See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279183525

Neolithization between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin – an

Introduction. In: R. Krauss (Hrsg.), Beginnings – New Research in the
Appearance of the Neolithic between No...

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 260

1 author:

Raiko Krauß
University of Tuebingen
96 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

North African Megaliths View project

Ethno Archaeology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raiko Krauß on 26 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

F O R S C H U N G S C LU S T E R 1
Von der Sesshaftigkeit zur komplexen Gesellschaft:
Siedlung, Wirtschaft, Umwelt

Beginnings - New Research in the Appearance

of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia
and the Carpathian Basin

Papers of the International Workshop

8th - 9th April 2009, Istanbul
Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß

Editor Raiko Krauß

Table of Content

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Raiko Krauß
Neolithization Between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin – an Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Framework
Bernhard Weninger – Lee Clare
Holocene Rapid Climate Change in the Eastern Mediterranean. An Emerging Archaeological Climate Research
­Programme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Mehmet Özdoğan
An Anatolian Perspective on the Neolithization Process in the Balkans. New Questions, New Prospects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Clemens Lichter
Neolithic Stamps and the Neolithization Process. A Fresh Look at an Old Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

North-Western and Western Anatolia

Jürgen Seeher
Evidence of Seventh/Early Sixth Millennium BC Neolithic Sites in North-Western Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Necmi Karul
The Emergence of Neolithic Life in South and East Marmara Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Çiler Çilingiroğlu
The Current State of Neolithic Research at Ulucak, İzmir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Haluk Sağlamtimur
Environmental Factors in the Neolithic Settlement of Ege Gübre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Alfred Galik – Barbara Horejs

Çukuriçi Höyük – Various Aspects of its Earliest Settlement Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Zafer Derin
Yeşilova Höyük . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

South-Eastern Europe
Raiko Krauß
On the ›Monochrome‹ Neolithic in Southeast Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Agathe Reingruber
Rethinking the ›Preceramic Period‹ in Greece 50 Years after its Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Elena Kanzurova – Dragiša Zdravkovski

Latest Archaeological Research Regarding the Neolithic Period in the Republic of Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Dušan Borić
Adaptations and Transformations of the Danube Gorges F­ oragers (c. 13,000 – 5500 BC): An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Jasna Vuković
Early Neolithic Pottery from Blagotin, Central Serbia: A Use-Alteration Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Eylem Özdoğan
Settlement Organization and Architecture in Aşağı Pınar Early Neolithic Layer 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Neolithization Between Northwest Anatolia
and the Carpathian Basin – an Introduction
by Raiko Krauß

In the past years (since 2006) the German Archaeological thropogenically induced environmental change. The transi-
In­stitute (DAI) has adopted a strategy which has seen all its tion from hunting and gathering communities to sedentary
research projects worldwide turn to pursue some common farmers and herders in the Old World appears at first as a
basic questions. Perhaps the most appealing aspect of this linear and irreversible process. After all we know today, this
approach from the global perspective lies in the study of development reached Europe in a fully-developed state, i. e.
congeneric phenomena in quite different cultural settings. together with all the components of the so-called Neolithic
This new approach saw many ongoing research projects Package, including a productive mode of economy, perma-
pooled into five different research clusters with a focus on is- nent settlements, as well as pottery and ground stone tool
sues of technical and social innovation (Cluster 2); the forma- production. At least in the case of Greece, the existence of an
tion of political space (Cluster 3); the structure and ritual of aceramic phase of Neolithic settlement can no longer be up-
sanctuaries, their continuity and change (Cluster 4); and the held, as Agathe Reingruber explains again in her contribution
history of the German Archaeological Institute in the Twen- to this volume. Instead Greece and the Balkans are both char-
tieth Century (Cluster 5). The first of the research clusters acterized by a comparable development inspired by western
however is dedicated to the most significant change in hu- Anatolia, but which appears to have begun earlier in these
man cultural history, the emergence of sedentary communi- regions than in areas to the north of the Aegean. The dynam-
ties and the resulting development of complex societies. This ics and direction of the spread of Neolithic economies has
process is currently being studied in the areas of settlement, long been subject of archaeological research, although many
economy, and tangible results are bearing testament to an- of the details are still a matter of discussion and debate.

