UDK 903(560)"634" Documenta Praehistorica XXVI Trajectories towards the neolithisation of NW Turkey Laurens Thissen Amsterdam, Netherlands laurens@thissenl.demon.nl ABSTRACT - This /toper considers diverse trajectories concerning the origin of some early farming villages in Sorthwestern Turkey during the beginnings of food producing economies in this part of the countr) The rootsfor the ftrocess are sought in the Konya area on the Central Anatolian Plateau. The ceramic assemblages of the first farming sites of the Northwest are believed to be a reproduction of the pottery tradition best known from (atalhoyuk tasl. both technologically, morphologically and as regards manipulation and use In individual sites, the present stale of research allows content-ftlation both of migration and mesoHthic adaptation to explain for the transition to neolithic subsistence modes IZMEČEK - V članku pretresemo različne poti. ki so vodite k nastanku nekaterih zgodnjih kmetova!• skill vasi na severozahodu Turčije v času začetkov pridelovalnega gospodarstva v tem delu države. Korenine tega procesa iščemo na območju Konya na osrednji Anatolski planoti. Menimo, da je keramika s prvih kmetovalskih najdišč na severozahodu posnetek keramične tradicije, kip najbolje poznamo iz najdišča QtUdhoytik East, tako v tehnološkem kot oblikovnem smislu in načinu uporabe. \a posameznih najdiščih omogoča stanje raziskanosti razmišljanje tako o migraciji kot mezolil-ski prilagoditvi, s katerima lahko razložimo prehod v neotitski gospodarski sistem KEY WORDS - Anatolia, neolithisation; migration, autochthonous transition to farming, polten production INTRODUCTION Northwest Turkey is here conceived as the region defined by the drainage basin of the Sea of Marmara combined with the northwestern part of the Anatolian Plateau drained by the Sakarya River (Fig. I). The geographical crossroads position of NW Turkey - both intermediate of Central Anatolia and Southeast Europe, and of the Aegean and the Black Sea as well as its archaeological potential were soon recognised by prehistorians (Bittel and Olio 1939 /-8). Bittel, and later Mellaart (1955.55). pointed out that the area straddles one of the main thoroughfares connecting the Anatolian Plateau to the Aegean. It was David French who, surveying the region in the early sixties, tried to find archaeological corroboration of this crucial position by observing that the region "must be considered as a possible source or intennediary for ideas or developments that may have passed between |Anatolia and the Aegean|" (Trench 1967.49). French was the first who attempted to find traces of ev idence for the route along which Near Eastern methods and techniques might have spread into Southeastern Europe (I.e.) Initiating a long-term survey program (1979-1990), Mehmet Ozdogan enlarged French's aims, simultaneously extending the survey area through full coverage of what was thought a critical contact zone area in Balkan-Anatolian relations, viz. Turkish Thrace, the European part of Turkey (cf. Ozdogan 1982.38; !985.5t7ff.). However, for the neolithic period, Ozdogan soon had to admit that the Marmara area proved more a harrier than a bridge between east and west, being unable to find sites of that stage in Thrace. In addition, he recognised that the neolithic. "Flkirtepe," sites on the coast were soon abandoned after an initial phase of settlement involv ing some form of farming (Ozdogan 1983.411; 1985,523)•' As t Here, cimoderation of the possible "Fikirtepe" site of Bulgar Kaynagi. (krp In Turkish Thrace. Is postponed until final presentation of the survey data (cf Ozdogan 1991367 map Ozdogan. Miyake and Ozha$aran Dede 199162; Ozdogan 1997). 29 Laurens Thissen Adapa/au \ihlfrr ■ Htlcclfc Hn/iiyulc it EiU»eMr lOalikesir ■ Klllahya Fig. 1. late neolithic-early chalcolithic sites In SorthwesI Turkey (including some aceramic sites, nos. 1-4). Squares: modern cities. Excavated settlements on map: unexcavated sites numbered as follows: I. Agach. 2. Anzavurlepe. J. {.aha Mevkii. 4. Garurtarla. 5. Asarkaya. 6. Aslanapa. 7. Asmainler. H. De-mlrcihuyuk. 9. hndik Kavabasi. 10. Hammkoprn. 11. Uerenkoy. 12. Kanlita$. 1J. Karhdere-Calca Mevkii. 14. Kaynarca Mevkii. 15. Kinik. 16. Marmaracik. 17. Pazaryeri II. IS. SirI Vol. 19. Tara^i Mevkii. 20. Tepetarla Many as. 21. Tuzla. 22. Yeni$ehir II. 23. Ydanltk Mevkii. 24. Yugiicek. 