138
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the
North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
Deniz Sari
1
, S ¸emsettin Akyol
2
1 Department of Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology, Bilecik S ¸eyh Edebali University, Bilecik, TR
deniz.sari@bilecik.edu.tr
2 Department of Archaeology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, TR
ABSTRACT – The region of Inner North-western Anatolia was a key node in the transmission of the
Neolithic lifestyle from the Near East to Marmara, and from there to the Balkans and the rest of Eu-
rope. It formed the intersection between several important routes and trade networks, and the set-
tlement of Keçiçayırı, the subject of this paper, had an essential role in the transfer of cultural ele-
ments during the Neolithic. The settlement is located on a natural communication route that con-
nects the region of Emirdag-Bolvadin with Eskisehir across the mountainous area of Phrygia,
between the distribution areas of the Hacılar and Fikirtepe cultural groups. Finds from the site in-
clude both Pre-Pottery Neolithic material and Early Neolithic ceramics, and it is therefore among the
earliest permanent settlements of the Eskisehir region, and contains some of the earliest evidence
for the Neolithisation process. In this paper, the pottery assemblage of the Early Neolithic settlement
at Keçiçayırı is discussed, and its place in the spread of Neolithisation from the Near East to North-
western Anatolia is evaluated when compared to other known sites.
IZVLE∞EK – Obmo≠je notranje severozahodne Anatolije je bilo klju≠no prese≠i∏≠e prenosa neolit-
skega na≠ina ∫ivljenja iz Bli∫njega Vzhoda na obmo≠je Marmarskega morja in naprej na Balkan in
v Evropo. Tukaj je bilo pomembno se≠i∏≠e med ∏tevilnimi pomembnimi potmi in trgovskimi mre∫a-
mi, pri ≠emer je imelo najdi∏≠e Keçiçayiri, ki ga obravnavamo v ≠lanku, pomembno vlogo pri pre-
nosu kulturnih elementov v ≠asu neolitika. Naselbina se nahaja na naravni komunikacijski poti, ki
povezuje regiji Emirdag-Bolvadin in Eskisehir preko goratega predela Frigije, in sicer med podro≠je-
ma distribucije kulturnih skupin Hacılar in Fikirtepe. Najdbe vklju≠ujejo tako material iz obdobja
predkerami≠nega neolitika kot keramiko iz zgodnjega neolitika, kar pomeni, da je najdi∏≠e Keçiça-
yiri eno najstarej∏ih stalnih naselbin na obmo≠ju Eskisehir in vklju≠uje najstarej∏e dokaze o proce-
su neolitizacije tega prostora. V ≠lanku predstavljamo zgodnjeneolitsko lon≠enino iz te naselbine in
njen polo∫aj pri ∏iritvi neolitizacije iz Bli∫njega Vzhoda proti severozahodni Anatoliji, pri ≠emer oce-
njujemo njen polo∫aj v primerjavi z drugimi znanimi najdi∏≠i tega ≠asa.
KEY WORDS – Neolithisation; Early Neolithic pottery; Anatolia; Phrygian highlands; Keçiçayırı
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitizacija; zgodnjeneolitska lon≠enina; Anatolija; Frigijsko vi∏avje; Keçiçayiri
Zgodnjeneolitska lon;enina z najdi[;a Keçiçayiri
in njen polo/aj v procesu neolitizacije severozahodne Anatolije
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.9

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
139
The settlement of Keçiçayırı, the subject of this pa-
per, is situated on a natural communication route
that connects Central Anatolia with Eskisehir, in the
mountains of Phrygia, and the southern Marmara
coastline beyond. Keçiçayırı was one of the first per-
manent settlements in this part of the world, and
finds show that it was inhabited from the Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic to the Roman Period.
Brief overview of the Neolithisation of North-
western Anatolia
Despite increasing research, it is clear that there is
still much that is unknown about the process of Neo-
lithisation of Western Anatolia, and there are many
ways to approach it. Mehmet Özdogan regards the
process of Neolithisation in the Near East, Aegean
and Balkans as a series of geographical/cultural zo-
nes (Özdogan M. 2014; 2016). The earliest lie to the
east of the Central Anatolian Basin, and are regard-
ed as the regions that saw the formation and devel-
opment of the Neolithic lifestyle (10 400–7200 BC):
Northern Syria and the Levant (Zone A1), Northern
Iraq and Western Iran (Zone A2), and South-eastern
Anatolia (Zone A3). From the early 7
th
millennium
BC, the Neolithic lifestyle began to spread rapidly,
probably due to the effects of geographical, climatic,
and social dynamics, and in this period many set-
tlements were abandoned in the east while people
moved west. As such, data about the next phases of
the Neolithic lifestyle are encountered in the Anato-
lian Lakes District (Zone B1) and Aegean (Zone B2),
in which the number of settlements greatly increas-
ed, and in Inner Western Anatolia (Zone C1) and to
Introduction
Following the end of the Last Ice Age, people in the
Near East who had subsisted by hunting and for-
aging began a transition into a lifestyle that includ-
ed permanent settlement and food production, the
first step of a radical alteration that would ultima-
tely be adopted by much of humanity. The earliest
Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlements yet identified, and
thus the earliest core regions for the transition into
farming, are in the Zagros Mountains of modern
Iran, the Levant, at Çayönü near the Taurus Moun-
tains and on the Konya Plain in Turkey. Excavations
carried out at settlements such as Can Hasan, Asıklı
Höyük and Musular indicate that the earliest areas
of incipient food production outside the Fertile Cre-
scent seem to have been in the Konya Plain and
mountainous area to the east of it. Perhaps the most
notable of these is Asıklı Höyük, near Aksaray, where
a few Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement phases show
an overlapping stratigraphy (Özbasaran, Cutting
2007.55), but the Neolithisation process continued at
such sites as Çatalhöyük, near Çumra, which shows
many overlapping Early Neolithic layers. Ongoing
work in the west of the Konya Plain has greatly cla-
rified the comparative chronologies of the Early and
Late Neolithic Periods (Gérard et al. 2002).
1 1
Recent excavations in Western Anatolia (Fig. 1) have
demonstrated that this area had a role in reshaping
the cultures of the Neolithic, rather than simply act-
ing as a bridge for the transition of the Neolithic life-
style. Mehmet Özdogan, for example, states that the
Neolithic cultures that developed in Western Anato-
lia and spread to the Balkans and
Europe were the predecessors of
the European Neolithic, and thus
defines Western Anatolia as a Neo-
lithic core region (Özdogan M.
2007.418). Excavations at Bade-
magacı, in the Lakes District, and
at Ulucak, Yesilova and Çukuriçi,
near the Aegean, show that mate-
rial culture which was clearly in-
fluenced by Central Anatolian Neo-
lithic developed differently in the
south than in the north. Material
from Aktopraklık, Ilıpınar, Barcın
Höyük and Yenikapı are represen-
tative of the northern Fikirtepe
culture and the Neolithisation of
the Marmara region. Fig. 1. Major Anatolian Neolithic sites of Western Anatolia.