Neolithization from a Global Perspective

In concrete terms, the present conference volume is devoted is but one. One might argue that the spread of technical in-
to the pivotal question of what constituted the beginnings novations is just as inherent to the nature of universal human
of this development at the geographical transition from Asia nature as is the dispersal of the human species itself, initially
Minor to southeast Europe. We are very pleased that we are over the entire globe – into the most inhospitable regions –
able to discuss this topic within the frame of the aforemen- and in the near future even beyond. Indeed, we are currently
tioned DAI research cluster, especially as the cultural scope witnessing the very beginnings of human expansion into
of this phenomenon can only be truly understood and ad- space. This raises the question whether the evolution from
equately appreciated in a global context. In fact, because mobile-foraging to sedentary-producing societies should be
we are dealing with a classical region of Neolithic research, understood as governed by natural laws and principles, i. e.
we are providing vital impulses to the ongoing debate. Fur- that such a development is fixed by prevailing ecological and
thermore, due to the observation that Neolithization ap- biological framework conditions. Alternatively, of course, one
parently occurred independently in different parts of the might instead ask whether such processes are instead trig-
globe, it is a process which can be understood as an inherent gered by very specific impulses. Concerning these issues, we
­anthropological feature. Indeed, it is always fascinating to ob- are still at the very beginning. Nevertheless, in recent years
serve how successful technical and economic achievements our existing picture of early dispersal of N ­ eolithic lifeways
spread worldwide within a very short space of time, resulting from Anatolia to Europe has been significantly supplement-
in the development of economic areas and large-scale com- ed, particularly by discoveries of first Neolithic sites in large
munication spaces – complex phenomena which we nowa- and archaeologically unchartered regions. Whereas in the
days tend to subsume under the heading ›Globaliza­tion‹. past we were reliant upon comparisons made over a wide
However, in the case of the Neolithic this certainly does not area between the southwest Anatolian Lake District and the
imply the unleashed expansion of capital markets and goods Balkans, new excavations now allow for comparisons with
traffic, particularly as trade in premonetary societies should northwest Anatolia, equivalent to a r­ eduction of the distance
definitely not be understood as purely capital-oriented and involved by at least a half. Thereby the interrelationships
lacking close ties with associated producing communities. ­between the cultural sequences of both these large areas are
Rather, we are dealing with local and far-reaching inter- now much clearer, also due to the higher and more precise
weavements at different levels, e. g. in culture, religion, set- resolution of absolute dates that have become available for
tlement patterns and funerary traditions, of which economy individual archaeological layers.
2 Raiko Krauß

Neolithization of Southeast Europe from Anatolian Roots

Whereas some old-established similarities observed in the assemblages from Level Va onwards2. ›Impressed Pottery‹ ap-
cultural development in the Balkans and Anatolia have been pears simultaneously in the eastern Mediterranean, which
confirmed, many others have since been disproved and per- can evidently be explained by a number of important traits
manently put to rest. It is thus quite clear now that there is among early farming societies in both these regions3, includ-
no connection between the monochrome Neolithic of the ing subsistence strategies, elements of material culture and
southwest Anatolian Lake District and the same named ear- the usage of specific technologies in everyday life. Although
liest Neolithic in southeast Europe, both these ­phenomena the technique of using red-slip on the surface of a vessel is
being separated by a significant temporal-offset; by the time slightly older, it too only occurs in greater frequencies from
the first pottery appeared in southeastern Europe, the pe- around this time. The spread of pottery, a central element of
riod of predominantly ›monochrome‹ ceramics in southwest the Neolithic Package, into the Balkans can therefore be quite
Anatolian assemblages, for example at the well-known site of independently dated; initially it can be understood as a part
Hacılar, had long passed. At this stage, painted wares made of the cultural history of western Anatolia, as are practically all
up more than a half of the material in assemblages from this elements of the Southeast European Neolithic.
region1; painted pottery was fast approaching its zenith. Ves- In contrast to the Lake District, in western Anatolia painted
sel forms which were to become characteristic for the South- decoration on vessels appears to be of subordinate impor-
east European Early Neolithic developed in western Anatolia tance. On the other hand, in southeastern Europe painted
from ­belly-shaped vessel bodies, models for which might be pottery is known from very earliest pottery assemblages,
sought in leather containers. Specific pottery techniques and ­albeit at first in comparatively small amounts. Isolated finds of
decorations typical for earliest Neolithic pottery in the Balkans painted pottery fragments in northwest Anatolia, for example
were either developed in western Anatolia or were trans- at Çukuriçi4 and Aktopraklık5 are very much the exception.
mitted northwards via this region. In particular, ›Impressed This raises the question whether or not these fragments with
Pottery‹ and ›Red Slipped‹ and ›Burnished Ware‹ appear in their white-painted decoration are in fact indicative of con-
Southeast Europe alongside the earliest pottery. In western tacts in the opposite direction, i. e. from the Balkans to Anato-
Anatolia, the emergence of these elements can be deter- lia. This opens up for the first time an entirely different picture
mined with much more accuracy. Recent research has proved of relationships between these two regions, at the same time
that ›Impressed Pottery‹ emerges in western Anatolia and the raising many new questions. Alas, whereas numerous exca-
Aegean during a relatively restricted time period, i. e. in the fi- vated sites in southeastern Europe are either poorly, or not at
nal centuries of the 7th millennium cal BC. At the settlement all, published, in Anatolia the very small number of excavated
of Ulucak this specific type of decoration is present in ceramic sites ultimately presents quite different problems.