25. Karaagadepe. argued elsewhere, the cultural and chronological discrepancy of the Thracian sites with the southern Marmara locations - the former ones culturally dependent on the Bulgarian early neolithic -, confirmed that NW Turkey did not play a direct role in the neolithisation of SB Europe (Thissen 1999). I. The excavations at the site of llipinar, due west of the Iznik Lake in the Asiatic part of Turkey settled the absolute date of "Fikirtepe." Additionally, they showed that the occupation of the first neolithic villages in tills part of the country continued beyond the trial events on the East Marmara coast (Rooden-berg fed./1995) (see Tab. 1). If I recapitulate llipmar's 500 year sequence, several points may be highlighted. There is no evidence of an occupation of the site prior to phase X. Life was already fully agricultural, sheep and goat dominating. An intense fire, possibly obliterating the whole settlement, destroyed the last building level of phase X. The subsequent phases IX-VII constitute a continuous cycle of building and rebuilding, with a strong adherence to previously used building plots. Existing patterns in ceramic production and use. in the bone and antler tools and in the chipped stone industry are being maintained, suggesting a stable and coherent society. Pigs become gradually more numerous. In phase VI the first structural use of mud brick is attested, although previous earth wall construction is not unknown in the form of pise, cobs and daub. The pattern of single house units is discarded and replaced by linked single-room units forming specific architectural layouts. In the phase VI pottery, basically, the old canon is adhered to. but several elements point forward to the subsequent phase VA. An extremely 30 Trajectories towards the neoMhisation o* NW Tutfcey strong fire destroys level VI, vitrifying walls, mud bricks and pottery. Phase VA deviates from the earlier sequence in choice of building plot, in house plan, in pottery and in the first occurrence of stea-topygous female figurines of baked clay showing clear parallels w ith Southeastern Europe of the mid-sixth millennium cal BC (cf. Roodenberg 1993-266 Fig. 5). Lasting perhaps a century, Ihpinar VA ultimately falls victim to a severe fire, after which phase VB marks the beginning of a stage which represents an internationalisation' of contacts spreading over the Balkans and Asia Minor linking the Aegean and the Black Sea, and which may be attributed to the Middle Chalcolithic period. After the burning of phase VB, the site is abandoned for over two millennia. Hie foundation of Ihpinar can, with a fair degree of certainty , be set at about (»000 cal BC (cf. Roodenberg. Thissen and Buitenhuis 1989/1990 75. Roodenberg 1995.171(f ). This date would make Ihpinar X roughly contemporaneous with the second major occupation phase at llacilar (the cluster of levels V—III), with the beginning of the Thessalian Middle Neolithic (or "Sesklo") period, and with the establishment of the first farming sites in Eastern Makedonija. viz. Anza and Vrsnik. By 6000 cal BC. Thessaly had already at least two centuries of peaceful and successful village life behind it, the Giannitsa phase number of building levels building method cat BC. range burnt VB 1 mud brick 5500-5450 burnt VA 3 mud brick 5600-5525 burnt VI 2 mud brick,,/».«' 5675-5625 VII 2 cob-on-post/ 5725-5675 wattle-and-daub VIII 4 cob-on-post, /pise 5800-5725 IX 3 cob-on-post/Mse 5875-5800 burnt X 3 cob-on-post,/)/.«" 6000-5875 virgin soil Tab. 1. The Ihpinar sequence. Plain in Greek Macedonia had known farming sites for several generations and seen their subsequent abandonment, while the fertile plains of Western Turkey most probably had been occupied by acera-mic farming communities by the later part of the seventh millennium cal BC.2 The neolithisation of NW Turkey, therefore, was comparatively late. Prior to the Ihpinar excavations, suggestions as to the existence of an early pottery horizon in the Northwest were first ventured by James Mellaart, underlining conceptual parallels in the Fikirtepe potter) and early llacilar (levels IX-M), simultaneously stressing the differences (,Mellaart 1967). The Ihpinar excavations proved his dual thesis concerning the date and the southern origin as roughly correct. Earlier. Mellaart had rightly perceived the similarities of pottery surveyed from the site of Mente$e in the Yenijehir Plain with the Fikirtepe assemblage (Mellaart 1955 56 73P Later. French could add two more sites in the Yenijehir Basin to this emerging early pottery culture. He also connected Ihpinar with the Marmara settlements (French 1967 56f.). French further noticed the Fikirtepe connections in some of the pottery excavated by Bittel in 1937 at Demircihuyuk in the Eskijehir Plain (Bittel and Otto 1939. PI. 10.1-6). All these relations were corroborated by the surveys carried out later by Ozdogan in these areas and found full confirmation by the excavations at Demircihuyuk and Ihpinar. The term "Fikirtepe culture" was coined both for the sites in the Eastern Marmara area and for those located more to the south on the Anatolian mainland - first tentatively by Bittel (1969/70.18), but since then explicitly by Ozdogan (¡983, cf. also Seeher 1987.44, Efe 1990.92). Here. 1 wish to restrict the label for the coastal Marmara settlements only. The work done on Ihpinar, in particular, allows to elaborate some hypotheses about the origin of its culture and about its relation to the Fikirtepe sites to the north and to the alleged Fikirtepe sites due south. More generally, certain differences with, notably, the Eastern Marmara coast settlements give rise to contemplate different trajectories toward sedentary village life to have been at play, confirming the superficiality in the coherence of the "Fikirtepe culture" (likewise. Ozdogan 1997). 