1 For current 
14
C dates see http://www.14sea.org.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
140
the east of the Sea of Marmara (Zone C2). The trend
seems to be that the Neolithic lifestyle spread along
two paths from the Lakes District, with one contin-
uing south to the Aegean coast and the other cross-
ing the Anatolian Plateau to the Sakarya River basin
(Özdogan M. 2014.36; 2016.54–55).
Recent data has amply demonstrated that Neolithisa-
tion is closely connected with climatic oscillations
(Weninger et al. 2014). A period of rapid climate
change now known as the 8.2-k event saw a period
of rapid cooling that lasted up to 600 years, Phase
A from 6600 to 6300 BC and Phase B from 6300 to
6000 BC. Phase A corresponds to the period when
pottery was used first in the Near East and when a
number of Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlements were
abandoned (Weninger et al. 2014.13–14). By Phase
B, there were a greatly increased number of settle-
ments in Western Anatolia (Özdogan, Gatsov 1998.
211).
The earliest traces of the pre-Neolithic Period in
North-western Anatolia have been discovered in the
Çatalca-Kocaeli district to the north of the Sea of
Marmara. These appear in sites that reflect the ele-
ments of the Agaçlı culture, a late Mesolithic phase
from the 8
th
millennium BC (Özdogan, Gatsov 1994;
1998.210, 213). The lithic material of this phase is
similar to the Neolithic examples that followed, in-
cluding microlite tools created using pressure techni-
ques reminiscent of the epigravettian tradition, and
chipped stone tools with prismatic blade cores. It is
probable that the lithic toolkit of the Mesolithic Aga-
çlı culture was adopted by the Neolithic Fikirtepe
one (Özdogan M. 1999.203).
Yet evidence from settlements such as Keçiçayırı,
Kalkanlı, and Asarkaya situated in the
district of Eskisehir shows that some
communities followed ceramic tradi-
tions that originated from Central Ana-
tolia and used very different chipped
stone tool technologies to those living
further north. These tools are from
contexts that date to the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic, and come from a different
tradition to the microlilte tools of the
Agaçlı culture of Mesolithic Period, or
the Pendik and Fikirtepe cultures that
followed. They are characterized by
macro blades, macro perforator and
chipped discs (Özdogan, Gatsov 1998.
213–214). Macro blades and macro
perforator are closer to the traditions
seen in material from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Pe-
riod of Konya Plain. This suggests that there were
connections with North-western Anatolia during the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Özdogan, Gatsov 1998; Efe
2005; Efe et al. 2012).
The chipped stone tools known from the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic of the Konya Plain seem to have been part
of a long tradition, especially in the eastern parts of
the plain in the district of Eskisehir. Keçiçayırı, Kal-
kanlı, and Asarkaya are situated at the western ex-
tremity of the culture’s distribution area (Efe 2005.
112). These settlements, which contain the first tra-
ces of Neolithisation in the area, are located in high,
somewhat mountainous areas that are more suitable
to hunting and animal husbandry than to agriculture
(Özdogan M. 1997.18).
Traces of pottery appear for the first time in the
Konya Plain during the early 7
th
millennium BC, in
Levels XI–VIII at Çatalhöyük, which have been dated
to 7000–6700/6600 BC. It is represented by straw-
and grit tempered coarse ware, thick-walled simple
profile bowls, and holemouth jars (Özdöl 2006.130–
153). The earliest traces of pottery in the Lakes Di-
strict are seen shortly thereafter, in the EN I/8–9 la-
yers at Bademagacı, dated to 7050–6705 BC (Duru
2007.349). By the middle of the 7
th
millennium BC
there were some innovations in the pottery tradition
found in Levels VII–IV of Çatalhöyük (6700/6600–
6400/6300 BC), which were a development of the
earlier styles and have been defined as the ‘Middle
Tradition’ (Özdöl 2006.153–205). Among these de-
velopments are the ledge-rimmed bowls, ‘s’-profile
bowls, squat-necked pots, and pierced lugs that be-
came distinctive elements for dating settlements in
Western Anatolia. The features of the Middle Tradi-
Fig. 2. The location of Keçiçayırı.

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
141
tion of the Konya Plain are found in the pottery of
Inner North-western Anatolia a few centuries later.
These are the earliest ceramic forms from this re-
gion, from a period called the Initial Neolithic (Özdo-
gan E. 2015.51, Fig. 6; 2016.271, Fig. 2; Erdogu et
al. 2015.34). Radiocarbon and relative dates are
consistent for the pottery of the western part of the
Konya Plain and that of the Inner North-western
Anatolia from Keçiçayırı and Demircihöyük, in the
district of Eskisehir, and Layers VIe and VId (6570–
6330 BC) at Barcın, where they have been attrib-
uted to a pre-Fikirtepe culture (Gerritsen et al. 2016.
200). Holemouth jars and ledge-rim pots indicate
that these ceramics originated in the tradition found
earlier at Çatalhöyük. It appears to have arrived on
the Aegean coast one or two centuries earlier still,
having been dated at Ulucak VI to 6750–6600 BC
(Çilingiroglu 2012.18) and at Çukuriçi XII–XI to
approx. 6772–6489 BC (Horejs et al. 2015.302).
In the next phase, the settlements of Mentese 3 Ba-
sal and Aktopraklık C were founded to the south of
the Sea of Marmara, followed soon after by Fikirte-
pe and Pendik to its north. This phase began around
6300 BC and corresponds to the Late Neolithic lay-
ers III–O at Çatalhöyük (6400/6300–6000 BC), and
has been called the ‘Late Tradition’ (Özdöl Kutlu
2014). The pottery parallels the Middle Neolithic Pe-
riod in Northnorth-western Anatolia (Özdogan E.
2016.Fig. 2), and retains the elements of pottery
from the ‘Archaic Fikirtepe culture’. These elements
include ‘s’-profile bowls and squat-necked pots also
known from the Middle Tradition of Çatalhöyük,
along with rectangular or triangular cultic wares with
incised decoration known as ‘Fikirtepe box’ forms.
The Late Neolithic phase began c. 6000 BC and last-
ed until around 5750 BC. It was in this phase that
two different cultural regions coalesced in Western
Anatolia: the Fikirtepe culture that extends along a
region that included the eastern parts of the Sea of
Marmara and the Sakarya Basin directly to the south-
east, and the Hacılar culture that developed in South-
western Anatolia and is characterized by a red-on-
cream pottery tradition.
Fikirtepe ceramics originated in the monochrome tra-
dition of Central Anatolia, which was found across
the whole of Western Anatolia in the previous phase,
but merged with local elements and developed to
take on a new identity. This interpretation is based
on surface surveys at the settlements of Akmakça,
Fındıkkayabası (Efe 1990.409), and Hacıhamza (Efe
1994.574) in the western part of the Anatolian pla-
teau, where Fikirtepe pottery, including elements
Fig. 3. Topographical plan and trenches of Keçiçayırı.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
142
such as Fikirtepe box forms, have been found to-
gether with red-on-cream wares. As such, the plain
of Eskisehir, incuding Demircihöyük, seems to have
been at the border between classical Fikirtepe cul-
ture and those of the Hacılar culture. Some pieces
of typical Fikirtepe wares have been found in sur-
face surveys to the north of this region, such as Ah-
medet I–II (Efe et al. 2015.497) and Bahçelievler
(Efe et al. 2015.499) in the district of Bilecik, where
no traces of painted pottery have been encountered.