From Neolithization to Complex Societies

New excavations in the İzmir hinterland, at the sites of ments, highly differentiated burial customs, and a quasi in-
Yeşilova, Ege Gübre, Ulucak and Çukuriçi, all of which are pre- dustrial exploitation of important resources such as flint, cop-
sented in this volume6, close some of the gaps in the state per, gold and salt8, in Anatolia we know of only very few sites
of the art in Neolithic research in western Anatolia. From the from this period9. For this reason, it would have been very
southeastern European perspective these sites are especially appealing for us at our meeting to have looked more closely
interesting as they shed light on the period at the passage at the relations between Anatolia and the Balkans during the
from the 7th to the 6th millennium cal BC, a time when Neo- Copper Age; however was not our topic. Nevertheless, the
lithic lifeways began to spread into the Balkans. In Anatolia key to understanding the blatantly disproportionate situa-
this horizon is defined as the transition from Late Neolithic tion in the archaeological record in both regions during this
to Early Chalcolithic (Fig. 1). However, this is a demarcation phase must certainly be sought in the cultural development
which seems arbitrary; at around 6000 cal BC there is ab- of the preceding 6th millennium cal BC, which of course was
solutely no reason to suspect any significant development the focal point of our conference.
which might justify an epochal change7. At this time, metal In the last few years, new sites have been discovered in
does not yet play the prominent role which it will assume in the central Balkans which have not only led to an increase
the course of the 5th millennium cal BC, especially in south- in the number of known sites for the period, but which
eastern Europe. Indeed, and surprisingly, we know very little have also shown us quite clearly that there also exists a
about the cultural development during this period in Anato- completely new type of Neolithic large settlement, for ex-
lia. Whilst in the 5th millennium cal BC, southeastern Europe, ample in the case of Blagotin10. Accordingly, the centraliza-
in particular the eastern and central Balkans, emerges as a tion observed among settlements during the southeastern
centre of technological innovation with centralized settle- European Copper Age actually began in the Early Neolithic.

1  Mellaart 1970, 115 – 142. 7  Schoop 2005, 14 – 17; Çilingiroğlu 2009, 24 – 29.

2  Çilingiroğlu, this volume. 8  Krauß 2010.
3  Çilingiroğlu 2010. 9  cf. Schoop 2005, Appendix 1.
4  Galik – Horejs, this volume. 10  Jasna Vuković is presenting a use-analysis on the pottery of this site
5  Karul, this volume. in this volume.
6  Galik – Horejs; Sağlamtimur; Derin; Çilingiroğlu; all this volume.
 Neolithization Between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin – an Introduction 3

Fig. 1 Chronological chart of the terminology used in Anatolia, SE-Europe and the Carpathian Basin.