2 A full treatment of these areas may be found in my PhD dissertation, recently submitted to the Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden State University, titled Early village communities in Anatolia and the BaJkans. 6500-5500 cal. BC Studies in chronology and culture contact" (1999). 3 "These sherds (from Menteje) show the probable presence of sites of the Fikirtepe type -and period also in the region south of the gulf of l/mit (...)" (Mellaart 1955.56). 31 Laurens Thissen II. Solid material culture parallels exist between Ilipi-nar X and the presently known cluster of sites on the Bast Marmara coast, collectively labelled as "Fikirtepe," after the most thoroughly investigated tvpe site (Bittei1969 1970; Ozdogan 1979; 1983) In'the pottery, for instance, the two quantitatively dominant vessel categories in llipinar. viz. restricted pots with four vertically-pierced knob handles and pots with two horizontal lugs (Fig. 2.2-3 and 1. 4 resp.) occur widely at Fikirtepe as well. After Ozdogan's analysis of the Fikirtepe pottery, however, open forms make up a far larger proportion in the assemblage than is the case at llipinar (27.7% vs. <>"<. resp.). This difference in the proportion of the main vessel categories may be related to differences in the subsistence base of both sites, rather than indicating chronological variety. Simultaneously, however, the occurrence at Fikirtepe of both pot categories. w hich at llipinar have been linked to mutually exclusive, but related functions in cooking, implies a similar discrete use at the Marmara site. Elsew here4 I have argued that the pots with vertically-pierced knob handles were used in the cooking of pulses such as lentils and bitter vetch, w hich both appear to have been major food stuffs at early llipinar (cf. Van Zeistand Waterbotk-Van Rooijen 1995.161). Pulses, after an initial cooking-stage, require only a limited supply of heat during cooking, just enough to keep things boiling. Particularly in the case of bitter vetch there is a need to boil it for minimally one hour in order to remove the poisonous substance (Van Zeist ami Waterbolk-van Rooijen 1995. I.e.). The possibility of regulating the distance between fire and pot by means of the strings, so as to control the degree of heat intensity , makes pots w ith pierced knob handles well adjusted in this respect. The two-handled pots, by contrast, were possibly placed directly over the fire, the large handles providing easy grip when lifting them from it. The wider orifices noted for the two-lug pots during III- Fig. 2. llipinar phase X. Major tessel categories. Provenance: 1. S9/112 (showing scored attachment place for lug. tuo horizontal lugs originally). 2. .99 042. J.S9/119. 4. Section 050. 5. Section 050. 6. S9/U2 (oval). 7. S9/085. S. S9/112 (oval, grooved decoration repeated on the four cardinal points). 9. S9/11J (oval; four vertically-pierced knob handles originally). -» Cf. note 2 supra 32 Traicclccs towards the n«olitf"SatiO« ot NW TurKey pinar phases LX-VI would allow recurrent stirring of the contents (in order to avoid burning the food) and/or adding of ingredients. Therefore, if one assumes that different subordinate categories of cooking pot have been used for the preparation of different foodstuffs, then the two-lugged pots may have been used for the preparation of food involving miscellaneous ingredients (e.g., specific soups, meat or vegetable dishes). The preparation of such 'composite' dishes, involving the adding of different ingredients and needing frequent stirring, may be thought to profit from a vessel that is easily manipulate and the orifice of w hich is easily accessible. This inferred structural relationship in a dominant domestic utensil between the Iznik area and the Eastern Marmara coast is present also in at least two sites situated south and southeast of the Iznik Basin, viz. Meniere and Demircihiiyuk. At the recently excavated site of Meniere in the Yenifehir Basin, the basal deposit yields a similar pottery assemblage as known from Ihpinar X (cf. Roodenherg 1999. Fig. ¡3). Three dates from the top level of this deposit confirm contemporaneity w ith the north, where it must be stressed that some 3 meters of accumulation still remain untouched'. In the Yenifehir Basin, two other sites (Marmaracik and Yenifehir II - cf. French 1967.53. 