The location of Keçiçayırı and its excavation
history
The settlement of Keçiçayırı is located in the moun-
tainous southern part of the province of Eskisehir,
in an area known as the Phrygian Highlands (Fig. 2).
It lies 5km southwest of the village of Bardakçı and
approx. 18km south of Seyitgazi. A stream, the Esen,
rises beside the village of Yazılıkaya and connects to
the Sakarya River after passing Keçiçayırı, flowing
through a somewhat rough lowland area surround-
ed by low mountains. Two rocky hills of Neogene
chalk, named Cıbırada and Aralıkada, border the
plain to the east of the Esen. Quaternary alluviums
are located in the vicinity of Cıbırada. The Keçiçayı-
rı settlement area surrounds the western foot of this
hill, and its fields lie to the northeast on the plain.
Keçiçayırı was first visited by the head of Eskisehir
Museum in 1977, and was officially registered after
some illegal excavations by treasure hunters had
been reported to the authorities. It was then exam-
ined a few times during surface surveys undertaken
by Turan Efe from 1988 to 1995, which included the
provinces of Bilecik, Eskisehir and Kütahya, and
some materials were collected from it (Efe 1997.
217). From 2006 to 2009, with permission from the
General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Mu-
seums and financial support from The Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜB_TAK;
SOBAG Proje No 106K111), rescue excavations were
carried out under the direction of the head of Eski-
sehir Museum and with Efe as the scientific consul-
tant (Efe, Türkteki 2007.75; Efe et al. 2011; Fidan
2016; Efe, Tuna 2017; Sarı 2017).
Stratigraphy and excavation
Excavations at Keçiçayırı were independently car-
ried out in four different areas (Fig. 3): the Mound,
the Terrace, the North-western Fields, and the Hill
Fig. 4. The stratigraphy of Keçiçayırı.
Fig. 5. The flint core dated Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Early Neolithic sherds from trenches other than
the Hill of Cıbırada.
Periods
Northwest
Mound Terrace Cıbırada
fields
Roman x x x –
EBA III – – – x
Late EBA II – – – x
Late Chalcolithic – – x –
Early Neolithic x – – x
Aceramic Neolithic x x – –
Upper Palaeolithic x – – –

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
143
of Cıbırada (Efe et al. 2011.10). There was a layer of
Roman period material on the surfaces of all areas
other than the Hill. The excavation areas and the pe-
riods they include are shown in Figure 4.
Mound
The area named the Mound or Höyük is a natural
hill, and there was only 50cm of cultural accumu-
lation on it. Some stone artefacts that might belong
to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period were found there,
including a discoidal core and end-scrapers (Efe et
al. 2012.229, Figs. 5–6), along with remains from
the Roman Period. Pits carved into the bedrock at
the northern end of a Roman Period building were
probably the remains of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period
structures that were demolished during the con-
struction of the Roman one. Many scraps of stone
and animal bones were found around these pits (Efe
et al. 2011.11).
Terrace
A round structure from the Roman Pe-
riod was found 100m northeast of the
Mound and approx. 200m southwest of
the Hill of Cıbırada, and named the Ter-
race (Efe et al. 2011.12). A sounding
opened here reached the bedrock, upon
which were two damaged human skele-
tons. Two vessels, apparently grave
goods, were found along with these ske-
letons, and have been dated to the Late
Chalcolithic Period (Efe 2008.245).
North-western Fields
The area called the North-western Fields
lies on the plain, approx. 750–800m
northwest of the Hill of Cıbırada. These
fields saw extensive use during the Ro-
man Period, but prehistoric remains
were reached there in two trenches (b-
88 and part of b-87). Two supeimposed
prehistoric layers were found beneath
the Roman ones in trench b-88. The up-
per layer was homogenous and dark in
colour without architecture, while the
one below was a pebbly layer contain-
ing some chipped stone material. Two
round depressions in the pebbly layer
might point to an intermediary phase
(Fig. 5a). A naviform and a flake core
(Fig. 5b) of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Pe-
riod are probably the most important
finds from this area (Efe et al. 2012.
Figs. 3–4), though a few Early Neolithic
sherds were also collected from the upper prehistoric
layer (Fig. 5c–d), one of which had a ledge-rim and
was thus typical of the period (Efe et al. 2011.12–13).
The stratigraphy and Neolithic architecture of
Cıbırada
The Hill of Cıbırada is situated on the eastern bor-
der of the plain, approx. 45m higher than the Mound
and Terrace (Fig. 6), and the Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age (EBA) stratigraphies of Keçiçayırı were
obtained from this area. The main settlement at Cı-
bırada was an EBA fortification, approx. 120 x 100m
in size, which was surrounded by a wall that was
built to follow the natural contours of the hill. Pot-
tery and other finds from the settlement show that
it dates to the second half of the 3
rd
millennium BC
(Efe, Tuna 2017; Fidan 2016; Sarı 2017).
Two EBA II structures, named Rooms 15 and 16,
were found in squares AV-1, AY-1 and AZ-1 in the
Fig. 6. Southern section of the Keçiçayırı plain, including Cıbı-
rada and the Mound or Höyük.
Fig. 7. The Neolithic layer under the EBA II houses of the citadel
(Room 15 and 16) situated on the Hill of Cıbırada.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
144
north of the settlement (Fig. 7). They appear to have
been destroyed in a fire. Beneath a thin homoge-
neous layer containing a mixture of EBA II and Early
Neolithic material, there is a Neolithic layer on the
bedrock (Fig. 8).
The structures were defined by three north-south
walls, built directly onto the bedrock and following
the slope of the hill, so that the northern end was
approx. 50cm lower than the southern one. Over-
lain by these walls was the only architectural re-
mains of the Neolithic Period to be found, a struc-
ture with a round or oval plan carved into the bed-
rock and approx. 60cm in depth and 5m in diame-
ter (Fig. 9).
The majority of this structure is still beneath the
EBA II walls, but part of its southern extent was re-
vealed during excavation. It consisted of two courses
of small- to medium-sized stones surrounding a pit
that had been cut into the bed-
rock. No traces of mudbrick or
post-holes were found, but the
soil matrix contained pottery
and many ground- and chip-
ped stone tools were discover-
ed lying in situ on the bedrock.
Chipped discs made from tabu-
lar flint, retouched blades, and
end-scrapers were found with
pottery from the Early Neoli-
thic Period on the Hill of Cıbı-
rada (Fig. 10). These tools were
generally shaped by indirect
percussion, though direct per-
cussion was also used for fla-
kes (Gatsov et al. 2016.2). The
pressure flaking which was de-
veloped from the previous Pre-Pottery Neolithic
phase is used subsequently for bullet core fragments;
this connects the Konya plain with Keçiçayırı and
Barcın VIe–VIe/d (Gatsov et al. 2016.3) and then
to Aktopraklık C (Karul 2017.66–67; Özdogan M.
2014.42, Fig. 7) to the south of the Sea of Marmara.
The Early Neolithic pottery assemblages from Keçi-
çayırı, discussed in greater detail in the sections that
follow, also support this opinion.
The Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayırı
Neolithic pottery had been found in square b-88 in
the North-western Fields and in squares AV-1, AY-1,
and AZ-1 on the Hill of Cıbırada. The number of pie-
ces in North-western Fields was limited, with only
eight body sherds and one ledge-rim piece that might
be dated to the Neolithic Period being found in this
area (Fig. 5c–d). The Hill of Cıbırada yielded a great-
er number, and 522 pieces dating to this period and
Fig. 9. Neolithic layer of Cıbırada (Rooms 15 and 16).
Fig. 8. The stratigrapgy of Cıbırada, Trench AY 1, western and southern profiles, Room 15.

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
145
55 of the assemblage are diagnostic. These were
found across an area of roughly 100m
2
, in strata
that were on average 60cm deep.
The ware groups
The 522 Neolithic sherds have been identified as
belonging to three main ware groups: Red Slipped
Wares, Dark Faced Wares, and Coarse Wares. Coarse
Wares represented 60% of the pottery, and are thus
the most common ware group from the settlement,
though most were amorphous pieces. Dark Faced
Wares were the next most common, at 35%, while
Red Slipped Wares were sparsely represented, at
only 5%. There is, however, a margin of error be-
cause it was not always easy to distinguish which pie-
ces might belong to a given ware group (Fig. 11).
Red Slipped Wares
The surfaces of Red Slipped pieces were better pre-
served than those of the other ware groups due to
their slip and burnishing. The surface colours were
typically red and reddish brown, though in some
pieces the colour was closer to a shade of brown.
Some pieces were speckled due to secondary combu-
stion. The paste was more readily observable than
in Coarse and Dark Faced Wares, though no cores
were found. Mica was commonly used as a temper,
but thin or gritty straw tempers were also visible
(Fig. 12a). Red Slipped ware was mainly used for
simple profile bowls, ‘s’-profile bowls, closed vessels,
and long necked pots.
Dark Faced Wares
This group was only the second most commonly re-
presented group of Neolithic pottery, but 43 of the
55 diagnostic pieces (78%) were Dark Faced Ware.
Blemishes on the surface were generally corrected
by non-slipped plaster that was burnished to vary-
ing degrees. Accordingly, some pieces have smooth
and bright surfaces, while others have matte surfa-
ces that are less well-finished. A variety of dark
browns were dominant among the surface colours,
but there were light-brown faced pieces as well, and
some had multiple colours due to secondary com-
bustion. The paste was generally mid-brown, though
some samples were beige and dark brown, while
others had a grey or black core. Mica was used as a
temper in almost every piece, and could be seen on
the surfaces of some. Thin grit temper was used in
thin-walled wares, and rough grit and some straw
temper in thick-walled wares (Fig. 12b). A variety of
forms were observed, including simple profile bowls,
ledge-rim bowls, ‘s’-profile bowls, closed vessels,
squat necked pots, long necked pots, and lids. Verti-
cal handles, horizontal handles, vertical lugs and
pierced lugs were seen.
Coarse Wares
The surfaces of Coarse Wares were not generally
well-finished, and slip and burnish were not used on
this ware group. Some 72% of these pieces were
multi-coloured in grey and black due to secondary
combustion, so although it is not easy to determine
the original colour of this ware type it is almost cer-
tain that dark colours were dominant, albeit that
some light brown/beige shades were seen. The co-
lour of the paste also ranged from shades of light
brown/beige to dark brown/black, with some sam-
ples showing light grey pastes and black cores.
Rough grit, mica, and limestone were used as inclu-
sions. Straw-based tempers were seen but were un-
common, though many samples showed straw nega-
tives on the surface (Fig. 12c). So far as it is possible
to determine, the majority of Coarse Ware pieces
were storage- and kitchen wares. Almost all of the
pieces found were body sherds, with only three base
pieces that might be considered diagnostic.
Pottery forms
The amount of pottery obtained from the Neolithic
layer is not high, and the diagnostic sample is limit-
ed. Most of the Early Neolithic pottery from Keçiça-
yırı can be reconstructed as bowls and jars, along
with a handful of lids and handles (Fig. 13).
Fig. 10. Chipped-discs from Cıbırada.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
146
Bowls
As noted, most of the bowl forms at the settlement
(Pl. 1.1–10) were of Dark Faced Ware, along with a
few of Red Slipped Ware. They have been subdivid-
ed typologically into three groups: simple profile
bowls (Fig. 13.1a), ledge-rim bowls (Fig. 13.1b), and
‘s’-profile bowls (Fig. 13.1c).
Simple profile bowls made up 30% of the Neolithic
bowls, most of which were of Dark Faced Ware.
Their profiles either show a slight outward curve
or are vertical (Pl. 1.1–3). Ledge-rim bowls have a
broadly similar form, but have an internal ledge
around their rims, which probably allowed a lid or
cover to be placed on them (Pl. 1.4–7). All of the
ledge-rim bowls at Keçiçayırı were Dark Faced Ware.
‘S’-profile bowls (Pl. 1.8–10) also made up 30% of
the bowls at the settlement, and most were Dark
Faced Ware but a few Red Slipped Ware samples
were seen. The mouths and body parts of ‘s’-profile
bowls were normally well-finished, though some
were quite rough.
Jars
There were two subgroups of jar – closed jars and
necked jars – the surfaces of which were generally
dark and burnished. The majority of the base and
body sherds from the settlement were jars. Closed
jars (Fig. 13.2a) were the most common type, mak-
ing up 65% of all forms of jar at the settlement. This
form narrows at the mouth, which has a horizontal
profile, and normally a globular body, and is one of
the characteristic forms of the Neolithic Period (Pl.
1.11–13, Pl. 2.14–21). Closed jars were probably
used for storage. The majority were again Dark Faced
Ware, with a limited number of Red Slipped Ware
examples.
Necked jars (Fig. 13. 2b) differ from closed jars in
that a neck arches upward from the body (Pl. 2.22–
27). The majority of these rims were of Dark Faced
Ware, with Red Slipped Ware in limited numbers.
Necked jars have two subgroups according to the
length of the necks: ‘squat’ necked jars (Fig. 13.2b1;
Pl. 2.22–24) and ‘long’ necked jars (Fig. 13.2b; Pl.
2.25–27). Some ‘long’ necked jars also had vertical
handles (Pl. 4.51).
Lids
Covers or lids were probably used with ledge-rim
bowls or on cooking vessels. The surfaces of the
samples found at Keçiçayırı were well burnished
and all of them were of Dark Faced Ware. One of was
15cm and another was 17cm in diameter. This form
does not show much variety, having sharp edges
and rising in the centre to form a low dome (Pl.
4.47–48).
Handles, lugs, and bases
All examples are Dark Faced Ware. Handles are ver-
tical (Pl. 4.51) or horizontal (Pl. 4.49). Lugs are ver-
tical (Pl. 4.50) and some of them are pierced (Pl.
4.52–54). Bases were the most common diagnostic
in the sample (Fig. 11), comprising nearly half of the
Dark Faced Ware and Coarse Ware, though two Red
Slipped Ware base sherds have been found. All bases
should be regarded as belonging to jar forms due to
ware, base types, rising angles, and diameters. Some
Fig. 11. The ratio of the ware groups.

