The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia || Prehistoric Interregional Interaction in Anatolia and the Balkans: An Overview

Prehistoric Interregional Interaction in Anatolia and the Balkans: An OverviewAuthor(s): Sharon R. SteadmanSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 299/300, The Archaeologyof Empire in Ancient Anatolia (Aug. - Nov., 1995), pp. 13-32Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357343 .

Accessed: 09/10/2014 09:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 65.93.194.58 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:44:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357343?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Prehistoric Interregional Interaction in

Anatolia and the Balkans: An Overview

SHARON R. STEADMAN

Department of Near Eastern Studies Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853

Interest in Anatolian prehistory has experienced a rapid increase in the last decade. While many scholars are researching interaction between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, several have also been attempting to elucidate interregional interaction between Ana- tolia and the Balkans of southeastern Europe. This article is intended to provide an overview of this important area of investigation to researchers working outside Ana- tolia and Europe, with an accompanying compendium of literature treating this topic. This work offers an outline on the history of research into the issue; a chronological sketch of the relevant prehistoric periods of Anatolia and Europe, with an emphasis on the Chalcolithic; and a summary of the sites in both regions that have provided seemingly incontrovertible evidence of interconnections. The material presented here provides the initial framework needed for beginning to unravel the intricacies ofAna- tolian interaction with its neighbors to the northwest.

he introduction to this issue of the Bulletin notes that the articles assembled here essen- tially constitute a discussion of the "archae-

eology of empire" in Anatolia. Those familiar with Anatolian prehistory will be surprised to find the present article included in such a collection, since evidence of a prehistoric Anatolian empire has yet to come to light. While it is not the intention of the present work to advocate the existence of empires in Anatolian prehistory, the issues and evidence discussed here do have a bearing on the later development of central Anatolian civilizations. The main purpose of the current article is to present an overview of data and models concerning the possible interaction zones between Anatolia and southeastern Europe. The aim is not to offer a compendium of new, previously unpublished data, although some unpublished materials will be included, but rather to sum- marize the evidence for interaction zones between Anatolia and southeastern Europe (fig. 1). The reasons for such a review article are two-fold. First, while various scholars have been quite active in the renewed pursuit of data designed to further explore the field of interaction analysis between Anatolia and Europe, few have knowledge of such studies beyond

those directly involved in archaeological endeavors in those regions. Although still in its infancy, the fascinating research concerning interaction analysis between Anatolia-often considered on the "fringe" of the Near East-and southeastern Europe, unques- tionably beyond the boundaries of Near Eastern archaeology, should be made available to scholars working outside these two areas. The modern-day geographical boundaries between these two regions do not, it seems, have their roots in prehistory; nor was the Bosporus or the Black Sea an impediment to travel between the two continents.

A second justification for the present work is to provide a framework for introducing previously unpublished ceramic material from the site of Alishar

Hiytik, in central Anatolia. This ceramic material, startlingly similar to southeast European (Balkan) examples, provides a backdrop for the entire discussion of interregional interaction analysis between these two regions.

To assess the evidence for interaction from a broad- based perspective, the material will be presented in two major sections: the first section reviews evidence for prehistoric interaction between southeastern Europe and northwest Anatolia, the second establishes

13



14 SHARON R. STEADMAN BASOR 299/300

art

Beograd

Ble-ack

Sea vin Danube-1 R.

.w ,~r •."( beiriHS

9 findaeifzeiu

Karl orCto

'•" edternen e

WON- Uk Siteikek

01ltagroi 0,00.

Fikir tepe Ab Aliiar

Cadi

?`r I* ,* Troy Gelveril-Guilzelyur

~ Nilde

01? ia Konya

??to I& Q. . 0 #0 a* *a 01~ 1 too o r

* SSJICtw* * Modm Cit

Fig. 1. Map of Anatolian and European sites discussed in the text.

similar ceramic links between Europe and central Anatolia. These sections, which focus primarily on ceramic sequences, are prefaced by a review of interaction analysis studies in the relevant regions and a necessary, but brief, discussion of chronological issues.

INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION

STUDIES AND ANATOLIA

Interaction analysis is crucial to understanding the prehistoric cultural patterns of these geographically adjacent, densely inhabited regions. The ultimate goal in applying interregional interaction models to central Anatolian prehistoric and early historic cultures is to illuminate the effect that interaction may have had on the cultural process in these areas and periods. The conceptualization of Anatolia as existing on

the fringe of the Near East in the prehistoric periods may indeed be quite accurate. Interaction analysis is beginning to offer evidence that western and central Anatolian cultural development may have had far more in common with corresponding cultures in Europe than with those found to the south and east in Mesopotamia and Syro-Palestine.

Diffusion and Interaction Analysis

Recent scholarly inquiries into interaction zones between these two regions were not the first attempts to define contacts in this area. The prehistoric connections between Anatolia and Europe enjoyed significant scholarly attention in the 1930s and 1940s. Such investigations, interested mainly in locating the "origin" of southeastern European culture, grew out of the diffusionist thinking that can be traced back to



1995 PREHISTORIC INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION 15

early anthropological thinkers such as Childe (1928; 1939), Boas (1940), and Lowie (1929). However, by the 1950s, even prior to the advent of neoevolutionist thinking, archaeologists had begun to shy away from models that explained culture change as caused by external stimuli, i.e., diffusion (Trigger 1989: 244- 97). The shifting tides of anthropological thought moved toward an antidiffusionist outlook; archaeologists began to conceptualize cultural change from an internal point of view.

In the last decade, however, anthropological thought about culture change and the causes of cultural variation has again undergone revision and rein- terpretation, beginning, perhaps, with studies such as Wolf's work on European interaction with other areas of the world (1982). Wolf and others contend that anthropologists must no longer view societies or cultures as closed units that should be examined inde- pendently. They propose instead that external factors and interaction should be acknowledged as possible causes, or instigators, of cultural change (Trigger 1989: 330-31). This increased open-mindedness has led to the development of multivariate interaction- based models, which address societal change, con- comitant with increasing complexity, by scholars working in many areas of the ancient and prehistoric world (e.g., Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Gledhill 1988; Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Interregional interaction studies have thus come to represent a significant portion of the recent economic literature on ancient societies (Dietler 1989; Schortman 1989; Schortman and Urban 1992a; Upham 1986). Such studies offer the premise that societies do not function in a vacuum but are instead continuously undergoing morphologi- cal changes, expansion, compaction, and internal and external change as a result of interaction with other societies. Furthermore, these models argue that in- tersocietal (intercultural) interaction is the principal determinant in the life and shape of an individual society (Schortman and Urban 1992b: 3).

Such realizations opened the floodgates of renewed scholarly inquiry designed to define the nature of regional contacts and interaction. Scholars working in the Near East and elsewhere have begun to examine ancient economic structures using interaction-based models, particularly in relation to core/periphery or world systems theory (Algaze 1993; Champion 1989; Frank 1990; 1993; Kohl 1979; 1987; 1992; Rowlands, Larsen, and Kristiansen 1987; Steadman 1994). These types of theoretical approaches are en- abling researchers to identify and investigate "inter-

action spheres" between a wide variety of regions and societies, including Anatolia and Europe.

Research in Anatolia and the Balkans: Past, Present, and Future

Although archaeological research has been ongoing in both Anatolia and southeastern Europe for decades, the attempt to define any type of contacts has been slow in coming. The explanation for such halting progress lies both in the relatively small number of prehistoric sites excavated in the relevant areas of Anatolia and in the past trends in archaeological thought outlined above. In the early decades of this century, scholars working in Anatolia, and particularly southeastern Europe, recognized similarities in material culture between the two regions (e.g., Fewkes 1936). Arguments subsequently raged concerning the "origin" of such cultures, i.e., did the Balkan cultures originate as a result of migrationfrom Anatolia (e.g., Garasanin 1958; 1961; Milojci6 1949; Piggott 1965), rather than developing in place. The "antidiffusionism" of the last several decades severely lim- ited the further investigation into contacts between the Balkans and any area of Anatolia, whether in the northwest or elsewhere.1 Given that prior to the antidiffusionist movement, the arguments had focused on the geographical origin of these cultures, such reluctance to push such politically and culturally "in- correct" ideas further was, in principle, understandable. Since that time, researchers have acknowledged that cultures and societies frequently arise indige- nously, and the stigma of diffusionist thinking has slowly begun to fade; investigations into interregional contacts-otherwise known as interregional interaction-is now acceptable and even applauded. Thus the prohibition against any type of explanatory models that advocated a transmission or sharing of cultural elements-diffusionist thinking-is finally lifting (for a discussion of the relevant issues, see Chapman 1981). Discussions about the origins of the Balkan cultures no longer center on whether such cultures were derived from, or inspired by, northwestern Anatolia. The discussions instead focus on the when and the how of contact, and why it was initiated, from either side of the Marmara.