55 resp.), unexcavated thus far, yield similar pottery on the surface, indicating that they might have formed a tight cultural unit together with Mentefc as late as 6000 cal BC. Given the 3 m of remaining deposit at Meniere, it is not inconceivable that the Yenifehir site cluster was established a few centuries earlier than basal Ihptnar. All three Yenifehir sites are located on the northern edge of the plain, where a shallow lake existed in its lower part until recently (Roodenberg /999). Both material culture and environmental position connect the Yenifehir site cluster with the Iznik Lake, where next to Ihpinar, a possibly contemporaneous settlement is attested on its eastern shore (Yugucek. cf. French 1967.55). Apparently, the small alluvial fans on Lake Iznik's western and eastern shores suggested attractive locations for establishing permanent villages to a large degree dependent on farming. A separate pass connects each shore over the Kurban Mountains with the Yenifehir Plain. Given the possible ancestry of Mentc$e over llipuiar, simultaneously acknowledging the dose material culture correspondences between both areas, it is not inconceivable that the Iznik area was settled from the Yenifehir Plain. Two points speak against a scenario where basal Ihpinar would represent a mesolithic/epi-palaeolithic adaptation by local hunter-gatherers turning to agriculture. There is, first, the heavy reliance on ovicapridae in Ihpinar X. with hunting evidently having played a minor role (Tab. 2). phase domestic (n) wild (n) uiUi (%) VB 151 9 5.6% VII-VA 1190 47 3.8% VIII 4060 70 1.7% IX 1117 176 136% X 781 79 9.2% Tab. 2. Preliminary data on the proportion of wild and domestic in the major food animals in Ihpinar phases X-VB (after Buitenhuis 1989 1990.112, Tab. 4). Had the first settlers at Ihpinar been hunter-gatherers. then one would suspect a higher proportion of hunted species. The fact that, as Buitenhuis perceived. the reliance on sheep and goat is in contrast to w hat would be expected, as both species did not occur naturally in the region (Buitenhuis 1995.153), does not, however, automatically lead to a southeastern origin of the settlers (I.e.). Even local hunter-gatherers could be misinformed concerning the maladjustment to the local circumstances of species unknown to them before. A second factor against mesolithic adaptation is the rather limited use of marine resources during Ihpinar X (cf. Builenhuis 1995.154, Tab. 2). The thorough know ledge of the local surroundings to be assumed for hunter-gatherers in general would have reflected both in a more diversified marine fauna6 and in a quantitatively higher representation in basal Ihpinar, were we to consider the site's establishment as a local decision. The fact that not a single fish bone has been collected from phase X (Buitenhuis 1989 1990.114). neither from the lake nor from the sea (only 15 km away), is again hard to reconcile w ith a hunter-gatherer background for the first villagers at Ihpinar. Indeed, only the faunal re- i The three Menteje dates are as follows: GrN-2-H6J. 7>0<1±M> BP. GrN-2+rtil, 7170±M> BP and GrX-2+tf»2.7050±35 BP (/ Roodenberg. pers. comm.). 6 For llipinar X. Builenhuis did count only three marine- species, all of the Mottusca /Mum. to note Ostrea edulis. Mvlilus galloprtv vincalis and Ccrxstoderma edule (Buitenhuis 1995 156). 33 Laurens Thissen mains from the subsequent levels at the site testify to a strongly increased exploitation of the environment. both in terms of use of the sea, increased hunting (phase IX) and an increased dependency on pig breeding at the cost of sheep and goat breeding (Btii ten/in is 1989 /990.1/5). We tend to interpret this evidence as exemplify ing a progressive knowledge of the surrounding land (from phase IX onwards) after an initial exploration stage (phase X). Recapitulating, the evaluated evidence strongly suggests that the earliest farming village at Ihpinar was settled by non-local people and not by local hunter-gatherers. Given the very close material culture ties with the site cluster in the Yenijehir Basin to the south, it is most likely that the origin of these settlers must be sought in that area. Because of the presence of a small lake there, it is tempting to consider that the settlers of Ihpinar sought and found a similar environment to the one they knew from their root country . In fact, it is extremely likely that they had information beforehand on an analogous situation existing beyond the mountains (cf. Anthony 1990-900)7. III. Short-distance migration is more difficult to apply in hy potheses concerning the origin of the villages at the East coast of the Marmara, i.e. the Fikirtepe sites, notwithstanding the fact that several material culture variables, such as pottery (see above), bone and antler tools and, possibly, lithics, conform both to Ihpinar X and Menteje. All the Fikirtepe sites, four of which are presently known, were very close to the sea, w hile fresh water was provided by small streams and perennial springs. Bittel well describes the excellent choice of location of the type site itself, w hich was