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
147
of the bases were very rough and thick, though there
were also some that were thinner, and more care
had been taken during their manufacture.
Comparisons with other sites
Although the short-term rescue excavations conduct-
ed at Keçiçayırı allowed important archaeological
data to be retrieved, it was not possible to take ad-
vantage of radiocarbon dating methods to produce
an absolute chronology. Comparative chronologies
are possible, however, notably with Çatalhöyük, one
of the starting points for Neolithisation in Western
Anatolia, but also with Demircihöyük in the far west
of the Plain of Eskisehir, some 90km northeast of
Keçiçayırı, and with Barcın Höyük in the Plain of Ye-
nisehir, 180km from Keçiçayırı in the same direction.
The radiocarbon data taken from stratigraphic levels
at Barcın Höyük is particularly significant for the
chronology of Keçiçayırı.
Çatalhöyük
The pottery of Keçiçayırı can be seen as a develop-
ment and variety of the pottery from levels VII–IV
at Çatalhöyük, where the most common
groups are straw tempered dark wares,
dark faced burnished wares, and grey
granular red-slipped wares (Özdöl 2006.
154). The dark faced wares and red slip-
ped wares with grey scrapings on them
are similar to those from Keçiçayırı both
in terms of paste and surface treatment.
The pottery from level III at Çatalhöyük
shows that dark faced wares continue
from previous levels but also see a de-
crease, with lighter and red surfaces tak-
ing their place (Özdöl 2006.161).
Vessel walls became thinner at Çatalhö-
yük from level VIII, and from level VII
there was an increase in form types and
ware groups. Closed vessels continued
to develop from previous levels (Özdöl
2016.Pl. 25), particularly in level VI (Öz-
döl 2006.Pl. 24) where they are a good
match with those from Keçiçayırı. Sim-
ple profile bowls continued into levels
VII–IV, again developing from previous
phases. Ledge-rim bowls appear in level
VI (Özdöl 2006.Pl. 31.2, 32.2–3, 33.3,
36.3, 37.2–3), and are very similar to
those at Keçiçayırı. Pierced lugs also ap-
pear in level VI. These forms appearing
in levels VII and especially VI continued
to develop through to level III, where ‘s’-profile and
external rim bowls take the place of the closed vessels
commonly seen from level XI (Özdöl 2006.Pl. 126).
Demircihöyük
Ware A, a mica schist tempered and red-slipped ware
from Demircihöyük, is believed to correspond to le-
vels XII–IX of Çatalhöyük, and Ware B, which has
intense mica temper, grey- to greyish-beige faces,
and shining surfaces due to this mica temper, corre-
sponds to levels IX–VI. The forms represented among
Ware A include ledge-rims (Seeher 1987.Pl. 1.1–7),
closed mouths (Seeher 1987.Pl. 1.8–9), lids (Seeher
1987.Pl. 1.16–19), horizontal lugs (Seeher 1987.Pl.
1.10) and straight bases (Seeher 1987.Pl. 1.11–15).
Different forms are known from Ware B at Demirci-
höyük, including necked pots (particularly the ‘squat’
necked subgroup; Seeher 1987.Pl. 2.12, 15–18), ‘S’-
profile bowls (Seeher 1987.Pl. 3.4–5) and pierced
lugs (Seeher 1987.Pl. 2.11).
Barcın Höyük
Finds from phase VIe, the earliest Neolithic phase at
Barcın Höyük (c. 6570 BC), have been compared to
Fig. 12. Ware groups.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
148
those from Demircihöyük Ware B and
appear to predate level VI at Çatalhö-
yük (Gerritsen et al. 2013.73). The pot-
tery of Barcın VIe is represented by sim-
ple profile bowls and closed vessels (Ger-
ritsen et al. 2013.Fig. 17.1–7), while one
of the more notable forms found in
phase VIe has been identified as a proto-
type for Fikirtepe box forms (Gerritsen
et al. 2013.Fig. 17.9–10). The first ledge-
rim bowls appear at the transition be-
tween phases VIe and VId, alongside
profile bowls and closed vessels (Gerrit-
sen et al. 2013.Fig. 18.1–5), as do ‘s’-pro-
file bowls, necked pots, and pierced lugs (Gerritsen
et al. 2013.Fig. 18.6–15). A painted and decorated
vessel, and samples of four-footed and incrusted Fi-
kirtepe box forms (but without white paste fill) were
also among the new forms from the Barcın phase VId
(Gerritsen et al. 2013.Fig. 19.7–8).
Aktopraklık
Aktopraklık is located in Akçalar, 4km east of Lake
Ulubat and approx. 30km from Bursa. It is situated
at the western edge of a corridor running from Eski-
sehir to Bozüyük and Bursa that connects Central
Anatolia to the northwest (Karul 2017.81). The ear-
liest settlement was in Area C, and its earliest phas-
es, which have been dated between 6380 and 6250
BC, have architecture that consists of round- or oval
wattle and daub buildings with a sunken floor. The
walls are sometimes supported by a line of stone
from the lower end (Karul 2017.90, Fig. 53). Despite
the fact that wattle and daub superstructure is not
evidenced in Keçiçayırı, Aktopraklık is the closest pa-
rallel of oval structure carved into the bedrock found
at Cıbırada of Keçiçayırı. Closed vessels, ledge-rim
pots (Avcı 2010.Pl. 18), ‘s’-profile bowls, and pierced
lugs (Karul 2017.92, Fig. 56) were also found in this
phase at Aktopraklık.
Relative chronology
Light faced coarse wares were common in the earliest
levels at Çatalhöyük, but disappeared at the end of
level VII, after which dark faced wares became domi-
nant. The pottery from level VI at Çatalhöyük closely
resemble those at Keçiçayırı, when ledge-rim pieces,
pierced lugs, and especially closed vessels and ‘squat’
necked pots started to appear. The earliest samples of
‘s’-profiles are from levels VI and III of Çatalhöyük,
and became more developed in level II, and this sug-
gests that the settlement of Keçiçayırı was roughly
contemporary with levels III and II of Çatalhöyük. Fig. 14. Form comparison.
Fig. 13. The typology of the Neolithic pottery from Keçiçayırı.

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
149
Wares A and B of Demircihöyük do
not show many similarities with the
ware types at Keçiçayırı, but almost
all forms in the Demircihöyük A show
parallels with those from Keçiçayırı.
Most notable are the ledge-rims and
closed vessels, which imply that Ke-
çiçayırı was contemporary with the
Ware A at Demircihöyük, while the
existence of ‘s’-profiles, one of the
most characteristic forms of Demirci-
höyük Ware B, indicates that settle-
ment at Keçiçayırı continued into this
phase.
Light coloured wares dominate the
earliest level of Barcın Höyük, level
VIe, and these are reminiscent of the coarse wares
at Keçiçayırı, albeit that the latter lacks diagnostics.
Dark faced wares began to appear at the transition
between phases VIe and VId at Barcın Höyük, and
these show many similarities with those from Keçi-
çayırı. Notably, the walls of ledge-rim vessels and
closed vessels from phase VId became thinner, paral-
leling the repertoire of ware and form at Keçiçayırı.