The beginnings of such processes can also be discerned for doned. Smaller settlements scattered in the river plains or in
­instance at Ilıpınar11 and on Aktopraklık12. For reasons as yet protected locations at higher altitudes became more com-
unknown, this development came to a standstill at the close mon. On the Turkish side, most settlements had already end-
of the 6th millennium cal BC. Although it is unlikely that entire ed by the beginning of the 5th millennium cal BC; however,
settlement microregions were abandoned at this time, life in this case no conclusions can be reached as to where the
obviously shifted to other sites in the landscape which are emphasis of settlement could have shifted. In this respect,
more difficult to detect archaeologically than are the promi- we are far better informed about the inception of settlement
nent tell sites. Concerning the question as to where the set- processes connected with Neolithization than we are about
tlements shifted to, survey projects conducted in Drama in the processes at the other end of the time scale, i. e. at the
southeastern Bulgaria13 and in Turkish Thrace14 are of partic- transition to the Copper Age (after southeastern European
ular significance. Results from Bulgaria show a more or less terminology). A prime example is the most significant site
continuous development from the earliest Neolithic sites to in Turkish Thrace, the settlement of Aşağı Pınar, where cur-
the Copper Age tells. A break in the settlement continuity rent excavations have meanwhile reached levels contem-
only becomes noticeable at the end of the 5th millennium poraneous with the initial Neolithization of the Balkans. This
cal BC, when most of the settlement mounds that had been important archaeological site is discussed in detail by Eylem
occupied over the course of centuries were finally aban- Özdoğan and Mehmet Özdoğan in this volume.

Bridgeheads and Barriers in Neolithic Dispersal

The Vardar/Axios river valley in Macedonia is among those re- situation, running north to south, the river valleys of the Vard-
gions in Europe which have long held the gaze of Neolithic ar/Axios and Struma are ideal transport routes from the north-
research, with excavations by colleagues from Skopje at the ern Aegean into the Balkans. Hence, they are of immense sig-
Tumba Mađari15 further enhancing our understanding of the nificance for our comprehension of the cultural development
Neolithic in this region. These new finds provide the per- of this entire region, most notably for our understanding of
fect basis for comparisons with the cultural sequence of the Neolithization processes in the Balkan region (Fig. 2).
Struma valley bordering to the east16 and the aforementioned Exactly at the transition between southeastern Europe
new sites in northwestern Anatolia. Due to their geographical and northwestern Anatolia lies the Marmara area, a region

11  Roodenberg – Thissen 2001. 14  Özdoğan 1983a.

12  Karul, this volume. 15  Kanzurova – Zdravkovski, this volume.
13  Lichardus et al. 2000. 16  cf. Chohadzhiev 2007.
4 Raiko Krauß

which, should one wish to emphasize the decisive role long history of Neolithic research, prominent excavations
played by an overland route in the mediation of Neolithic having been undertaken at Demircihüyük, near Eskişehir17,
economies, must also be assigned a key function. In the light and at the sites of Fikirtepe and Pendik, in the area of mod-
of research development, this region also looks back on a ern day İstanbul18. Additionally, more recent investigations in

Fig. 2 Location of the major Early Neolithic sites in SE-Europe and Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic sites in NW-Anatolia (ca. 6200 – 5500 cal BC).

17  Seeher 1987. 18  Janse 1925; Bittel 1969; Özdoğan 1983b.
 Neolithization Between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin – an Introduction 5

the catchments of the Porsuk and Sakarya rivers, in the vicin- just how complex relations would have been between the
ity of Lake İznik19, and in the area to the south of the Sea of individual regions of western Anatolia and the Balkans. For
­Marmara20 have provided new results. Surprisingly, in con- example, if we consider the dispersal of characteristic Late
trast to the settlements around İzmir, these sites only offer Neolithic pottery of Toptepe type, outside the Marmara area
punctual links to the cultural developments in southeastern these types of vessels only occur at a few sites along the Bul-
Europe. Further, a comparison of archaeological layers us- garian Pontic littoral21. A circumvention of inland Thrace by
ing calibrated radiocarbon dates is proving vital to avoid Toptepe type pottery in the Late Neolithic is easily discern-
­chronological errors which would arise if typological simi- ible; in this area Bulgarian Late Neolithic pottery of Karano-
larities of pottery assemblages alone were considered. The vo IV type is exclusive. Potentially, we could be observing a
Marmara area shows clear analogies to the development similar situation at the beginning of the Early Neolithic: Ear-
in the İzmir region, through which an indirect paralleliza- liest (­pre-Karanovo I) Neolithic sites have so far only been
tion with the Balkan region is possible. Even though recent found either south of the Strandzha, in areas to the north of
research has shown that connections can be made, the rela- the ridge of the Balkan Mountains, or west of the Rhodope
tively ­independent development in the Marmara area shows Mountains.