Recent research offers a growing body of evidence, drawn from the excavation and survey of a number of prehistoric sites in northwest Anatolia, particularly in the region of the Sea of Marmara, indicating substantial interaction between the Balkans




and northwest Anatolia. The corpus of Anatolian information concerning contacts between these regions, composed mainly of ceramic evidence, has been compiled primarily by one scholar, Mehmet Ozdogan, who, for 15 years, has worked tirelessly in this endeavor. In the 1980s, casting aside his fear of being labeled a "diffusionist," Ozdogan, along with a select few working in Europe (Garasanin 1980- 1981; 1982; 1991; Jovanovid 1993; Makkay 1985; 1990), looked for ceramic parallels between Anato- lian and the Balkan sites, and carefully published such information as he was able to gather (Ozdogan 1982a; 1982b; 1985; 1986a; 1986b; 1989). Though his work was somewhat ignored in that dark age of antidiffusionism, it is now considered by many, including Anatolian archaeologists, to be the founda- tion on which to build a coherent and understandable catalogue of interregional interactions between these two regions during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods.

Working with interaction-oriented models, even before the recent surge of interest in this type of research, Ozdogan has put forward a concept of interaction based not on simple trade or migration between the two regions, but rather a concept of a cultural interaction sphere. This interpretation is echoed in Thissen's work in northwestern and central Anatolia (1993a; 1993b). Thissen, for example, suggests that the volume and type of pottery present in central Anatolia cannot be explained by a simple exchange mechanism (1993a: 208). Ozdogan's explanation persuasively posits a large cultural zone of interaction from the Late Neolithic (of Anatolia) into the Early Bronze Age (Ozdo'an 1993: 180). In short, he believes that the similarities in material culture between the two regions resulted not from diffusion or migration, but from the fact that the entire Balkan peninsula, along with western and central Anatolia, constituted an entire cultural zone. Such a view does not assume or necessitate a completely uniform cultural assemblage or cultural homogene- ity. Rather, the concept is one of a large geographical zone in which cultural processes, including technological innovations, move along at a similar rate, but with internal diversity (Ozdogan 1993: 177). In the broadest terms, western and central Anatolian cultural processes adapted, changed, and evolved more closely in concert with southeastern European than with the Near Eastern culture spheres found to the south and east.

The catalogue of Anatolian sites demonstrating ceramic parallels with prehistoric southeastern Euro- pean sequences is expanding at a tremendous rate due, in part, to the growth of archaeological investigation in northwestern Turkey, and also to the greater open mindedness of the archaeologists working there. In this general overview article, the inclusion of just a few of the sites with remains that demonstrate some type of interaction will provide a sufficient picture of the interregional interaction between southeastern Europe and northwestern Anato- lia during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. This will lay the groundwork for a discussion of the evidence for similar interaction between central Anatolia and southeastern Europe.

CHRONOLOGY: THE BALKAN AND ANA- TOLIAN NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC

A coherent synthesis of the pertinent ceramic data must inevitably be based on a rough chronological framework for the regions under discussion. Gen- erating such a framework is far from simple. A variety of cultural groups existed in southeastern Europe, each with different names and regional ceramic sequences; and as is to be expected with such a complicated, culture-rich region, the chronology is constantly changing and undergoing revision (Ban- koff and Winter 1990; Ellis 1984). In addition, the relevant Anatolian chronological sequence is filled with numerous gaps. However, in the following discussion, only a general correlation between the major cultures and chronological sequences is necessary.2

The periods of greatest interest to the present study encompass the end of the Ceramic Neolithic and the Chalcolithic of Anatolia. These prehistoric periods correspond to the entire Ceramic Neolithic sequence in the Balkans. However, to avoid confu- sion in terminology, the periodization used for southeastern Europe will be based more specifically on culture-area names and phasing, namely the Balkan Karanovo and Vinca sequences of the relevant areas of southeastern Europe. The Balkan Karanovo and Vinia chronological sequences and their comparison with Anatolian sequences can be found in fig. 2.

Southeastern Europe

The Karanovo type-site (Hillier and Georgiev 1984; 1986) is in the Maritsa River Valley, which lies




Anatolian Periodization SE Europe/Balkans Northwest Anatolia sw Anat. Central Anatolia Pontic Sites

ca. 3400 B.C. (?) IV VI D IV 12M

? Ikiztepe I/ (Gumelnitsa) 14M Diindartepe

Latel Chalcolithic V C a Gelveri

(Maritsa) 15M d Giizelyurt

ca. 4500 B.C. (?) 2 i Ikiztepe II r

IV19M ? Biiyiik IV B IV Alishar G liicek

I

ca. 5000 B.C. (?) Sitagroi III A V

Vinca Ikiztepe III? Middle

Chalcolithic VI II III

ca. 5500 B.C. (?)

Can Hasan

Early s II 4 Chalcolithic t ca. 5800 B.C. (?) a Anza IX-

I c Karanovo eX T Yarimbur VI Late Ceramic v""

Neolithic o

X Yarimburgaz ca. 6000 B.C. (?) Ilipinar IX

Fikirtepe Hacilar

Fig. 2. Anatolian/Balkan comparative chronological chart.

in the southern Balkans in southern and eastern Bul-

garia. The earliest phase of Karanovo is roughly con-

temporary with the Starcevo sequence, a type-site near both Karanovo and Vin'a. The Starcevo assem-

blage immediately precedes the Vin'a culture sphere. The Karanovo culture encompasses the southern Bal- kans, including the Thracian area of northern Greece.

The Vin'a type-site (Vasiq 1932; 1936) lies on the Danube in what is today modern Yugoslavia, near

Belgrade. The Vinca complex stretches along the Danube and includes Serbia, southwest Romania, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, and the Tisza and Morava rivers. By its latest phase, the Vin'a culture appears to have spread southward toward northern Greece and eastern Bulgaria (Ehrich and Bankoff 1992: 382-84), and included the Anza and Sitagroi type- sites (Gimbutas 1976; Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster 1986). The relevant Karanovo and Vin'a periods (the latter has been divided into four phases), can be

phased as follows (Ehrich and Bankoff 1992: 382; see Gimbutas 1991 for radiocarbon dates):

Karanovo I/Starcevo end of seventh/early sixth millennium B.C.

Karanovo II mid-sixth millennium B.C. Karanovo III/Vin'a A mid-sixth/early fifth mil-

lennium B.C. Karanovo IV/Vin'a B early to mid-fifth millen-

nium B.C. Karanovo V/Vinia C mid-fifth to end of fifth

millennium B.C. Karanovo VI/Vin'a D late fifth/early fourth mil-

lennium B.C.

The Vin'a and Karanovo cultures and sequences span the present periods of interest; the relevant

periodizations (outlined in fig. 2) will form the

underlying framework for the discussion concerning




ceramic correlations. However, as noted (above), several other sites exhibit extended ceramic sequences that suggest strong correlations with both Balkan and Anatolian assemblages. Two of these sites, Anza and Sitagroi, are in Greek Macedonia, and will also figure in the following discussion.

Northwestern Anatolia

The chronological sequence of northwestern Ana- tolia, complex and many-faceted in itself, has been complicated further by the recent excavations in this region, with the associated avalanche of new material (Efe 1989-1990; 1990; Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990; Ozdogan 1991; 1993; Thissen 1993b). Instead of an attempt to unravel the intricate arguments concerning the microchronology of northwest and southwest Anatolia, only the most general of outlines will be provided here. The few sites which, by virtue of their unusually good doc- umentation, significant and lengthy chronological (ceramic) sequences, and sufficient indications of interregional interaction between southeastern Europe and northwestern Anatolia during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, will receive more detailed treatment. In the northwest, two sites in particular, Yar- imburgaz Cave and Ilhplnar, are important because of the long and relatively unbroken ceramic sequences they reveal. These two sites present data useful for defining contacts between northwestern Anatolia and Europe and for establishing connections with well- documented central and southwestern Anatolian sites as well.