These data suggest that Keçiçayırı was settled concur-
rently with Barcın Höyük phase VIe. Additionally,
the ‘s’-profile bowls, necked pots, and pierced lugs
that appeared in phase Barcın VId and continued
into phase VIc show Keçiçayırı was still occupied at
this time. Similar elements seen in the early stages
of Aktopraklık C imply that it was also settled at this
time, as do the oval structures, which further suggest
cultural connections with Keçiçayırı.
Pottery of Phase VId at Barcın shows similarities
with Keçiçayırı, but there are also differences. The
painted and decorated sherds found here and the
incrusted Fikirtepe box differ from anything found
at Keçiçayırı, though a non-decorated Fikirtepe box
was found at Keçiçayırı during an early surface sur-
vey (Efe 2005.Fig. 8). Comparative data and a sug-
gested chronology are presented in fgures 14 and 15.
Conclusions
While the Agaçlı culture was present on the Bosphou-
rus and Western Black Sea coasts during the Mesoli-
thic Period, there is no evidence for settlements to
the south of the Sea of Marmara or in inland west-
ern Anatolia, where Keçiçayırı is located. As the area
transitioned into the next phase, traces of Pre-Pottery
Neolithic at lasting settlements – which had a longer
tradition in the east of the Konya Plain – begin to
appear along the natural route that connects Central
Anatolia to Eskisehir and then to Southern Marma-
ra. Keçiçayırı is one such settlement, and along with
the introduction of pottery it had a different lithic
tradition to that of the previous Agaçlı culture, such
as macro blades and chipped discs. Its location at
the easternmost point of the corridor from the Ana-
tolian plateau to the Sea of Marmara is consistent
with its place in the Neolithisation process of North-
western Anatolia.
During the first half of the 7
th
millennium BC, the
occurrence of pottery influenced by the western part
of Konya Plain appeared in this area, signifying the
beginning of the Early Neolithic Period in North-
western Anatolia. This early pottery seems to have
spread quite rapidly, appearing within a few centu-
ries in areas along the south-eastern coast of the Sea
of Marmara, and then its northern coast. In this con-
text, it can be shown that Keçiçayırı was settled
during the period concurrent with Çatalhöyük VI–IV
and with Barcın Höyük layers VIe to VId. It can there-
fore be dated to 6700/6600–6300 BC, after which
time it was abandoned.
The results of the research outlined above are de-
monstrated by what might be the earliest Neolithic
architecture among the highlands along this corri-
dor, on the Hill of Cıbırada at Keçiçayırı, represent-
ed by a stone architecture with round structures dug
into the bedrock. This architecture was accompanied
by many grinding stones, chipped stones, and blades
found in situ, as well as pottery from a monochrome
tradition that included holemouth jars, simple profile
bowls, ledge-rim bowls and jars, ‘s’-profile bowls,
necked jars, pierced-lugs, and prototypes of the so-
called Fikirtepe boxes. This ceramic tradition origi-
Fig. 15. The suggested chronology of Keçiçayırı.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
150
nated on the Konya Plain, and
became common on the whole
of Western Anatolia during the
Early Neolithic, including North-
western Anatolia, the Lakes Dis-
trict, and the Aegean Coast.
Regional differences had not yet
begun to be form at this time.
This process began around 6300
BC, as the Lakes District in the
south began to adopt a painted
pottery tradition, perhaps influ-
enced by further away, from the
Eastern Mediterranean. But there
is no evidence of such an influ-
ence in North-western Anatolia,
and it is here that the Early Neo-
lithic monochrome pottery from
the Konya Plain continued to
develop, becoming integrated with local elements
and finally transforming into Fikirtepe culture. The
lack of evidence for these later cultural elements at
Keçiçayırı suggests that settlement there came to an
end just before these regional cultures, or the Archaic
Fikirtepe culture, developed. Accordingly, it may be
claimed that Keçiçayırı was settled roughly between
6600 and 6300 BC. This period corresponds to the
first stage of the Neolithic expansion to the Western
Anatolia. There was no longer an occupation at Ke-
çiçayırı around 6300 to 6000 BC, but there were set-
tlements in the northern part of the Eskisehir plain
(Demircihöyük, Ahmedet I–II, Bahçelievler) and the
eastern part of the Sea of Marmara, some of which
(Barcın, Aktopraklık, Pendik, Fikirtepe, Yenikapı)
were newly established (Fig. 16).
The settlement of Keçiçayırı shows that Neolithic
communities, which were previously founded on
plains and coastlines, could also be established in
mountainous (but sheltered) areas. The model of
settling on a hill was often preferred during the Chal-
colithic Period, as settlements such as Orman Fidan-
lıgı, Kanlıtas and Keskaya indicate. The hill settle-
ment at Keçiçayırı in the Early Neolithic Period
shows that this tradition existed before the Chalco-
lithic in the region.
Fig. 16. The spread of the Neolithic from Central Anatolia to the Western
Anatolia.

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
151
Avcı M. B. 2010. Aktopraklık Verileri Isıgında Dogu ve
Güney Marmara’da Fikirtepe Çanak Çömleginin Geli-
sim Süreci. Master’s thesis. Istanbul University. Istanbul.
Çilingiroglu Ç. 2012. The Neolithic Pottery of Ulucak in
Aegean Turkey. British Archaeological Reports IS 2426.
Archaeopress. Oxford.
Duru R. 2007. Göller Bölgesi Neolitigi. In M. Özdogan, N.
Basgelen (eds.), Anadolu’da Uygarlıgın Dogusu ve Avru-
pa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazı-
lar, Yeni Bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Publications. Istan-
bul: 331–360.
Efe T. 1990. 1988 Yılında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskisehir
I
·
llerinde Yapılan Yüzey Arastırmaları. Arastırma Sonuç-
ları Toplantısı VII: 405–424.
1994. 1992 Yılında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskisehir I
·
lle-
rinde Yapılan Yüzey Arastırmaları. Arastırma Sonuçla-
rı Toplantısı XI: 571–592.
1997. 1995 Yılında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskisehir illerin-
de Yapılan Yüzey Arastırmaları. Arastırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı XIV: 215–232.
2005. Neolitization in Inland Northwestern Anatolia. In
L. Clemens (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe?
BYZAS 2. Ege Publications. Istanbul: 107–115.
2008. Keçiçayrı’nda Ölü Hediyesi Olarak Bulunmus
Olan I
·
ki Geç Kalkolitik Kap. In Taner Tarhan, Aksel Ti-
bet, and Erkan Konyar (eds.), Muhibbe Darga Armaga-
nı. Sadberk Hanım Müzesi Publications. Istanbul: 243–
250.
Efe T., Gatsov I., and Nedelcheva P. 2012. The Neolithic
Settlement of Keçiçayırı near Seyit gazi, Eskisehir. In M.
Özdogan, N. Basgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neoli-
thic in Turkey: New Excavations & New Research. Vol.
4, Western Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Publications. Istan-
bul: 227–236.