What Came Before Neolithization?

The lack of finds from the Thracian plains is only one of the saw greater amounts of excavated sediment sieved, reveal-
problems confronting current research of the Early Neolithic ing these smaller classes of artefact. Therein lies the biggest
in southeastern Europe. Meanwhile, a reassessment of the problem now facing Neolithic research. Although we are
absolute ages of sites in the Iron Gates region has served to meanwhile relatively well informed about the spread of the
highlight links between the specialized fishing settlements Neolithic from northwestern Anatolia to southeastern Eu-
located at the Danube Gorges, through the Carpathian-Bal- rope, we are still lacking information about the milieus into
kan belt, to the Early Neolithic sites in the region. Remarkably which first farmers and herders subsequently arrived.
however, the Mesolithic sites at the Iron Gates remain the As far as the global dispersal of Neolithic lifeways is con-
only securley documented evidence for settlement in the re- cerned, past research has seen all potential Neolithization
gion prior to the Neolithic. Although microlithic assemblages model variants played through at least once; in the case of
have been reported time and again from sites in isolated is- central Europe there are two prominent and diametrically-
land locations, for example at the Pobiti Kamăni, near Varna22, opposed theses: diffusionist expansion and autochtonous
these assemblages are not necessarily of pre-Neolithic age23. development. Whereas the former is based on the assump-
Occupations in the Palaeolithic caves in the Balkans drew to tion that Neolithization is the result of the movement of
a close in the Epigravettian at the latest, and currently only populations into, and the colonization of, previously empty
very few sites with Epi-Palaeolithic or Mesolithic occupations landscapes or areas used by mobile hunter-gatherers, the
are known in the Marmara area24. This said, the identification second model emphasizes continuity of traditions, e. g. as are
of older material is methodologically complicated due to the perhaps evident in chipped stone technologies and in pre-
fact that microlithic industries remained a characteristic fea- vailing settlement patterns; these continuities are interpreted
ture in Early Neolithic chipped stone repertoires; indeed, this as indicative of a local provenance of the new economies,
was realized only recently when revised excavation strategies and only cultural impulses are recognized as originating from