One of the main type-sites for the northwest Anatolian Ceramic Neolithic is the site of Fikirtepe, on the east coast of the Sea of Marmara (Mellink 1992; Ozdogan 1983). The material from this site, in conjunction with that from the nearby sites of Pen- dik, has permitted the formulation of a Late Ceramic Neolithic (LCN) "Fikirtepe culture" assemblage dating to the end of the seventh and the earliest centuries of the sixth millennia B.C. (Mellink 1992a: 210; Ozdogan 1983; 1986a). Ceramic remains from these Late Ceramic Neolithic sites include convex bowls and jars, holemouth jars, and characteristic rectan- gular vessels, usually burnished and occasionally incised with geometric decoration (Ozdogan 1983: 405). The decoration on these and later vessels will be a frequent focus of attention, since, in the following discussion, the decoration of Anatolian and Balkan ceramics provides the basis for many of the correlations between these two regions.

Until the recent excavations at Yanmburgaz Cave and Ilhplnar, as well as the more inland site of De- mirci Hiiyilk (Korfmann 1983), the northwest Ana- tolian Chalcolithic ceramic assemblage was filled with innumerable gaps. The long sequences at these sites have gone far in establishing a ceramic continu- ity for this region. Yarimburgaz Cave rests on the eastern side of the Sea of Marmara, northwest of Istanbul. The cave is located near an inlet of the Marmara, and consists of two chambers that have been investigated by three separate expeditions, the most recent under the direction of Ozdogan (Ozdo- gan 1985: Ozdogan, Miyake, and Ozbagaran Dede 1991). Numerous layers spanning Palaeolithic to Byz- antine times have offered a comprehensive ceramic sequence, particularly for the prehistoric periods in this region. In the smaller of the two chambers, des- ignated the Upper Cave, are four layers belonging to the periods of interest to the present study, Layers 2- 4, which date to the Chalcolithic, and Layer 5, which represents the later Neolithic (Ozdogan, Miyake, and Ozbagaran Dede 1991).

The Layer 5 ceramics from Yanmburgaz were decorated with impressions and incisions, some re- sembling nail impressions, and show similarities to Fikirtepe types (Ozdogan 1989: 204). Ceramics from the Fikirtepe culture, including the Layer 5 materials from Yanmburgaz, display similarities with the An- atolian southwest, and specifically with the Late Neolithic sequences at Hacilar (Mellaart 1970), particularly levels VI-V (Ozdogan 1989: 203). Layer 4 appears to come after a break in occupation, and offers pottery decorated with deep incisions that sometimes appear to be imitating textile patterns; Ozdogan speculates that this Early/Middle Chalcolithic pottery derives from the Layer 5 type (1989: 204-5).

Layer 3 exhibits a change in the pottery tradition, with highly polished and well-made wares, occasionally with decoration consisting of hollow incisions, impressions, and curvilinear lines (Ozdogan 1989: 204). The Middle Chalcolithic levels of Yanmburgaz Layer 3 are the precursor for Layer 2, with several of the ceramic traditions continuing smoothly into this later Middle/Late Chalcolithic stratum. Other types of pottery that appear in Yanrmburgaz Layer 2 include black burnished wares, and bowls with incised and white-filled decoration (Ozdogan 1989: 204).

The site of Illplnar, just west of the Iznik Lake and east of the Sea of Marmara, has also offered substantial prehistoric remains. The site was occupied from the late seventh millennium almost continu-




ously into the fourth millennium, and then intermit- tently into the second millennium B.C. (Roodenberg et al. 1989-1990). The phases dating to the Ceramic Neolithic down to the end of Middle Chalcolithic times, Ilipinar Phases X-V, are of particular interest. The earliest level, Phase X, corresponds to the Fikirtepe culture ceramic sequence which slightly predates Yarimburgaz Layer 5 and exhibits parallels with the earlier levels of Hacilar Phases IX-VI (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 95-96).

Phases IX-VIII appear to date to the Early Chal- colithic of Anatolia and exhibit several new decorative techniques, including applique ridges in wavy lines and impressed decoration using fingertips and nails (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989- 1990: 85). Incised decoration is particularly popu- lar in Phase VIII, appearing in crisscross patterns and parallel grooves; for the first time, excision is also practiced (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 87). Phases VII-VI, which fall into the Anatolian Middle Chalcolithic, demonstrate similar ceramic styles but with a few innovations such as carinated open bowls in Phase VI (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 89). Phases IX-VI at Ilipinar correspond to Layer 4 at Yarimburgaz Cave and can be compared to the ceramics from Hacilar Levels V-I in southwestern Anatolia (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 82-89, 97-98; Thissen 1993b: 301-2).

Phase V at Ilipinar, dating to the latter part of the Middle Chalcolithic (end of sixth/early fifth millennia), offers an almost complete break with earlier sequences at this site, though carryover traits are present. This phase offers the strongest parallels with southeast European assemblages (below). Dominant ceramic elements include large carinated bowls; vessels with black burnished surface treatment, often decorated with grooves and curvilinear designs; incised linear patterns and impressed dots and zigzags or fluting, mostly occurring on the upper half of the vessels (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989- 1990: 90-91). Following Phase V at Ilipinar there is a significant gap; the Phase IV material, represent- ing a completely new tradition, appears to correlate to the Late Chalcolithic and earliest Bronze Age periods (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989- 1990: 106-7).

The chronological sequences for the central Ana- tolian assemblages are even more complicated and without doubt less clearly understood. The relevant central Anatolian sites and their rough chronological

parallels with northwest Anatolia and the Balkans can be found in fig. 2. Much of the Early and Middle Chalcolithic sequence is based on the assemblage from the site of Can Hasan, near Konya, in the southern region of the plateau (French 1967; 1968). For the more northern areas of the central Anatolian plateau, the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age chronological sequences have been put together somewhat piece- meal, using the material excavated from Alishar

H6ytik in the 1920s and 1930s (von der Osten 1937) and ceramic remains from Alaca H6ytik and other central Anatolian sites (for a more thorough discussion of chronological concerns, see Mellink 1992a; 1992b; Yakar 1985; 1991). Recent excavations at Alishar, and a new site, 1adir H6ytik (Gorny 1994; Gorny et al. 1995), offer evidence that ceramics from these sites may extend even farther back into the Chalcolithic, although further examination of the new material is needed.

Several Pontic sites, Ikiztepe and Dtindartepe among them, also provide a framework for chronological correlations. Both sites are located on the Black Sea coast, very near the modern city of Sam- sun. There are several phases at this site; for the sake of simplicity, the relevant levels with be termed Ikiz- tepe I, II, and III. Previously, material from Ikiztepe III was thought to be Late Chalcolithic (early fourth millennium), and Level II was placed in the Early Bronze I period (Alkim and Bilgi 1988; Yakar 1985: 235-42). A recent reevaluation of the material from Ikiztepe indicates that the Level II ceramics fit much more comfortably in the earlier part of the Late Chalcolithic period and Ikiztepe III dates to the Middle Chalcolithic (Thissen 1993a: 215-16). Ikiz- tepe I, which is contemporary with the material from Diindartepe (Area B), corresponds to the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Thissen 1993a: 212-15). The chronological revisions for both the Pontic and other sites are reflected in the accompanying chronological chart.

INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS:

NORTHWEST ANATOLIA AND THE BALKANS

The many northwestern Anatolian sites that offer parallels to Balkan assemblages have been studied by both Anatolian and European scholars, for the answers such links may yield for chronological questions (Bouzek 1985: Efe 1990; Garahanin 1961; Hoddinott 1986; Mellaart 1971; Nikolov 1989; Ozdo- gan 1985). However, the focus here will be on the two northwestern sites of Ilhplnar and Yanrmburgaz,




/.,"

0-01 1I *J,

, -A fIi '/ I k i 'I

i i

J..; i: ./:i,.J: fJ: ')3 ''/ I

K' : 7) ') 7

6''h~fP: i

Fig. 3. Comparative ceramic examples from Anatolian Early Chalcolithic and Contemporary Balkan contexts. 1-3. Fingernail-incised ware from Ilipinar VIII (after Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 133, fig. 12, nos. 2, 4, 7); 4. Fingernail-incised ware from Yarimburgaz Layer 4 (after Ozdogan, Miyake, and Ozbagaran Dede, 1991: 101, fig. 5, no. 1); 5-7. Fingernail-incised ware from Anza II (after Gimbutas 1976: 61, figs. 39, no. 3; 54, 31, nos. 5, 4).

which exhibit recently excavated and well-documented sequences, with additional mention of other Anatolian settlements germane to the discussion.