protected from the north winds by low hills behind the site, also pointing out that the small hay of Kalami? (now some 1.3 km away from the site) may originally have reached further inland (,Bittel /969 1970S). Evidently, the choice of location w as made on the basis of detailed knowledge of local circumstances, more bent on the full exploitation of marine and freshwater food sources than on maximised yields from tilled fields. The location of Pendik is almost exactly similar and is clearly chosen on the basis of similar considerations (cf. Ozdogan 1983.401)*. Again, as was done above, one might surmise that such comprehensive knowledge of the local surroundings is more readily found w ith hunter-gatherers indigenous to the area than with a migrating farming population. The local background of the inhabitants of the Fikirtepe sites was claimed nearly two decades ago by Ozdogan. observing that the chipped stone industries of both Fikirtepe and Pendik represent "a direct offspring of the Epi-Palaeoli-thic industries of the region" (Ozdogan 1983.409). in addition, from the scarcity of grinding stones, mortars and sickle blades retrieved at Pendik and Fikirtepe he concluded that agriculture was not of primary importance (I.e.). The marine orientation of Fikirtepe, already perceived by Bittel (1969//970.4 and note 7) is confirmed for Pendik by more recent soundings at the site, as attested by stone weights and bone hooks possibly used in fishing (cf. Har-manktm 1983.29; Pasinli eta/. 1994.151. Figs. 9-II. 16). The strong contrast in settlement location and subsistence with Ihpinar phase X pertains to house building as well. The Ihpinar and Mente^e dwellings were relatively solid features with deeply set posts, lattices and daub, and otherwise built of pise with wooden reinforcements (cf. Roodenberg /9932531. 264 Fig. 3. Roodenberg /999). Fikirtepe and Pendik houses, however, w ere of much lighter construction, involving wattle-and-daub walls w ithout deeply set posts to fix them to the ground (cf. Bittel 1969 1970. 6[J,, PI 1: Ozdogan 1983.405). It is tempting to associate these light habitations w ith a population not tightly bound to a fixed spot; they certainly suggest an ability to cope with local circumstances in diverse w ays not centred primarily on the need to formalise the domestic by constructing long-lasting dwelling places. In view of w hat has been said above, the local me-solithic background of the Fikirtepe fishing v illages on the Marmara east coast is certain, as has recently been restated by Ozdogan in an important paper (1997). Simultaneously, the ceramic assemblages of these sites correlating fully with Ihpinar, Menteje and Demircihuyuk, combined with the experiments at fanning rely ing fully on the five major domestic species (sheep, goat, cattle, pig and dog) as exemplified by the animal remains (cf. Buitenhuis 1995 152. 155, Table I). suggest that a southern impulse for both must Ik- acknowledged (Ozdogan 1989,203; Gatsov and Ozdogan /994.98). Given the simulta- ~ "Migrants art' not likely to move lo areas about which they have no Information." K The same seems to apply to the remaining two Fikirtepe sites, viz. i^erenkoy and Tuzla. although data on these are rather sparse 34 Traiectones towards the neowhisatton of NW Turkey neous occurrence of both die farming techniques and the pottery on the northern sites, it is not improbable that these innovations were also introduced together, possibly from a single source and by a single means. The direct source area might well have been the l/nik Lake region, where Ihpinar on its west- and Yiigiicek on its eastern shore might have provided the immediate interface for the mesolithk-neolithic culture contact. IV. The two sites presently known through survey in the small Pazaryeri Plain attest that strong cultural traditions existed between the Yeni§ehir Basin and similar basins further south. Here. Kinik and possibly Pazaryeri II yield material strongly reminiscent of the top deposits of Mente.se and of phase VA at Ihpinar (cf. Efe 1992.565/.. 199121/.). Earlier material has not yet been detected. Southeast of the Pazaryeri area, the Eskijjehir Basin is the first area, when coming from the western lowlands by way of the Bursa-Bozuyuk road, that is located on the Anatolian Plateau (Bittel and Otto 1939.!/.). Here, the site of Dcmircihuyuk yields definite connections in ceramics with the top deposit of Menteje and with Ihpinar VA, as is evident from pots with strap handles at the rim (Seeher 1987. PI. 12:6-18). some impresso ware (ibid., PI. 21:1-8) and painted sherds (ibid. PI. 8) (cf. Roodenberg 1999 Figs. 12: 1-6, 13:2). However, the presence at Dcmircihuyuk of discrete, but chronologically valuable variables such as slanted handles (Seeher 1987 Pis. 4:6-7, 20:23-25). pottery lids and horizontal, pierced lugs (ibid. Pis. 7:6. 1939. 20.3, 5. 