Efe T., Sarı D., and Fidan E. 2011. The Significance of the
Keçiçayırı Excavations in the Prehistory of Inland North-
west Anatolia. In N. Bilgen, R. von den Hoff , S. Sandalcı,
and S. Silek (eds.), Archaeological Research in Western
Central Anatolia. The III
rd
International Symposium of
Archaeology. Dumlupınar University Press. Kütahya: 9–28.
Efe T., Tuna Y. 2017. Frigya Yaylası’nda Yer Alan Keçiça-
yırı Yerlesmesinde Ele Geçirilen I
·
lk Tunç Çagı Çanak Çöm-
legi. Arkeoloji Dergisi XXII: 49–116.
Efe T., Türkteki M. 2007. Keçiçayırı (Seyitgazi-Eskisehir)
2007 Yılı Kurtarma Kazıları. Colloquium Anatolicum VI:
75–84.
Efe T., Türkteki M., Sarı D., and Fidan E. 2015. Bilecik I
·
li
2013 Yılı Yüzey Arastırması. XXXII. Kazı Sonuçları Top-
lantısı 1: 495–504.
Erdogu B., Çevik Ö. 2015. Batı Anadolu Kronolojisi ve
Terminolojisi: Sorunlar ve Öneriler. Anadolu Prehistorya
Arastırmaları Dergisi/Journal of Anatolian Prehistoric
Research 1: 29–48.
Fidan E. 2016. Keçiçayırı: An Early Bronze Age II Fortified
Hilltop Settlement (Northwest Anatolia). Mediterranean
Archaeology and Archaeometry 16(1): 71–83.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.35523.svg
Gatsov I., Nedelcheva P. 2011. Lithic Artefacts from the
Neolithic Period in NW Anatolia. Last results. In N. Bil-
gen, R. von den Hoff, S. Sandalcı, and S. Silek (eds.), Ar-
chaeological Research in Western Central Anatolia. The
III
rd
International Symposium of Archaeology. Dumlupı-
nar University Press. Kütahya: 1–8.
Gatsov I., Nedelcheva P. 2016. Earliest Lithic Material from
Keçiçayırı Site, Central NW Anatolia and Barcın Höyük,
NW Anatolia. Anatolian Metal VII: 95–98.
Gérard F., Thissen L. 2002. The Neolithic of Central Ana-
tolia: Internal Developments and External Relations Du-
ring the 9
th
–6
th
millennia cal BC. Proceedings of the In-
ternational CANeW Table Ronde, Istanbul, 23–24 No-
vember 2001. Ege Publications. Istanbul.
Gerritsen F. A., Ozbal R., and Thissen L. C. 2013. The Ear-
liest Neolithic Levels at Barcin Höyük, Northwestern Tur-
key. Anatolica 39: 53–92.
Gerritsen F. A., Özbal R. 2016. Barcın Höyük and the Pre-
Fikirtepe Neolithisation of the Eastern Marmara Region.
Anatolian Metal VII: 199–208.
Horejs B., Mili≤, B., Ostmann F., Thanheiser U., Weninger
B., and Galik A. 2015. The Aegean in the Early 7
th
Millen-
nium BC: Maritime Networks and Colonization. Journal
of World Prehistory 28(4): 289–330.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9090-8
Karul N. 2017. Aktopraklık: Tasarlanmıs Prehistorik Bir
Köy. Ege Publications. Istanbul.
Özbasaran M., Cutting M. 2007. Orta Anadolu’da Neoliti-
gin Ortaya Çıkısı ve Gelisimi (Asıklıhöyük-Çatalhöyük). In
References

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
152
N. Basgelen (ed.), 12000 Yıl Önce: Uygarlıgın Anado-
lu’dan Avrupa’ya Yolculugunun Baslangıcı Neolitik Dö-
nem. Yapı Kredi Publications. Istanbul: 55–62.
Özdogan E. 2015. Current Research and New Evidence for
the Neolithization Process in Western Turkey. European
Journal of Archaeology 18(1): 33–59.
https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000079
2016. Diversity and Homogeneity Among the Early Far-
ming Communities of Western Anatolia. Documenta
Praehistorica 43: 265–282.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.43.13
Özdogan M. 1997. The Beginning of Neolithic Economies
in Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian Perspective. Jour-
nal of European Archaeology 5(1): 1–33.
1999. Neolithic in Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Publica-
tions. Istanbul.
2007. Marmara Bölgesi Neolitik Çag Kültürleri. In M.
Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.), Anadolu’da Uygarlıgın
Dogusu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik
Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sa-
nat Publications. Istanbul: 401–426.
2014. A New Look at the Introduction of the Neolithic
Way of Life in Southeastern Europe. Changing Para-
digms of the Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Life.
Documenta Praehistorica 41: 33–49.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.2
2016. Neolitik Dönem ve Göç – Arkeolojik Veriler Açı-
sından Bir Degerlendirme. Aktüel Arkeoloji 54: 48–59.
Özdogan M., Gatsov I. 1994. Some Epi Paleolithic Sites
from NW Turkey Agacli Domali and Gumusdere. Anatoli-
ca XX: 97–120.
Özdogan M., Gatsov I. 1998. The Aceramic Neolithic Pe-
riod in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica
XXIV: 209–232.
Özdöl S. 2006. Anadolu’da Erken Neolitik Dönem çanak
çömlek kültürleri ve Çatalhöyük örnegi. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. Ege University. I
·
zmir.
Özdöl Kutlu S. 2014. Reconsidering the Late Neolithic
Pottery of the Anatolian Plateau: Current Evidence from
Çatalhöyük. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Der-
gisi 17: 25–48.
Sarı D. 2017. Frigya Daglık Bölgesi’nde Yer Alan Keçiça-
yırı Ilk Tunç Çagı II Kalesi Küçük Buluntuları. Arkeoloji
Dergisi 22: 117–147.
Seeher J. 1987. Demircihüyük, Band III,1, Die Keramik
1, A. Die Neolithische und Chalkolithische Keramik, B.
Die Frühbronzezeitliche Keramik Der Älteren Phasen
(bis Phase G). Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Mainz Am Rhein.
Weninger B., Clare L., Gerritsen F., Horejs B., Krauß R., Lin-
städter J., Özbal R., and Rohling E. J. 2014. Neolithisation
of the Aegean and Southeast Europe During the 6600–
6000 calBC Period of Rapid Climate Change. Documenta
Praehistorica 41: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.1

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
153
Pl. 1. 1. AY-1. 247. Simple profile bowl. Dark faced ware. Black biscuit with straw and stone inclusions.
Light brown surface burnished, mottled black; 2. AY-1. 250. Simple profile bowl. Dark faced ware.
Micaceous black biscuit with some small stone and straw inclusions. Light brown surface burnished;
3. AY-1. 250. Simple profile bowl. Red Slipped Ware. Micaceous light brown biscuit with small stone and
chalk inclusions. Red slipped surface burnished; 4. AY-1. 198. Ledge-rim bowl. Dark Faced Ware. Mica-
ceous light brown biscuit with small stone inclusions. Dark brown surface burnished; 5. AY-1. 260. Ledge-
rim bowl. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous black biscuit with some coarse stone inclusions. Light brown
surface burnished; 6. AY/AZ-1. 280. Ledge-rim bowl. Coarse Ware. Micaceous dark brow biscuit with
coarse stone and chalk inclusions. Light brown surface unburnished; 7. AY/AZ-1. 267. Ledge-rim bowl.