According to Ozdogan, the Late Neolithic Fikir- tepe culture of northwest Anatolia is of Anatolian origin and exhibits general resemblance to the early monochrome pottery from more southern sites such as Hacilar (Ozdogan 1989: 203). A recently excavated Thracian site, Hoca (esme, also produced Late Ceramic Neolithic pottery of a distinctly Anatolian type, indicating very little interaction with the Bal- kans (Ozdogan 1993: 185). The material from Ilipinar X also indicates a more Anatolian-centered cultural sphere, and exhibits ties with ceramics from Hacilar and Demirci HUiytik rather than the Balkans (Rood- enberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 94-96).

The ceramic remains in the Early Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Middle Chalcolithic periods in Anatolia, which include Ilipinar IX-VI and Yarim- burgaz Layers 5 and 4, continue to demonstrate similarities with southwestern ceramic styles at Hacilar V-IIB, including carinated vessels (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 98). However, the parallels between these levels of Illplnar and the southwestern plateau are not as strong as those in the Neolithic. The pottery found at these Ilipinar levels includes impressed-decorated and incised wares (including finger impression and fingernail incision), as well as black burnished ware with fine incision (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 85-87). At this juncture parallels with ceramic styles found at Balkan sites can be discerned (fig. 3). Re-




mains from Ilipinar IX-VIII and Yarimburgaz 4 compare to surface decorative techniques found at sites from the Starcevo and Karanovo I period (Rood- enberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 99- 101; Mikov 1959), and in Levels II and III at Anza, in Thrace (Gimbutas 1976). As Ozdogan points out (1989: 204), the parallels between Anatolian and Balkan wares are not exact, but indicate rather a sharing of decorative traits while maintaining an auton- omy of ceramic form and function.

In the Anatolian Middle Chalcolithic, firm ties between northwest Anatolian and Balkan ceramic sequences can be established. The ceramic assemblages from both Ilihplnar V and Yarimburgaz 3 include a change in pottery tradition, with a variety of new forms and decorative techniques which display, in some cases, almost identical parallels with Kara- novo III-II and early Vinca ceramic styles. The Ilipinar V sequence exhibits black or orange-brown burnished carinated bowls with fluting and incised decoration in linear, zigzag, or grooved/curvilinear patterns on the upper half of the vessels (Rooden- berg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 90-91, 103). Horned-handled jars make their appearance at

Ilhplnar V as well (Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buiten- huis 1989-1990: 90). Similar ceramic forms and decorative motifs are found in Yarimburgaz, Layers 3 and 2 (Ozdogan 1989: 204; Ozdogan, Miyake, and Ozgasaran 1991: 71-73). Though carinated bowls and horned-handles also occur at Hacilar I (Rooden- berg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 104), the more striking correlations are with Balkan ceramics (fig. 4). Examples of these forms and decorative motifs, including the curvilinear decoration on burnished, carinated bowls, horned handles, and vessels with fluting, are found at numerous Balkan sites dating to the Vin'a A and B periods (Chapman 1981: 21-25) and Karanovo II-III and early IV periods (Hillier and Georgiev 1984; 1986), as well as at Anza IV and Sitagroi II (Gimbutas 1976: 117-58; Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster 1986: 345-92); a more detailed discussion is found in Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis (1989-1990: 102-6). Also during the very latter part of the Middle Chalco- lithic, parallels between central Anatolian and Bal- kan assemblages begin to emerge (below).

Ceramic similarities between Anatolian and Bal- kan sites are not exact, i.e., they do not appear to be the result of imports from one region to the other. More likely, this sharing of styles, forms, and decorative techniques is indicative of a cultural interac-

tion sphere rather than one of economic exchange. The correlation of ceramic styles and forms between these two regions continues into the Anatolian Late Chalcolithic. Though there is a gap in occupation at Ilipinar for much of the Late Chalcolithic, ceramics from this period (dating to the latter centuries of the fifth millennium and early fourth millennium) are present at numerous other northwestern sites such as Yarimburgaz 2, Begiktepe and Kes Kaya (Efe 1989- 1990), all of which continue to illustrate parallels between Balkan and Anatolian sites.

Although the preceding survey was brief and by no means exhaustive, it served to establish the tradition of Neolithic/Chalcolithic ceramic correlation between the Balkan and northwest Anatolian sites. With this groundwork in place, it is now possible to move to inland Anatolia and explore the evidence for similar parallels in central Anatolian Chalcolithic sites.

INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS:

CENTRAL ANATOLIA AND THE BALKANS

The evidence for connections between regions of central Anatolia, particularly the more northern area, and southeastern Europe is somewhat more elusive than for northwest Anatolia. The primary reasons are the dearth of excavated material in the relevant areas of central Anatolia, (particularly the lack of a strong type-site for this region), the problems in prehistoric chronology, and the significant gaps in the prehistoric ceramic sequence of this region. However, in recent years indications of ceramic correlations for the Ana- tolian Chalcolithic have begun to surface, partly because of material from recently excavated sites, and partly owing to renewed interest in examining ceramic assemblages for such information.

The Pontic Sites

Several sites on the Black Sea coast, including Ikiztepe and Diindartepe, exhibit strong parallels with southeastern European ceramic sequences. The

majority of Pontic material that demonstrates solid parallels comes from the Anatolian Late Chalcolithic levels at these sites, encompassing Ikiztepe Levels II and I and the earliest recovered remains from Diin- dartepe. An excellent summary of material remains from Pontic sties such as Ikiztepe and Diindartepe and their similarities to both central Anatolian and Balkan ceramic types can be found in Thissen's




N<JN

2r

r7

S12

10 1

•

.4\~

'3-":.

?~ _ , ,

/?

7-

Fig. 4. Comparative ceramic examples from Anatolian Middle Chalcolithic and Contemporary Balkan Con- texts: 1-2. Punctate and linear incised ware from Yarimburgaz Layer 2 (after Ozdogan, Miyake, and Ozba?aran Dede, 1991: 104: fig. 8, no. 8; 105: fig. 9, no. 7); 3-5. Linear incised and channeled ware from Ilipinar V (after Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 136, fig. 15, nos. 22, 19, 21); 6. Linear incised and channeled ware from Yarimburgaz Layer 2 (after Ozdogan, Miyake, and Ozba?aran Dede, 1991: 103, fig. 7, no. 1); 7-11. Incised and channeled ware from Early Vinda contexts (after Garaanin 1979: 169, fig. 12, no. 2; Chapman 1981: 195, fig. 19, no. 3, 193, fig. 17, no. 8; Garaanin 1979: 169, fig. 12, no. 9); 12. Channeled ware from Anza IV (after Gimbutas 1976: 137, fig. 89, no. 2).




recent work (1993a). There is no need to repeat the detailed arguments here; a few representative examples from the Pontic sites will be sufficient to illustrate the similarities between the regions involved.

Ikiztepe, quite near the Black Sea coast, is composed of at least four artificial mounds which appear to be settlement areas (Yakar 1985: 242-43). Mound II has demonstrated ceramic remains dating to the relevant periods, and it is in this excavation area that Ikiztepe Levels II and I are found, spanning the Late Chalcolithic (late fifth/early fourth millennium). This- sen, among others, notes that ceramic remains recovered from Ikiztepe Level II have strong connections with other central Anatolian sites, including the earliest ceramic remains from Alaca Htyiik, as well as parallels with Btiytik Gtillticek, discussed more fully below (Thissen 1993a: 209-11). Similarities in forms and decorations include jars with horned handles, vessels with carination, and incised and grooved decoration (Alkim, Alkim, and Bilgi 1988: 184; Thissen 1993a). Similar parallels may be noted in contemporary Balkan assemblages (Chapman 1981; Hillier and Georgiev 1986). Carinated vessels and open bowls and jars with incised and grooved decoration are present, and appear particularly common in the Kara- novo IV ceramic assemblages and vessels with homed handles, also found at Anza IV and Sitagroi I (fig. 5).

Parallels continue into the Anatolian Late Chal- colithic, characterized in the Pontic region by Ikiz- tepe Level I and Diindartepe. Particularly long lived is the incised decoration, often on carinated vessels (fig. 5).3 These and other parallels between Ikiztepe, central Anatolia, and the Balkans are discussed more fully by Thissen (1993a), Alkim, Alkim, and Bilgi (1988), and Ozdogan (1991).