8). definitely link the pottery of this site to the basal deposits of Ihpinar and Mente$e. As is well-known, all the early material from Demircihuyuk was found in tertiary contexts, the neolithic site most likely hidden close to the later mound underneath thick alluvial deposits (Kor/mann 1983.25)9. No 11C dates being available for the early pottery. Seeher's claims that some of the material is contemporary to (¿atalhoyiik East levels XII-IX. or else to Catal VIII and later (Seeher 1987.46//.), while attractive, is not verifiable. However. the neolithic Demircihuyuk pottery does suggest the presence of similar subordinate categories as known from Ihpinar, Menteje and the Fikirtepe sites, viz. pots with four vertically pierced knob handles and pots with two horizontal lugs, and it does imply the presence of similar discrete concepts regarding cooking and food manipulation. While the strong "Fikirtepe" affinities of some Demircihuyuk pottery have been recognised as early, the basal deposit of the neolithic site may well antedate both Fikirtepe and Ihpinar. similar to what has been proposed for Mentc$e (vide supra). Infortuna-tely. the crucial question tackled for Mente$e vs. Ihpinar concerning the pathway towards neolithisa-tion cannot be taken up here. While for Mente?e the launal data are in the process of analysis, no such data exist for neolithic Demircihuyuk. V. Now that we have contemplated the diverse trajectories leading towards the establishment of several neolithic sites in the Anatolian northwest, it is tempting to stretch the evidence a little further. A decade ago, Ozdogan perceived the roots of the Fikirtepe pottery to be in the Hacilar and (¿atalhoyuk assemblages, stating that it "came fully developed from the south as an intrusive new element" (Ozdogan 1989203)- By extension, this observation would apply equally to the ceramics of Ihpinar. Menteje and Demircihuyuk. W hile I believe the hint at Hacilar to be less valid, the ceramic assemblage of Qaial-hoyuk East does provide a remote blueprint for pottery categorization and manipulation in the Northwest. In the (¿atalhoy iik ceramics, a technological development involves the shift from straw- or chaff-tempered, cream-burnished and low-fired wares as used during levels X1I-IXA1II to dark-burnished, grit-tempered pottery, occurring from level VIII/V1I onwards (.Mellaart 1966.170; Last 1996.120). The recent publication on the new (¿atal-project, including a helpful reanalysis of the old excavation's pottery (last 1996.115-120). strengthens the basic division of the Catal pottery sequence in at least tw o stages. The shift in the use of temper is accompanied by a drastic decrease in wall thickness separating levels XII-IX. via VIII-VII, from V1B-II (no material being preserved from levels 1-0) (last 1996 117, Table 9. la). The repertoire of shapes, roughly composed of bowls and holemouth pots (Fig. 3)10. varies in relative proportion over the sequence. Holemouths in- 9 The actual mound of Demircihuyuk has a thick Early Bronze- Age deposit. Tlie S m of settlement debris lying untouched below the groundwater table (Korfmann 1983.25) most probably dates to the Lite Chakolithic period. 10 The latter of which, according to Mellaart. were used for cooking, as evidenced by "thick lay ers of soot in which they are covered* (Mellaart 1962 54). 35 Laurens Thissen Fig. 2:14-15. 20-21; 1962.53 Fi«. 9:11. 14-18. 20, 22-25/ crease in quantity from level VIB onward, to decrease dramatically again during levels 111—11 (Last ¡996.117, Table 9.1a). The trend toward the final Catal levels seems to be that both necked pots and open (bowl) forms begin to dominate the assemblage in favour of holemouth pots. Concomitantly, there is a larger amount of small vessels including miniatures in the later levels (Last 1996. I16). The bowls in the later levels preserve the deep aspect of the earlier ones, but profiles become S-shaped or ca-rinated (Last ¡996.125. Fig. 9.4:3-5). Handles, not generally attested before level MB, occur mostly on holemouths. Here, three main types may be distinguished, viz. the "rare." vertically-set strap handles (Last 1996 !¡8, 121. Fig. 9.2:4-5). horizontal lugs (Last 1996.127, Fig. 9.5.5, labelled flaring lugs ) and vertically-pierced knob handles (Last 1996.127, Fig. 9.5 2-3, termed straight lugs'). The horizontal lugs abruptly increase in quantity from level VIA over V, in favour of the vertically-pierced knob handles which are not attested later than level IV (Last 1996.118. Table 9.3. cf. Mellaart 1962.54). The latter type was replaced by a variant (what Last calls •pointed lugs'), which in level HI shares the distribution with the flaring lugs. If one may trust these figures, based as they are on the random preserv ation state of the pottery excavated by Mellaart, some facts can be established: a) holemouth poLs dominate the sequence during levels VIB-IV; b) handles occur from level VIB on- wards and are associated with holemouth