 1 Ovčarovo-gorata. 2 Poljanica-platoto. 3 Ovčarovo-platoto. 4 Ovčarovo-zemnika. 5 Zelena Morava. 6 Drinovo. 7 Goljamo Delčevo. 8 Dălgopol-Balkuzu.
9 Medgidia-Cocoaşă. 10 Durankulak-nivata. 11 Malăk Preslavec. 12 Koprivec. 13 Bălgarsko Slivovo. 14 Čakmaktepe. 15 Hotnica. 16 Strelec-Eren bunar.
17 Orlovec. 18 Džuljunica-Smărdeš. 19 Samovodene. 20 Goljamata lisica, Pločite and Smal and Big Cave next to Veliko Tărnovo. 21 Devetaki-Höhle.
22 Krušuna. 23 Gradešnica-Malo pole and -Lukanovo dărvo. 24 Bešovica. 25 Ohoden. 26 Rebărkovo. 27 Zakonica. 28 Banica. 29 Tlačene. 30 Komarevo.
31 Altimir. 32 Devene. 33 Bjala Slatina. 34 Dulceana. 35 Dudeşti. 36 Drâghiceanu. 37 Cîrcea. 38 Grădinile-Islaz. 39 Perieni. 40 Moreşti. 41 Rupea. 42 Valea
Lupului. 43 Cipău. 44 Glăvăneşti Vechi. 45 Larga Jijiei. 46 Traian. 47 Balş. 48 Dîrţu-Ceahlău. 49 Trestiana. 50 Suceava-Parcul cetăţii and -Cîmpul Şanţurilor.
51 Probota. 52 Sacarovca. 53 Sokol´cy. 54 Soroki. 55 Ocna Sibiului. 56 Cluj-Gura Baciului. 57 Şeuşa-La cărarea morii. 58 Cauce-Cave. 59 Leţ. 60 Turia-La
­silozuri. 61 Donja Branjevina. 62 Dubova-Cuina Turcului. 63 Ostrovul Golu. 64 Gornea. 65 Schela Cladovei. 66 Giulvăz. 67 Golokut. 68 Foeni-Sălaş
and -Gaz. 69 Dudeştii Vechi. 70 Parţa. 71 Lepenski Vir. 72 Padina. 73 Divostin. 74 Banja Aranđelovac. 75 Ornice-Makrešani. 76 Grivac. 77 Blagotin.
78 Ajmana-Mala Vrbica. 79 Tečić. 80 Bubanj. 81 Crnokalačka bara. 82 Svetozarevo (Jagodina)-Bunar. 83 Vinča-Belo brdo. 84 Pavlovac-Gumnište and
-Čukar. 85 Karagač-Žitkovac. 86 Gladnice. 87 Rudnik. 88 Anzabegovo. 89 Vršnik. 90 Govrlevo. 91 Rug Bair. 92 Zelenikovo. 93 Tumba Mađari. 94 Na
Breg. 95 Thessaloniki. 96 Thermi. 97 Veluška Tumba and Porodin. 98 Čuka. 99 Radin Dol. 100 Podgorie. 101 Vashtëmi. 102 Barç. 103 Rajc. 104 Dunavec.
105 Slatina. 106 Kremikovci. 107 Čavdar. 108 Čelopeč. 109 Krajnici. 110 Nevestino. 111 Vaksevo. 112 Priboj. 113 Gălăbnik. 114 Pernik. 115 Negovanci.
116 Sapareva banja. 117 Kovačevo. 118 Bălgarčevo. 119 Toumba Serron. 120 Karanovo. 121 Azmak. 122 Stara Zagora-Okrăžna bolnica. 123 Kazanlăk.
124 Ezero. 125 Glufiševo. 126 Veselinovo-Maleva Mogila. 127 Kalojanovec. 128 Mednikarovo. 129 Knjaževo-Rovnište. 130 Lesovo-spring and -Djado-
paneva vodenica. 131 Drama-Gerena, -Kajrjaka and -Merdžumekja. 132 Simeonovgrad-Čavdarova češma. 133 Rakitovo. 134 Elešnica. 135 Kapitan
Dimitrievo. 136 Dobrinište. 137 Jabălkovo. 138 Krumovgrad. 139 Muldava. 140 Kărdžali. 141 Ljubimec. 142 Hoca Çeşme. 143 Aşağı Pınar. 144 Toptepe.
145 Yarımburgaz. 146 Primorsko. 147 Makri. 148 Fikirtepe. 149 Pendik. 150 Çalca. 151 Musluçeşme. 152 Barcin Hüyük. 153 Ilıpınar. 154 Menteşe.
155 Aktopraklık. 156 Coşkuntepe. 157 Uğurlu. 158 Orman Fidanlığı. 159 Demircihüyük. 160 Ulucak. 161 Ege Gübre. 162 Yeşilova. 163 Dedecik-Heybe-
litepe. 164 Çukuriçi Höyük.

19  Seeher, this volume. 22  Gatsov 1989.

20  Karul, this volume. 23  Krauß 2007.
21  Славчев 2008. 24  Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994.
6 Raiko Krauß

areas of earlier Neolithization. Notwithstanding these argu- appear that these dispersal processes were by no means
ments, the hypothesis of an autochtonous development of constantly intensive and linear but were instead character-
the Neolithic is not sustainable for southeastern Europe, if ized by erratic and specific phases of colonization which
nothing else then because, as already mentioned, Epi-Palae- were broken by longer phases of consolidation25. This type of
olithic and Mesolithic occupations are only known from small dispersal is now usually referred to as ›leapfrog colonization‹.
isolated localities. Thus, it is indeed the case that Neolithiza- In light of the close dependency of the earliest southeastern
tion was more likely the result of migration. In fact, this has European Neolithic on cultural developments in western
recently been attested by research conducted by a working Anatolia, one might consider whether initial Neolithization
group under Joachim Burger, as he himself reported at our was triggered by an abrupt event, perhaps in the context of
meeting. His group has been focusing on the palaeogenet- dramatic climate change. The evaluation of chronologically
ics of the most important animal domesticates, as well as high-resolution climate data and studies of potential rapid
­humans. Publications by his co-workers Amelie Scheu on climate change impacts upon human culture is a topic cur-
goat domestication and Christina Geörg on domestic pigs rently being studied by Bernhard Weninger and Lee Clare.
are eagerly awaited. Even though there is ever increasing evi- More specifically, in their contribution to this volume they
dence for the spread of agriculture and herding into south- look at evidence for a climatic event in the centuries around
eastern Europe via colonization, the dynamics and ­direction 6200 cal BC and its potential consequences for cultural
of these processes remains a matter of considerable debate. ­development in northwestern Anatolia and southeastern Eu-
Following observations by some Turkish colleagues, it would rope.

