Sabi Abyad, Northern Syria. In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieu-
wenhuyse, and S. Campbell (eds.), The Emergence of Pot-
tery in West Asia. Oxbow Books. Oxford & Philadelphia:
17–26.
Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Akkermans P. M. M. G. 2019. Trans-
forming the Upper Mespotamian Landscape in the Neoli-
thic. In A. Marciniak (ed.), Concluding the Neolithic: The
Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millen-
nium. Lockwood Press. Atlanta-Georgia: 101–135.
Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Akkermans P. M. M. G., and van der
Plicht J. 2010. Not so Coarse, nor Always Plain-The Earliest
Pottery of Syria. Antiquity 84: 71–85.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00099774
Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Campbell S. 2017. Synthesis: The
Emergence of Pottery in West Asia. In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieu-
wenhuyse, and S. Campbell (eds.), The Emergence of Pot-
tery in West Asia. Oxbow Books. Oxford & Philadelphia:
167–192.
Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Daskiewicz M., and Schneider G.
2018. Investigating Late Neolithic Ceramics in the North-
ern Levant: The Wiew from Shir. Levant.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.1453213
Nishiaki Y. A., Le Miére M. 2005. The Oldest Pottery Neo-
lithic of Upper Mesopotamia: New Evidence from Tell Se-
ker al-Aheimar, the Khabur, Northeast Syria. Paléorient
31: 55–68.
Odaka T. 2013. Neolithic Pottery in the northern Levant
and Its Relations to the East. In Y. Nishiaki, K. Kashima,
and M. Verhoeven (eds.), Neolithic Archaeology in the
Khabur Valley, Upper Mesopotamia and Beyond. Stu-
dies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Environment 15. ex oriente. Berlin: 205–217.
Özbal H., Thissen L., Dogan T., Gerritsen F., Özbal R., and
Türkelkul-Bıyık A. 2013. Neolitik Batı Anadolu ve Marma-
ra Yerlesmeleri Çanak Çömleklerinde Organik Kalıntı Ana-
lizleri. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 28: 105–114.
Özbal H. 2017. Arkeolojik Çömleklerde Organik Kalıntı
Analizleri: Balmumu. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı
32: 219–234.
Özdogan M. 2009. Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia. In
D. Gheorgiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and the
Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe. Cam-
bridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle: 22–43.
Özdöl S. 2008. Çatalhöyük, Suberde ve Erbaba Neolitik
Çanak Çömleginin Yeniden Degerlendirilmesi: Erken, Or-
ta ve Geç Gelenekler. Arastırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25:
375–392.
2012. The Development and Traditions of Pottery in
the Neolithic of the Anatolian Plateau. Evidence from
Çatalhöyük, Suberde, Erbaba. British Archaeological
Reports IS 2439. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Özdöl-Kutlu S. 2014. Reconsidering the Late Neolithic Pot-
tery of the Anatolian Plateau. Current Evidence from Ça-
talhöyük. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi
(TÜBA-AR) 17: 25–47.
108
Ulucak Höyük> the pottery emergence in Western Anatolia
109
Pitter S. E. 2013. Molecular and Stable Isotopic Analy-
ses of the Fatty Acyl Components of the Pottery of Ça-
talhöyük, Turkey: Understanding the Relationships be-
tween Animal Domestication, Ceramic Technology, En-
vironmental Variation and Their Roles in the Second-
ary Products Revolution. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
Stanford University. Stanford.
Reingruber A. 2015. Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Cera-
mics? The Radiocarbon Dated Beginning of the Neolithic
in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 147–158.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.9
Rosenstock E., Anvari J., Franz I., Orton D., Ostaptchauk
S., Stroud E., and Biehl P. F. 2019. The Transition between
the East and West Mounds at Çatalhöyük around 6000
calBC. A View from the West. In A. Marciniak (ed.), Con-
cluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the Second Half
of the Seventh Millennium. Lockwood Press. Atlanta-Geor-
gia: 163–192.
Spataro M., Fletcher A., Cartwright C. R., and Baird D.
2016. Boncuklu Höyük: The Earliest Ceramics on the Ana-
tolian Plateau. Journal of Archaeological Science: Re-
ports 16: 420–429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.10.011
Tekin H. 2017. Late Neolithic Pottery Traditions on the
Upper Tigris Valley. In W. Cruells, I. Mateiciucova, and O.
Nieuwenhuyse (eds.), Painting Pots-Painting People. Late
Neolithic Ceramics in Ancient Mesopotamia. Oxbow
Books, Oxford & Philadelphia: 107–114.
Tsuneki A., Miyake Y. 1996. The Earliest Pottery Sequence
of the Levant: New Data from Tell-El Kerkh 2, Northern
Syria. Paléorient 22: 109–123.
Yalman N. 2006. Pottery. Çatalhöyük 2006. Archive Re-
port: 181–225.