Diindartepe is just east of the modern city of Sam- sun on the Black Sea coast. The ceramics from this site span the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age of central Anatolia (Thissen 1993a: 211-12). The pottery excavated from one area of the site (Area B) dates to the Late Chalcolithic and correlates with the Ikiz- tepe I assemblage (Thissen 1993a: 212-13). The ceramic assemblage from Late Chalcolithic Diindartepe includes carinated bowls with incised or grooved decoration in rectilinear, geometric, zigzag, and V-shaped patterns (Thissen 1993a: 212-15). Also in the Diin- dartepe and Ikiztepe I assemblages are black burnished pottery, both plain and with white-painted decoration (Thissen 1993a: 212-15). Carinated, incised, and grooved bowls, and black burnished wares, of Diindartepe have conceptual parallels in the Kara-

novo VI (Gumelnitsa) assemblages, and in Late Vinca contexts.

There is no "classic" Karanovo IV-VI assemblage at Ikiztepe, Diindartepe, or any other Pontic sites (Thissen 1993a: 218). The Pontic ceramic similarities are merely that-not exact replicas of Balkan wares, nor even poor imitations. Actual Karanovo VI pottery is not represented in the Ikiztepe I or Diindartepe assemblages, and is, in fact, absent from the Black Sea littoral. The assemblages at the Black Sea sites do not offer evidence of European settlement, but rather a comparability in ceramic styles concurrent with ceramic developments taking place in Europe. It is more reasonable to see the ceramics at these Turkish sites as the product of local development and close contact with Karanovo VI communities. Similarities in material culture in these regions is not indicative of migration, or even of trade, but rather of sporadic or perhaps regularized contact within a large cultural zone, resulting in similar technological advances and analogous changes in decorative techniques.

Central Anatolia

As noted (above), the central Anatolian chronological sequence is far from solid, and many questions remain concerning the Chalcolithic period in particular. This uncertainty stems in part from the lack of long comparative ceramic sequences from relevant sites, in conjunction with well-established radiocarbon dates. This situation, however, is im- proving with each new excavation in the central plateau (the prehistoric phases of the southern regions of the plateau are better documented thanks to the excavations at sites such as Can Hasan and Catal Hiiytik), at sites such as Agikli H6yiik, Gelveri- Gilzelyurt, and the recent excavations at Cadir HiyUik and Alishar Htiyiik (Gorny 1994; Gorny et al. 1995). At the latter three sites, along with others excavated in previous years, ceramic parallels with Balkan styles have been noted. The following discussion of central Anatolian ceramics exhibiting similarities to Balkan types will be chronological, beginning with the later Middle Chalcolithic site of Btiytik Giallticek. The relative chronological placement of central Ana- tolian sites with respect to northwestern Anatolia and southeastern Europe can be found in fig. 2.

Biiyiik Giilliicek and Gelveri-Giizelyurt. Biiyiik Gtilliicek is a few kilometers southeast of modern Corum, very near the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age site




Fig. 5. Comparative ceramic examples from Anatolian Late Chalcolithic and Contemporary Balkan contexts. 1-5. Linear incised and channelled/ grooved and carinated wares from Late Chalcolithic Ikiztepe II and DOndartepe contexts (after Alkim, Alkim, and Bilgi 1988: pls. 30, nos. 7, 10; 25, nos. 6-7; Thissen 1993a: 231, fig. 4, no. 3); 6-8. Liner incised and channeled/grooved and carinated wares from Late Vinra contexts (after Chapman 1981: 223, fig. 37, no. 9; 226, fig. 40, nos. 2, 6); 9-11. Horned handles from Late Chalcolithic Ikiztepe II and Middle/Late Chalcolithic BuyOk Gll0cek contexts (after Alkim, Alkim, and Bilgi 1988: pl. 34, nos. 9, 10; Kogay and Akok 1957: pl. 18); 12-15. Horned handles from Sitagroi I and Anza IV contexts (after Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster 1986: 375, fig. 11.6, nos. 2, 5; Gimbutas 1976: 142, fig. 96, nos. 5-6).

3A

96 [1_____ 170

11

13 14 15

of Alaca Hbyiuk (Kogay and Akok 1957). Biiyiik GiUlliUcek appears to be a one-period site, and has now been dated to the late Middle Chalcolithic or very early Late Chalcolithic, contemporary with the earliest phases at Alaca Htyik (Parzinger 1993; Thissen 1993a). The assemblage at BiiyUk Guilluicek exhibits the horned-handles (Kogay and Akok 1957: pl. 19) noted at Ikiztepe Level II and in Karanovo IV con-

texts, as well as in the Sitagroi I assemblage (fig. 5). Other similarities include incised, white-filled, rectilinear or dot decoration on open bowls and jars, mostly on the upper half of the vessel (Kogay and Akok 1957: 35). Comparable decorative techniques, demonstrated at Pontic sites such as Ikiztepe Level II and Balkan (Karanovo IV) sites, indicate that the type of interaction sphere that encompassed the Black Sea




coast in the latter part of the Anatolian Chalcolithic also extended inland to sites such as BUiyUk Gilluicek, and to the earliest phases of Alaca Hiyilk.

The Gelveri-Giizelyurt single-period site is ap- proximately 45 km southeast of modern Aksaray, and

just northeast of Nigde (Esin 1993; Ozdogan 1994). The site was first investigated several decades ago (Tezcan 1958) and has recently been resampled (Esin 1993). Material from this site corresponds to the Anatolian Late Chalcolithic material from other sites such as Alishar Hoyilk 15M, Ko6k H6yiik, and "later Chalcolithic" material from Alaca H6yiUk (Esin 1993; Summers 1993; Thissen 1993a: 208-10), plac- ing it slightly later than BUiyUk Giilliicek and con-

temporary with the Karanovo V (Maritsa) and later Vinca sequence.

The pottery from this site is particularly attractive, exhibiting spiral-banded incision and punctate decoration in swirling designs often with white fill (Esin 1993: 54-56; Tezcan 1958: fig. 5), which some archaeologists have begun referring to as "Giizel ware"

(giizel meaning "beautiful" in Turkish). Several Ana- tolian scholars, Ozdogan among them, have noted the similarity in design and surface treatment (many Giuzelyurt sherds had a red wash treatment) to Mari- tsa/Gumelnitsa (Karanovo V-VI) assemblages (Esin 1993: 49-50; Ozdogan 1991: 220). Such examples of swirling and punctate design can also be found in Sitagroi II-III contexts (Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster 1986: 401-2, pl. 42). Examples of this incised swirling and punctate design are found in Maritsal Gumelnitsa contexts, as illustrated by Todorova (1978: pls. 1-6). The intricate designs and remark- ably close similarities between the Karanovo and Gelveri-Giizelyurt assemblages are convincing indications of interaction between the two regions. Cor- relations with late Vinca ceramics can also be found, both at the Vinia type-site (Chapman 19981: fig. 7, nos. 22, 23, 80-83), and at other late Vin'a sites (Ga- rasanin 1979: 171, no. 30; Makkay 1993: figs. 2-3). Examples of Gelveri-Giizelyurt and Maritsa period ceramics can be found in fig. 6.

The ceramic assemblages from Biytiik Giillicek, Gelveri-Giizelyurt, and many others not included in this brief survey offer strong evidence of interaction between central Anatolia and the Balkans during the late Vinia/Karanovo IV-V and Anatolian Late Chalcolithic periods. As pointed out, the similarities in this surface decoration are, for the most part, not exact, and therefore appear to be neither imports from, nor exports to, Anatolia. Rather, they probably

represent a sharing of decorative traits within a

larger cultural arena.

Alishar Hiiyiik. As alluded to in the opening section, the ceramic materials at Alishar H yiik, upon reanalysis (by R. Gorny; M. Ozdogan, personal communication, 1993, as well as my own; see Gorny 1995a), clearly indicate that this site should also be considered a component in the intercultural sphere of contacts between Anatolia and southeastern Europe. The ceramic sequence at Alishar may offer one of the longest sequences of any site in central Anatolia, particularly in the more northern reaches of the plateau. Although von der Osten refers to the earliest levels at this site as "Copper Age" (meaning Bronze

Age), other scholars, including me, have recently concluded that the Alishar sequence begins much earlier, at least in the early-mid Chalcolithic, and

perhaps in the Late Neolithic (Ozdo'an 1991: 220; R. Gorny, personal communication, 1994). For the

purposes of the present study,4 the earliest levels at Alishar, 19-15M (referring to the "mound" excavations, as opposed to the "terrace" excavations), can be considered to date to the latter part of the Middle Chalcolithic and earlier Late Chalcolithic, and Al- ishar Levels 14-12M therefore date to the mid- to-later phase of the Late Chalcolithic. Hence, the Alishar 19-15M levels are partially contemporary with Gelveri-Giizelyurt, Ilipinar V, and

Yarlmburgaz Cave Layers 3 and 2. Alishar Levels 14-12M are then

contemporary with Diindartepe, Ikiztepe I, and the end of Ilipinar V.