The İstanbul Workshop in April 2009

The idea for this conference was born in a kitchen in ­Berlin (Tübingen/İzmir), D. Ciobotaru (Timişoara), Z. Derin (İzmir),
in February 2009 together with Mehmet Bey and Eylem N. Elenski (Veliko Tărnovo), N. Evstratiou (Thessaloniki),
Özdoğan, and was finally realized in conjunction with Barbara B. Horejs (Wien), N. Karul (İstanbul), R. Krauß (Tübingen),
Horejs from the Austrian Archaeological Institute and Dan C. Lichter (Karlsruhe), E. Özdoğan (İstanbul), M. Özdoğan
Ciobotaru from the Museum of the Banat in Timişoara. This (İstanbul), A. Reingruber (Berlin), H. Sağlamtimur (İzmir),
close collaboration, already in the planning phase, is soundly J. Seeher (İstanbul), A. Seeher (İstanbul), A. Scheu (Mainz),
attested by the broad geographical and institutional frame of Ch. Rütze (now Geörg, Mainz), J. Vuković (Belgrade), B. We-
the meeting, which spanned from the Austrian excavations ninger (Köln), and temporarily a number of students of the
in Ephesos to the eastern reaches of the Carpathian Basin. All İstanbul University.
three organizers were, and still are, closely connected by their
common interest in Neolithic research, though with their re- Acknowledgements
spective foci in western Anatolia, the Balkans and the Banat.
The workshop was held at the German Archaeological Institute I would like to thank all those who participated at the work-
in İstanbul from 8th to the 9th April 2009, where we received a shop, my co-organizers Barbara Horejs and Dan Ciobotaru,
very cordial welcome from the first director, Felix Pirson. as well as our host, the first director of the DAI at İstanbul,
To a certain extent this workshop continued the tradition Felix Pirson. Our meeting in İstanbul and the printing of this
of earlier conferences held at the Institute in İstanbul which ­volume was made possible by the financial backing of Re-
began in 2004 with a meeting organized by Clemens Lichter search Cluster 1 of the German Archaeological Institute. The
dedicated to the question »How did farming reach Europe?« editorial work was carried out in a professional manner by
The focus of this first meeting was the spread of farming and Marion Etzel and Amanda Crain. Invaluable help with the
herding from Asia Minor to Greece. Meanwhile, this primary translations of posters, lectures and manuscripts was pro-
dispersal route of Neolithic lifeways has been the subject vided by Lee Clare, Emily Schalk and Sophia Brickwell. At this
of monographs which have focused on both sides of the point, and representative for all those involved in Cluster 1,
­Aegean, respectively26. The focus of our conference was in so I would like to mention Norbert Benecke, Cluster-Speaker,
far supplementary in that it instead looked at the expansion who managed all arrangements with the board of directors
of Neolithic innovations in a northwesterly direction from of the DAI and without whose commitment much would not
Asia Minor towards central Europe. have been possible. For this we would like to express our sin-
Participants at the workshop were: R. Becks (İstanbul), cere thanks.
D. Borić (Cambridge/Cardiff), J. Burger (Mainz), Ç. Çilingiroğlu

25  Z
 velebil 2001; Özdoğan 2010; also M. Özdoğan and Çilingiroğlu, this 26  Schoop 2005; Reingruber 2008.
volume.
 Neolithization Between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin – an Introduction 7