vessels; c) horizontal lugs and vertically-pierced knob handles co-occur only during levels VIB-IV: d) vertically-pierced knob handles do not occur after level IV. but have been replaced by "pointed lugs'. My conclusion is that the horizontal (or 'flaring') lugs were very characteristic of the later levels at Catal - from level V—111 (no counts av ailable for levels 11-0), and further that the vertically-pierced knob handles (or straight lugs') and the "pointed lugs' are both v ariants belonging to a single class. Conceived thus, the relation vertically-pierced knob handles vs. horizontal lugs is on a roughly equal footing from level V onwards (Tab. 3). On this basis. it can be further inferred that - necked pots taking over from holemouths from level HI - necked pots also were provided with vertically-pierced knob handles or horizontal lugs. level n vertically- horizontal pierced knob lugs III (5) 50.0% 50.0% IV (22) 40.0% 60.0% V (54) 60.0% 40.0% VIA (27) 94.7% 5.3% VIB (4) > ? Tub. J. (atalhoyuk East, levels MB-III. Relative frequencies of major handle types (after Last 1996/ 36 Trajectories towards the neolilNgalion ol NW Turkey The pottery assemblages from basal llipinar (and by extension those from the Fikirtepe sites. Meniere and Demircihuyiik) connect in one structural sense with (¿atalhoyiik East MB and later The simultaneous occurrence in the northwestern sites of two major pot categories, morphologically identical and only differentiated through their handle types, and both associated with discrete uses in the cooking process, continues a practice involving cooking and vessel manipulation first established in the Konya Plain during the Catalhoyuk East V1B-0 time frame. Also the shape of the individual handle sets, as well as their location and mutual exclusive occurrence in twos and fours is fully compatible with the Konya region. While die southeastern origin of basal llipinar s pot-ten use and technology could be established, other northwestern culture variables do not automatically fit the picture. The early houses at llipinar and Men-te$e, if not in the cohon-post method later to be widely applied in the Balkans, were built with pise walls occasionally reinforced with horizontal wooden balks. While the cohon-post method seems to have been dictated by climate and available material (cf. Roodenberg ¡993.254; 1995.169), the pure earth' walls with wooden anchors could be distant echoes from the Central Plateau. They certainly contradict the purely environmental determinism apparent from the other construction method. However. the free-standing, single room houses of llipinar strongly contrast with the planned, tightly nucleated settlement plans known from A$ikli Hoyuk. Qatalhoyiik East or Erbaba. Simultaneously, neither Fikirtepe's, nor llipmar's li-thic industry bear any resemblance to that of the Konya area, with its sophisticated bifacial pressure flaking techniques and highly diversified repertoire (e.g.. Catal East, Cukurkent, llicapinar). llipinar. in Uiis respect, represents a continuation of a local epi-palaeolithic tradition analogous to Pendik and Fikirtepe (/. Roodenberg. pers. comm.). But. as Rooden-berg has stressed, "ties with the Anatolian highlands were preserv ed through the provision of obsidian, which was imported from the Hasan Dag area in Central Anatolia" (Roodenberg 1995.169: cf. Bigazzi et al 1995). If a connection between the Konya area and the northwest (Demirci. Meniere, llipinar, Fikirtepe) on the level of ceramic knowledge involving the transmission of specific concepts (of technological and morphological nature and those concerning use) is accepted. I may put forward the hypothesis that the link between both areas was established somewhere during Catalhoyuk East levels VTA-III. It was during that time slice that holemouth pots dominated the repertoire of (/atal. and both the horizontal lugs and the vertically-pierced knob handles co-occurred in equal proportions, thus providing the category basis on which the earliest pottery of the northwestern sites was established. I do not wish to suggest contemporaneity of £atal VIA-III and early llipinar. While the establishment of llipinar is rather confidently set at about (>()()() cal BC, the i-»C dates from (Jatalhoyuk East levels YIA-II fall within the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC. To be more precise, not one of the dates from this cluster is later than 6200 cal BC at la. Consequently, the possible time range for the spread of concepts on pottery just mentioned from (¿atal to the Northwest may he set anywhere between 6500/6-100-6300/6200 cal BC. Recapitulating the evidence, I propose that, despite the wide divergences between the Konya area and the Marmara Basin in settlement pattern, building methods and stone industry, the underlying concepts as apparent in the manufacture, appearance and use of the pottery of both areas relate the Anatolian