The ceramic material from the earliest level at Alishar, 19M, contains vessels with decorative tech-

niques now quite familiar-which include burnished, incised, and impressed decoration, in a variety of geometric forms, punctate designs, and interior

rippling on bowls, all of which continue into the 14- 12M Late Chalcolithic levels (von der Osten 1937: 52-61, including figures, pls. 1-2). All of these ceramic forms and decorative techniques correlate with

similarly fluted and decorated vessels from Illpinar V

(Roodenberg, Thissen, and Buitenhuis 1989-1990: 105), Yarimburgaz Layer 2 (Ozdo"an 1989: 204), and contemporary central Anatolian sites such as Tepecik and K64k Hdyilk (Summers [1993] and Todd [1980] discuss central Anatolian sites and ceramic types). These types of vessels are found in Karanovo III-IV assemblages (see fig. 4); the Karanovo V ceramic types also offer comparative materials to the earliest Alishar 19-15M examples (Mikov 1959:




1

/9',;r

4C*fC ++Z?tF S ' t,

Fig. 6. "GOzel Ware" from Late Chalcolithic Anatolia. 1-3. Curvilinear incised ware from Alishar H16yik; 4, 5. Curvilinear incised and punctate wares from Gelveri-GOizelyurt (after Esin 1993: 55, figs. 6-7).

96-97; Hillier and Georgiev 1984; Todorova 1978). Similarities can also be observed in Anza IV contexts (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 72, 85-89), at Sitagroi II-III (Renfrew, Gimbutas, and Elster 1986: 386-87, pls. 42, 43), and Vinia B, C assemblages (Gara'anin 1979: fig. 12, nos. 8-10, fig. 13, nos. 19-30).

The surprising element in the earlier Alishar assemblage is that Guzel Ware was also present at the site (fig. 6), although it remained unpublished by von der Osten (most likely from Levels 19-15M but the context is unspecified by the excavator; photographs of this type of ware can be found in Gorny 1995a). This material, exhibiting black burnished exterior sur- faces with white-filled swirling (curvilinear) incised decoration, is startlingly similar to the examples from Gelveri-Gtizelyurt, and thus also to the Maritsa/ Gumelnitsa and Vinia B-D assemblages (above, discussion for Gelveri-Gtizelyurt). The GUizel Ware component at Alishar is not large (only a few pieces were recovered by the von der Osten excavations), but its similarity to Gelveri-Gtizelyurt and Balkan assemblages is undeniable. Such examples of Guzel

Ware, in combination with the rest of the Chalco- lithic Alishar assemblage, provide a strong argument for the inclusion of this site in an Anatolian/Balkan interaction sphere. While the recent investigations at Alishar have not turned up any more examples of

Guizel Ware (excavations have concentrated on Iron Age levels on the site's terrace area (Gorny 1994; Gorny et al. 1995), excavations at the nearby site of Cadir H6ytik have produced some notable ceramics (Gorny 1995b). This site is located only 13 km northwest of Alishar. A sounding from the 1994 season yielded 1.5 m of prehistoric pottery, dating to the Chalcolithic, and perhaps the Neolithic, of Cen- tral Anatolia. The lowest levels of this sounding produced black burnished sherds, exhibiting incised and punctate decoration, providing correlations with examples found at Alishar and the other sites discussed above. Further analysis of the ceramics obtained from Cadir, and continued investigations at this site and the surrounding regions, will further illuminate both the chronological sequence (and dating) of these ceramic styles, and also the proportion of the as-




semblage that suggests similarities to contemporary Balkan assemblages.

SUMMARY

The original title of this work, when it was first presented at the 1994 ASOR Annual Meeting was:

"By Land or By Sea: Central Anatolia, the Balkans, and Interregional Interaction in Prehistory." The initial intent was to investigate the method of interaction, and the actual routes indicated by the presumed trade connections between the two regions. After research commenced, however, it became clear that a set of more basic questions had to be answered first: namely, did interaction actually occur, how was it

expressed in the archaeological record, and where was it expressed? Such fundamental issues had to be resolved before an investigation of overland vs. maritime travel between the two regions could be undertaken. In the initial stages of research, I found

myself delving into a complicated and confusing ar-

ray of ceramic sequences, disparate chronological periodizations (from two entirely different archaeological worlds, no less), and a decades-long list of published materials, dealing with scraps of relevant material, many in a wide variety of incomprehensi- ble (to me) Slavic languages. As already noted, this overview attempts, in the most basic and superficial of ways, to bring some of that vast material together for scholars who do not consistently work in these two regions of the world.

At present, there seems no question that there was "interaction" between the regions. If the premise is

accepted that the latter stages of Anatolian prehistory witnessed the rise of an interaction sphere encompassing northwest and central Anatolia and the Bal- kans, further questions must be asked and answered. Foremost, perhaps, is whether the interaction sphere was in fact intercultural. In other words, instead of entitling this article "Prehistoric Interregional Inter- action," would a better term have been "Intra- regional"? For the time being, to be sure, given the infancy of investigations into the nature of the contacts between Anatolia and the Balkans, this type of question must await additional materials and greater interaction among the scholars working in these two areas of the world.

Nevertheless, some preliminary assessments concerning the nature of interaction can be offered. It seems clear that the curiously well-entrenched cul-

tural and geographical distinction that modern scholars, including archaeologists, make between Turkey and eastern Europe was not an operative one in prehistory. Any handy map of southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean will illustrate that the Bosporus, or even the Dardanelles, hardly presented an insur- mountable water barrier to travel between the two continents. The evidence presented here, which is in no way complete, does indeed point to "contact." Furthermore, the type of contact may have been more complicated than simple trade or exchange, but was less blunt than migration. Although much of the central Anatolian pottery looks "similar" to Balkan assemblages, and certainly similar enough to suggest some type of interaction, it does not have the demon- strative force of imported wares, and is not at all indicative of colonization. The concept put forward by scholars such as Ozdogan and Thissen, suggest- ing a large cultural interaction zone (a model that is no longer anathema in archaeological circles), looks more attractive as each new piece of evidence, ceramic and otherwise, is uncovered. The similarities between the conceptual ceramic styles of the two areas certainly go far in supporting the claim of a relatively homogeneous cultural zone, with cultural processes-including technological innovations and decorative styles-moving along at comparable but still distinct and slightly varying rates.

If the ceramics, or, by association, their contents, were not imported, were some other, more perish- able, materials making the journey? Was there some other mechanism in place as yet undetected through archaeological investigations? Furthermore, the question that originally prompted this inquiry, the method of interaction, has still to be successfully addressed. The usual exhortation of "further work must be done" is clearly applicable here; and it is therefore gratify- ing that numerous projects are underway in central Anatolia which are, in part, designed to resolve these issues. Future work on this topic of interregional interaction between southeastern Europe and Anatolia will clarify the issues raised here, and will certainly further illustrate Anatolia's pivotal position as the "bridge between Asia and Europe."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to R. Gorny for his encouragement in this endeavor and for providing access to the unpublished Alishar materials. Thanks also are due to the various




publishers who allowed me to reproduce previously published ceramic drawings in the foregoing illustrations. I also owe thanks to R. Tringham and M. Stepanovic for their help on Balkan chronology and bibliographic suggestions, and to G. N. Bhat for his translation of key Slavic materials and for editorial suggestions. I could not have produced a completed manuscript without numerous useful and insightful discussions with and comments from T. Matney. As well, the final form of this manuscript benefited tremendously from suggestions generously pro-

vided by B. Magness-Gardiner and an anonymous re- viewer. I would also like to personally thank J. Weinstein for his patience and encouragement during the development and production of this entire theme issue and for see- ing me through my own contributions to it. Finally, I would like to extend a note of gratitude to M. Ozdogan for his continued research in this important area, and for his encouragement of my research into prehistoric Anatolia. Any inaccuracies concerning ceramic sequences or chronology are entirely due to my own errors.