Bibliography
Bittel 1969 Özdoğan 1983a
K. Bittel, Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem M. Özdoğan, Trakya´da Tarihöncesi Araştırmaların Bugünkü Durumu
Fikirtepe bei Kadıköy (İstanbul), IstMitt 5, 1969, 1 – 19 ve Bazı Sorunlar, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 10.11,
1983, 21 – 58
Chohadzhiev 2007
S. Chohadzhiev, Neolithic and Chalkolithic Cultures in the Struma Özdoğan 1983b
River Basin (Veliko Tărnovo 2007) M. Özdoğan, Pendik. A Neolithic Site of Fikirtepe Culture in the Mar-
mara Region, in: R. M. Boehmer – H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur
Çilingiroğlu 2009 Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurz Bittel (Mainz/Rhein
Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Central-West Anatolia at the End of the 7th and Be- 1983) 401 – 411
ginning of 6th Millenium BCE in the Light of Pottery from Ulucak
(İzmir) (PhD-Thesis Eberhard Karls University Tübingen 2009) 09. Nov. Özdoğan 2010
2009 M. Özdoğan, Westward Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Live. Sort-
<http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21-opus-42785> (February ing the Neolithic Package into Distinct Packages, in: P. Matthiae –
2011) F. Pinnock – L. Nigro – N. Marchetti (eds.), Near Eastern Archaeology
in the Past, Present and Future I. Heritage and Identity. Proceedings
Çilingiroğlu 2010 of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient
Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The Appearance of Impressed Pottery in the Neolithic Near East, May, 5th – 10th 2008, »Sapienza« – Università di Roma (Wies-
Aegean and its Implications for Maritime Networks in the Eastern baden 2010) 883 – 897
Mediterranean, TüBA-Ar 13, 2010, 9 – 22
Reingruber 2008
Gatsov 1989 A. Reingruber, Die Deutschen Grabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in
I. Gatsov, Early Holocene Flint Assemblages from the Bulgarian Black Thessalien II. Das Frühe und das beginnende Mittlere Neolithikum
Sea Coast, in: C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (Edinburgh im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen, Beiträge zur ur- und früh­
1989) 471 – 474 geschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 35 (Bonn
2008)
Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994
I. Gatsov – M. Özdoğan, Some Epi-Paläolithic Sites from NW Turkey. Roodenberg – Thissen 2001
Ağaçlı, Domalı and Gümüşdere, Anatolica 20, 1994, 97 – 120 J. J. Roodenberg – L. C. Thissen (eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Uit-
gaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te
Janse 1925 İstanbul 93 (İstanbul 2001)
O. Janse, Notes sur une Station néolithique à Kadi-Keuï sur le Bos-
phore, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 22, 1925, Seeher 1987
166 – 171 J. Seeher, III, 1. Die Keramik 1. A. Die Neolithische und Chalkolithische
Keramik. B. Die Frühbronzezeitiche Keramik der älteren Phasen (bis
Krauß 2007 Phase G), in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Demircihöyük. Die Ergebnisse der
R. Krauß, Zur Zeitstellung der Fundstellen bei den Pobiti Kamăni Ausgrabungen 1975 – 1978 (Mainz/Rhein 1987)
(Kreis Varna), in: M. Stefanovich – C. Angelova (eds.), Prae. In Hon-
orem Henrieta Todorova (Sofia 2007) 31 – 36 Schoop 2005
U. Schoop, Das anatolische Chalkolithikum, Urgeschichtliche Stu­
Krauß 2010 dien 1 (Remshalden 2005)
R. Krauß, Zur Akkumulation von Prestigegütern im Westschwarz­
meerraum während des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr, in: C. Theune – Zvelebil 2001
F. Biermann – R. Struwe – G. H. Jeute (eds.), Zwischen Fjorden und M. Zvelebil, The Agricultural Transition and the Origins of Neolithic
Steppe. Festschrift für Johan Callmer, Studia honoraria 31 (Rahden/ Society in Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 28, 2001, 1 – 26
Westfalen 2010) 289 – 300
Славчев 2008
Lichardus et al. 2000 В. Славчев, Бележки към проучването на културните контакти
J. Lichardus – A. Fol – L. Getov – F. Bertemes – R. Echt – R. Katinčarov в района на днешното българско Черноморие през късния
– I. Krăstev Iliev, Forschungen in der Mikroregion Drama (Südost- Неолит, in: В. Славчев (ed.), Варненския Халколитен некропол и
bulgarien). Zusammenfassung der Hauptergebnisse der bulgarisch- проблемите на праисторията на Югоизточна Европа, Acta Musei
deutschen Grabungen in den Jahren 1983 – 1999 (Bonn 2000) Varnaensis 6 (Варна 2008) 43 – 56

Mellaart 1970
J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacılar (Edinburgh 1970)

View publication stats