Northwest to the Central Plateau. This selective parallelism in material culture is then either a function of the observ ed discrepancy in time between both regions, or else is directly related to the specific material culture variable itself, viz. pottery, to its producers and to patterns of tradition and know-how involved. The same selection would, in my view, preclude migration from the Plateau to the Northwest, but it might reflect exogamous marriage practices. Simultaneously, the transmission out of the Plateau of knowledge concerning farming. was possibly another parallel feature of culture contact between £atal and the mesolithic population further north. VI. Evidently, the research base for testing these assumptions is still on a humble level. However, the links between the Konya area and the Anatolian Northwest do not disclaim the observations made by Bittel and Mellaart that the Konya Plain connects directly to the Northwest by way of the Eskijehir Basin, via the Inegol and Yeni$ehir Basins to the Iznik Lake, and from there to the Marmara (cf. Bittel and Otto 1939.7; Mellaart 1955 55. 75. Pi XI). 37 Laurens Thissen The neolithisation of NW Turkey had its roots in the knowledge of methods and techniques concerning farming accumulated in the Konya area for nearly a millennium, and in their subsequent application. At present, there are no immediate reasons to consider the establishment of early farming sites in the Northwest as due to migration - the Konya area was not particularly densely settled in the seventh mill, cal BC. Nor was the eventual abandonment of CatalhoyUk East by the end of the millennium due to deteriorating circumstances, occupation simply being transferred to Qatalhdyuk West. To conclude, it is proposed that the first farming villages in the Eski.sehir Basin (Demircihuyuk and Findik Kayahasi (life 1995)) were the result of me-solithic culture contact with the Konya area or. more probably, given the large intervening area. were themselves settled from villages lying between the Konya and Eski,sehir Basins. The establishment of the three early farming sites in the Yeni$ehir Basin w as linked to the Eski^ehir Plain, although presently available data preclude any further assessment. I have further argued that the settlement of Ihptnar (and possibly a contemporaneous site on the east shore of the lznik Lake) was a deliberate move by farmers from the Yenijehir area, the peculiar commitment to the land as evidenced by the faunal remains from Ilipmar discrediting a local hunter-gatherer adaptation. Finally, the inverted evidence from the Fikirtepe sites is strongly in favour of a local mesolithic population adopting simultaneously an adapted form of farming and the full use of ceramics. The immediate know-how for both innovations has most probably to be sought in the lznik Lake villages. REFERENCES ANTHONY D. 1990. Migration in archaeology: the babv and the bathw ater. American Anthropologist 92: 895-914. BIGAZZI G., ODDONE M. and YEGINGIL Z. 1995. A provenance study of obsidian artifacts from Ihpinar. In Roodenberg J. (ed.). The Ihpinar excavations I. Five seasons offieldu ork in \W Anatolia. 198791. 143-150. BITTEL K. 1969/1970. Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadi-köv (Istanbul). Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19-20: I-19. BITTEL K. and OTTO H. 1959. Demirci Hiiyük. Eine vorgeschichtliche Siedlung an der phrygisch-bithy-nischen Grenze. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1937. Istanbul. BlilTENHUIS H. 1989/1990. (Investigations at llipi-nar| The faunal remains. Anatolica 16: 111-119. 1995. The faunal remains. In RoodenbergJ. (ed.), Tl.ie Ihpinar excavations I. Tive seasons offielduork in XW Anatolia, 1987-91: 151-156. EFE T. 1990. An inland Anatolian site with pre-Yinca elements: Orman Fidanhgi, Eski$ehir. A re- examination of Balkan-Anatolian connections in the fifth millennium BC. Germania 68: 67-113. 1992. 1990 yihnda Kütahya. Bilecik ve Eski?ehir illerinde yapilan yiizey arastirmalari. Arastirma SonuQlan Toplautisi 9: 561-583. 1993- Chalcolithic pottery from the mounds Asla-napa (Kütahya) and Kimk (Bilecik). Anatolica 19. 19-31 1995. k Ban Anadolu da iki neolitik yerlejnie: Findik kayahasi ve Akmakca. In Erkanal. A. et al. (eds.). In memoria m. I. Metin Akyurt Bahattin devam am kitabi. Eski Yaktn Dogn kidturleri üzerine incelemeler. 105-114. FRENCH D. 1967. Prehistoric sites in Northwest Anatolia I. The lznik area. Anatolian Studies 17:49-100. GATSOV I. and OZDOGAN M. 1994. Some epi-palaeo-lithic sites from NW Turkey. Anatolica 20: 97-120. HARMANKAYA S. 1983- Pendik kazisi 1981. Kazi Sonti^lari Toplautisi 4: 25-30. KORFMANN M. 198.3. Demircihuyuk. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen ¡975-1978. Band 1. Archi-teklur. Stratigraphie und Refunde. Mainz. 38 Traioflongs towards 1ha neolilh-sation c' NW Turkey LAST J. 1996. Surface pottery at Çatalhûyûk, In H