NOTES

1 An exception was the flurry of interest in three baked clay tablets and a cache of figurines excavated at the site of Tartaria, in Rumania (Vlassa 1963). Many claimed that the signs on the tablets were "influenced" by, or were actual examples of, Jemdet Nasr writing (Falkenstein 1965; Popovi6 1965). Innumerable problems with this identification, not least of which were the uncertain context of the tablets and internal site stratigraphy and chronological problems, led European scholars into a heated debate concerning the nature and origins of the tablets (e.g., Hood 1967; Neustupn' 1968; Winn 1981). The latest interpreta- tions lean more heavily toward identification of the signs as local innovations and elaborations of markings found on ceramics of the Vin'a and Karanovo cultures; the meaning of these symbols is still disputed (Makkay 1969; Renfrew 1979; 67, 176-78; Tringham 1971).

2It is beyond the scope of this study to present a detailed and substantive synthesis of Balkan prehistoric chronology. Many important Balkan sites are as yet unpublished, or only partially published; and arguments concerning chronological sequences still persist. In addition to works cited in the text, I consulted the other works, which com- prise some of the more recent discussions concerning chronology and ceramic sequences for Neolithic and Chal-

colithic southeastern Europe; these include Bikinyi 1989; Champion et al. 1984; Hillier and Georgiev 1988; 1989; Srejovid 1990; Tringham and Kristi6 1990; see also Rood- enberg 1993.

30f particular interest, but outside the bounds of the present vessel-oriented discussion, are resemblances in figurine styles, with examples coming from Ikiztepe I contexts and Karanovo VI (Gumelnitsa) assemblages (Thissen 1993a; Ozdogan 1991 discuss and present parallels to Balkan contexts). In addition, two fragments of figurines from Alishar Levels 14-12M (von der Osten 1937: 78, fig. 85:506), can be correlated with similar figurines from Ikiztepe I and Karanovo VI (Gumelnitsa) (Thissen 1993a: 217).

4The present placement of the Alishar ceramic sequence is based on ceramic parallels with other central Anatolian sites, information from other published works (e.g., Gorny 1990; Mellink 1992: Orthmann 1963; Ozdo- gan 1991; Summers 1993), and my own assessment of the Alishar chronological sequence (still "in progress," resulting from ongoing excavations). Future excavations at this site may yield additional evidence for a much earlier date, or longer sequence, for the material considered to be "Mid- dle Chalcolithic" in the present article.

REFERENCES

Algaze, G. 1993 The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Ex-

pansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Alkim, U. B.; Alkim, H.; and Bilgi, i. 1988 Ikiztepe I: The First and Second Seasons' Ex-

cavations (1974-1975). Ankara: TUrk Tarih Kurumu.

Bankoff, H. A., and Winter, E A. 1990 The Later Aeneolithic in Southeastern Europe.

American Journal of Archaeology 94: 175-91.

Boas, E 1940 Race, Language and Culture. New York:

Macmillan.

Bikibnyi, S., ed. 1989 Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near

Eastern Connections. Varia Archaeologica Hun- garica 2. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Science.

Bouzek, J. 1985 The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural

Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C.




Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 29. Giteborg: Astr6m.

Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K., eds. 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Socie-

ties. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Champion, T. C., ed.

1989 Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman.

Champion, T.; Gamble, C.; Shennan, S.; and Whittle, A. 1984 Prehistoric Europe. London: Academic.

Chapman, J. 1981 The Vinca Culture of South-East Europe:

Studies in Chronology, Economy and Society. BAR International Series 117. 2 parts. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Childe, V. G. 1928 The Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude

to European Prehistory. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truibner.

1939 The Dawn of European Civilization. 3rd ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truibner.

Dietler, M. 1989 Greeks, Etruscans, and Thirsty Barbarians:

Early Iron Age Interaction in the Rh6ne Basin of France. Pp. 127-41 in Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeol- ogy, ed. T. C. Champion. London: Unwin Hyman.

Efe, T. 1989- Three Early Sites in the Vicinity of Eskigehir: 1990 Asmainler, Kanlita?, and Kes Kaya. Anatolica

16: 31-60. 1990 An Inland Anatolian Site with Pre-Vin'a Ele-

ments: Orman Fidanligi, Eskigehir. Germania 68: 67-113.

Ehrich, R. W., and Bankoff, H. A. 1992 East Central and Southeastern Europe. Pp. 375-

94 in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, vol. 1, ed. R. W. Ehrich. 3rd ed. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago.

Ellis, L. 1984 The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture: A Study in

Technology and the Origins of Complex Society. BAR International Series 217. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Esin, U. 1993 Gelveri-Ein Beispiel fur die kulturellen

Beziehungen zwischen Zentralanatolien und Stidosteuropa wihrend des Chalkolithikums. Anatolica 19: 47-56.

Falkenstein, A. 1965 Zu den Tontafeln aus Tartaria. Germania 43:

269-73. Fewkes, V.

1936 Neolithic Sites in the Moravo-Danubian Area

(Eastern Yugoslavia). Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 12: 5-80.

Frank, A. G. 1990 A Theoretical Introduction to Five Thousand

Years of World System History. Fernand Brau- del Center, Review 14: 155-248.

1993 Bronze Age World System Cycles. Current Anthropology 34: 383-429.

French, D. H. 1967 Excavations at Can Hasan, 1966. Anatolian

Studies 17: 165-78. 1968 Excavations at Can Hasan, 1967. Anatolian

Studies 18: 45-53. Garasanin, M. V.

1958 Neolithikum und Bronzezeit in Serbien und Makedonien: Oberblick uiber den Stand der Forschung. Bericht der R6misch-Germanischen Kommission 39: 1-130.

1961 The Neolithic in Anatolia and the Balkans. Antiquity 35: 276-80.

1979 Centralnobalkanska zona. Pp. 79-212 in Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II, ed. M. Garasanin. Sarajevo: Academy of Sciences (Serbian).

1980- Considerations sur les rapports du Sud-Est eu- 1981 rop6en et de l'Anatolie aux 6poques neolithique

et eneolithique. Archaeologia lugoslavica 20- 21: 7-11.

1982 The Eneolithic period in the Central Balkan area. Pp. 75-135 in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, pt. 1, eds., J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger. 2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University.

1991 Der Obergang vom Neolithikum zue Fruihen Bronzezeit auf dem Balkan und an der unteren Donau. Pp. 205-16 in Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche: Symposium Saarbriicken und Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988, ed. J. Lichardus. Bonn: Habelt.

Gimbutas, M., ed. 1976 Neolithic Macedonia as Reflected by Excavation

at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 1. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.

1991 Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Gledhill, J., ed. 1988 State and Society: The Emergence and Devel-

opment of Social Hierarchy and Political Cen- tralization. London: Unwin Hyman.

Gorny, R. L. 1990 Aligar Hayiik in the Second Millennium B.c.

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago.




1994 The 1993 Season at Aligar in Central Turkey. Anatolica 20: 191-202.

1995a Review of Anatolia and the Balkans, ed. J. Roodenberg. Biblical Archaeologist 58: 119- 22.

1995b The Aligar Regional Project (1993-1994). Bib- lical Archaeologist 58: 52-54.

Gorny, R.; McMahon, G.; Paley, S.; and Kealhofer, L. 1995 The Aligar Regional Project 1994. Anatolica

21: 68-100. Hillier, S., and Georgiev, G. I.

1984 Tell Karanovo, 1984. Salzburg: University of

Salzburg. 1986 Tell Karanovo, 1986. Salzburg: University of



Salzburg. Hoddinott, R. E

1986 From the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in West and North Pontic Lands. Anadolu

Aragtirmalart 10: 117-29. Hood, M. S. E

1967 The Tartaria Tablets. Antiquity 41: 99-113.

Jovanovid, B. 1993 Vin'a and Larisa Cultures: Migration or Au-

tochthone Development. Anatolica 19: 63-74. Kohl, P. L.

1979 The "World-Economy" in West Asia in the Third Millennium B.C. Pp. 55-85 in South Asian Archaeology 1977, ed. M. Toddei. Na- ples: Instituto Universitario Orientale.

1987 The Use and Abuse of World Systems Theory: The Case of the "Pristine" West Asian State. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11: 1-35.