Dark Faced Ware. Light brown surface unburnished. Brown biscuit with small stone and chalk inclusions;
8. AY/AZ-1. 291. ‘S’-profile bowls. Dark Faced Ware. Light brown biscuit with straw and chalk inclusions.
Reddish brown surface burnished, black mottled on the rim; 9. AY-1. 226. ‘S’-profile bowls. Red Slipped
Ware. Micaceous biscuit with small stone inclusions. Red slipped surface on exterior and interior; 10.
AY/AZ-1. 267. ‘S’-profile bowls. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous dark brown biscuit with small stone and
chalk inclusions. Black surface fine burnished; 11. AY-1. 244. Hole-mouthed jar. Dark Faced Ware. Mica-
ceous dark brown biscuit with small stone and straw inclusions. Brown surfaces burnished; 12. AY/AZ-1.
267. Hole-mouthed jar. Coarse Ware. Dense micaceous light brown biscuit with stone inclusions. Buff
surface unburnished; 13. AY/AZ-1. 278. Hole-mouthed jar. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit
with small stone inclusions. Light brown surface burnished.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
154
Pl. 2. 14. AY-1. 247. Hole-mouthed jar. Dark Faced Ware. Black biscuit with small stone and scarcely straw
inclusions. Brown surfaces burnished, mottled; 15. AY-1. 282. Hole-mouthed jar. Dark Faced Ware. Mica-
ceous black biscuit with small stone inclusions. Greyish brown surface wet-smoothed; 16. AY-1. 247. Hole-
mouthed jar. Dark Faced Ware. Brown biscuit with coarse stone inclusions. Brown surface wet-smoothed;
17. AY/AZ-1. 272. Hole-mouthed jar. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit with coarse stone inclu-
sions. Brown surfaces burnished, brilliant on exterior; 18. AY-1. 247. Hole-mouthed jar. Red Slipped
Ware. Red slipped on both surfaces. Micaceous black biscuit with small stone and chalk inclusions; 19.
AY-1. 244. Hole-mouthed jar. Red Slipped Ware. Micaceous black biscuit with small stone inclusions.
Maroon slipped surface burnished; 20. AY-1. 247. Hole-mouthed jar. Red Slipped Ware. Micaceous black
biscuit with small stone inclusions. Maroon slipped surface burnished; 21. AY-1. 260. Dark Faced Ware.
Greyish brown surface smoothed on exterior. Micaceous black biscuit with small stone inclusions; 22.
AY/AZ-1. 241. Squat-necked jar. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous black biscuit with small stone and chalk
inclusions. Dark brown surface burnished; 23. AY/AZ-1. 241. Squat-necked jar. Red Slipped Ware. Red
slipped surface, mottled on rim. Black biscuit with small stone and chalk inclusions; 24. AY-1. 282. Squat-
necked jar. Dark Faced Ware Greyish brown surface smoothed on exterior. Micaceous dark brown biscuit
with coarse stone inclusions; 25. AY/AZ-1. 272. Necked jar. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous blackish brown
biscuit with small stone inclusions. Dark brown surface fine burnished; 26. AY-1. 226. Necked jar. Red Slip-
ped Ware. Red slipped surface burnished. Micaceous light brown biscuit with stone inclusions; 27. AY-1.
226. Necked jar. Dark Faced Ware. Brown biscuit with small stone inclusions. Light brown surface bur-
nished.

The Early Neolithic pottery of Keçiçayiri and its place in the North-western Anatolian Neolithisation process
155
Pl. 3. 28. AY-1. 247. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous black biscuit with stone inclusions. Greyish brown
surface wet-smoothed; 29. AY-1. 260. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Brown surface burnished on lower body.
Black biscuit with stone inclusions; 30. AY/AZ-1. 278. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Light brown biscuit with
stone inclusions. Light brown surface burnished on lower body; 31. AY-1. 247. Base. Dark Faced Ware.
Dark brown biscuit with stone inclusions. Light brown surface burnished on lower body; 32. AV-1/2. 32.
Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous light brown biscuit with small stone inclusions. Light brown surface
burnished on lower body; 33. AV-1/2. 32. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Dark brown biscuit with stone inclu-
sions. Light brown surface burnished on lower body; 34. AY-1. 247. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous
black biscuit with stone inclusions. Dark brown surface burnished on lower body; 35. AY/AZ-1. 291. Base.
Coarse Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit with coarse stone inclusions. Light brown surface unburnished on
lower body; 36. AY/AZ-1. 267. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Brown biscuit with coarse stone inclusions. Brown
chalky surface; 37. AY/AZ-1. 278. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous black biscuit with stone inclusions.
Brown surface burnished on lower body; 38. AY/AZ-1. 278. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous dark
brown biscuit with stone inclusions. Brown surface fine burnished on lower body; 39. AY/AZ-1. 241. Base.
Red Slipped Ware. Light brown biscuit with small stone inclusions. Red slipped surface burnished; 40.
AY/AZ-1. 280. Base. Coarse Ware. Dark brown biscuit with coarse stone inclusions and slightly mica-
ceous. Dark brown surface unburnished; 41. AY/AZ-1. 241. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Brown biscuit with
stone inclusions and slightly micaceous. Brown surface unburnished; 42. AY-1. 228. Base. Red Slipped
Ware. Light brown biscuit with small stone inclusions and slightly micaceous. Red slipped surface bur-
nished; 43. AY/AZ-1. 267. Base. Coarse Ware. Brown biscuit with stone inclusions and slightly micaceous.
Light brown surface unburnished; 44. AY-1. 250. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit with
stone inclusions. Dark brown surface unburnished; 45. AY/AZ-1. 241. Base. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous
brown biscuit with stone inclusions. Light brown surface smoothed; 46. AY-1. 247. Base. Dark Faced Ware.
Black biscuit with small stone inclusions and slightly micaceous. Blackish brown surface burnished.

Deniz Sari, S ¸emsettin Akyol
156
Pl. 4. 47. AV-1/2. 40. Lid. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous dark brown biscuit with stone inclusions. Brown
surface smoothed; 48. AY-1. 228. Lid. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit with stone inclusions.
Light brown surface smoothed; 49. AY/AZ-1. 278. Horizontal handle. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous light
brown biscuit with stone inclusions. Light brown surface smoothed; 50. AY-1. 259. Horizontal lug. Dark
Faced Ware. Brown biscuit slightly micaceous with stone inclusions. Light brown surface burnished, black
mottled below the lug; 51. AY/AZ-1. 278. Vertical handle. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous dark brown biscuit
with small stone inclusions. Light brown surface burnished; 52. AY/AZ-1. 278. Pierced lug. Dark Faced
Ware. Micaceous dark brown biscuit with small stone inclusions. Greyish brown surface burnished; 53.
AY-1. 275. Pierced lug. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit with small stone inclusions. Light
brown surface burnished; 54. AY-1. 259. Pierced lug. Dark Faced Ware. Micaceous brown biscuit with
coarse stone inclusions with a black core. Dark brown surface burnished.