1992 The Transcaucasian "Periphery" in the Bronze Age: A Preliminary Formulation. Pp. 117-37 in Resources, Power, and Interregional Interac- tion, eds. E. Schortman and P. Urban. New York: Plenum.

Korfmann, M. 1983 Demircihiiyiik I. Architektur, Stratigraphie und

Befunde. Text and Plans. Mainz: von Zabern. Kogay, H., and Akok, M.

1957 Ausgrabungen von Biiyiik Giilliicek, 1947 und 1949. Ankara: Tiurk Tarih Kurumu.

Lowie, R. H. 1929 Culture and Ethnology. New York: Smith.

Makkay, J. 1969 The Late Neolithic Tordos Group of Signs. Pp.

9-50 in Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis. Istvan Kiraly Muzeum 10. Sz6kesfeh6r- var: A Fejer Muzeumok Igazgatosaga.

1985 Diffusionism, Antidiffusionism and Chronol-

ogy: Some General Remarks. Acta Archaeo- logica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37: 1-12.

1990 The Proto-Vin'a Problem as Seen from the Northernmost Frontier. Pp. 113-22 in Vinca and its World. International Symposium: The Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 B.c., ed. D. Srejovid and N. Tasid. Belgrade: Serbian

Academy of Sciences and Arts. 1993 Pottery Links between Late Neolithic Cultures

of the NW Pontic and Anatolia, and the Origins of the Hittites. Anatolica 19: 117-28.

Mellaart, J. 1970 Excavations at Hactlar. Vols. 1-2. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University. 1971 Prehistory of Anatolia and its Relations with

the Balkans. Studia Balcanica 5: 119-37. Mellink, M.

1992a Anatolian Chronology. Pp. 207-20 in Chro- nologies in Old World Archaeology, vol. 1, ed. R. W. Ehrich. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of

Chicago. 1992b Anatolian Chronology. Pp. 171-84 in Chro-

nologies in Old World Archaeology, vol. 2, ed. R. W. Ehrich. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Mikov, V. 1959 The Prehistoric Mound of Karanovo. Archae-

ology 12: 88-97.

Milojcid, V. 1949 Chronologie der Jiingeren Steinzeit Mittel- und

Siidost Europas. Berlin: Mann. Neustupn', E.

1968 The Tartaria Tablets. Antiquity 42: 32-35. Nikolov, V.

1989 Das FluBtal der Struma als Teil der StraBe von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa. Pp. 191-99 in Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections, ed. S. B6kinyi. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2, Budapest: Insti- tute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Science.

Orthmann, W. 1963 Die Keramik derfriihen Bronzezeit aus Inner-

anatolien. Berlin: Mann. Ozdogan, M.

1982a Dogu Marmara ve Trakya Bilgesi Arastlrma- lan. TiUrk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26: 37-49.

1982b Tilkiburnu. A Late Chalcolithic site in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica 9: 1-26.

1983 Pendik: A Neolithic Site of Fikirtepe Culture in Marmara Region. Pp. 401-11 in Beitriige zur Altertumskunde Kleinasien, eds. R. M. Boeh- mer and H. Hauptmann. Mainz: von Zabern.




1985 A Surface Survey for Prehistoric and Early Historic Sites in Northwestern Turkey. Pp. 517-41 in National Geographic Research for 1979.

1986a Prehistoric Sites in the Gelibolu Peninsula. Anadolu Arattirmalart 10: 51-68.

1986b Trakya Bilgesinde Yapilan Tarihrncesi Araqtlr- malan. Pp. 29-39 in IX. Tiirk Tarih Kongresi, 1981. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu.

1989 Neolithic Cultures of Northwestern Turkey: A General Appraisal of the Evidence and Some Considerations. Pp. 201-15 in Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2. Budapest: Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.

1991 Eastern Thrace before the Beginning of Troy I. An Archaeological Dilemma. Pp. 217-25 in Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche: Sym- posium Saarbiicken und Otzenhausen 6.- 13.11.1988, ed. J. Lichardus. Bonn: Habelt.

1993 Vin'a and Anatolia: A New Look at a Very Old Problem. Anatolica 19: 173-93.

1994 Marmara Bolgesi-Balkanlar-Orta Anadolu

Ara~lnda Kronologi Sorunun Yeni Bir Yaklasim. Tiirk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi I, 40: 69-79.

Ozdogan, M.; Miyake, Y.; and Ozbagaran Dede, N. 1991 An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarimbur-

gaz and Toptepe, Eastern Thrace. Anatolica 17: 59-121.

Piggott, S. 1965 Ancient Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-

versity. Popovi6, V.

1965 Une civilisation 6geo-orientale sur le moyen Danube. Revue Arche'ologique 2: 1-56.

Renfrew, C. 1979 Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolu-

tion and Prehistoric Europe. Rev. ed. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University.

Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J. E, eds. 1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political

Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Renfrew, C.; Gimbutas, M.; and Elster, E. S.

1986 Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, vol. 1. Monumenta Ar- chaeologica 13. Los Angeles: University of Califomia at Los Angeles.

Roodenberg, J. ed. 1993 Anatolia and the Balkans: Symposium on Pre-

Bronze Age Relations. Anatolica 19. Roodenberg, J.; Thissen, L.; and Buitenhuis, H.

1989- Preliminary Report on the Archaeological In- 1990 vestigations at Ilplnar in NW Anatolia. Ana-

tolica 16: 61-144.

Rowlands, M.; Larsen, M. T.; and Kristiansen, K., eds. 1987 Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World.

Cambridge: Cambridge University. Schortman, E.

1989 Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective. American Antiq- uity 54: 52-65.

Schortman, E. M., and Urban, P. A., eds. 1992a Resources, Power, and Interregional Interac-

tion. New York: Plenum. 1992b The Place of Interaction Studies in Archaeo-

logical Thought. Pp. 3-21 in Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction, eds. E. M. Schort- man and P. A. Urban. New York: Plenum.

Srejovic, D., ed. 1990 Vinca and its World. International Symposium:

The Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 B.C. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Summers, G. 1993 The Chalcolithic Period in Central Anatolia.

Pp. 29-48 in The Fourth Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Nessebur, 28-30 August 1992, ed. P. Georgieva. Sofia: New Bulgarian University.

Steadman, S. R. 1994 Isolation vs. Interaction: Prehistoric Cilicia and

its Role in the Near Eastern World System. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berke- ley. Ann Arbor: UMI.

Tezcan, B. 1958 Aksaray (evresinden Derlenen Eserler. Bel-

leten 22: 517-26. Thissen, L.

1993a New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from the Turkish Black Sea Littoral. Anatolian Studies 43: 207-37.

1993b Pottery Tradition and Innovation at Ilipinar. Anatolica 19: 295-305.

Todd, I. 1980 The Prehistory of Central Anatolia: I. The Neo-

lithic Period. Studies in Mediterranean Archae- ology 60. G6teborg: Astr6ms.

Todorova, H. 1978 The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria in the Fifth

Millennium B.C.. BAR International Series 49. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Trigger, B. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University. Tringham, R.

1971 Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe, 6000-3000 B.c.. London: Hutchinson University.




Tringham, R., and Krsti6, D. 1990 Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia.

Los Angeles: University of California at Los

Angeles. Upham, S.

1986 Imperialists, Isolationists, World Systems, and Political Realities: Perspectives on Mesoamer- ican-Southwestern Interaction. Pp. 205-19 in

Ripples in the Chichimec Sea, eds. E Mathien and R. McGuire. Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University. Vasiq, M. M.

1932 Preistoriska Vinca I. Belgrade: Izdanje Drzavne Stamparije.

1936 Preistoriska Vinca IV Belgrade: Izdanje Drzavne Stamparije.

Vlassa, N. 1963 Chronology of the Neolithic in Transylvania in

the Light of the Tartaria Settlement. Dacia 7: 1-94.

von der Osten, H. H. 1937 The Alishar Hiiyiik: Seasons of1930-32, part 1.

Oriental Institute Publications 28. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Winn, S. M. M. 1981 Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign

System of the Vin'a Culture. Calgary: Western. Wolf, E. R.

1982 Europe and the People without History. Berke-

ley: University of California. Yakar, J.

1985 The Later Prehistory of Anatolia: The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. BAR Inter- national Series 268. Oxford: British Archaeo-

logical Reports. 1991 Prehistoric Anatolia. The Neolithic Transfor-

mation and the Early Chalcolithic Period.

Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeol-

ogy 9. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.



Documents

The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia || Prehistoric Interregional Interaction in Anatolia and the Balkans: An Overview