Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Neolithic and chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Thrace Erdogu, Burcin How to cite: Erdogu, Burcin (2001) Neolithic and chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Thrace, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3994/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CULTURES IN TURKISH THRACE Burcin Erdogu Thesis Submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. University of Durham Department of Archaeology 2001 Burcin Erdogu PhD Thesis NeoHthic and ChalcoHthic Cultures in Turkish Thrace ABSTRACT The subject of this thesis are the NeoHthic and ChalcoHthic cultures in Turkish Thrace. Turkish Thrace acts as a land bridge between the Balkans and Anatolia. Along this land bridge it might be expected that there has been a transfer of ideas, exchange and movement of objects between two regions. Intensive survey in a selected part of Turkish Thrace - the Edime region - and systematic field collection techniques on selected sites were conducted. Intensive surveys in the Edime region have provided important evidence relating to past land use and settlement systems. On the basis of examination settlements and artefacts, local Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures closely related to the Balkan cultures were defined. One of the research problems in Turkish Thrace is the apparent dramatic decrease in population in the late Chalcolithic period. All late Chalcolithic sites are small relative to those of other Chalcolithic cultures in the Balkans. There are as yet no geographical studies, soil analysis or pollen diagrams from Turkish Thrace. However, it seems most likely that the depopulation of Turkish Thrace can be explained by a combination of environmental changes, soil changes or exchange network collapse. In Neolithic and Chalcolithic period, some of the Anatolian material looks similar to those of the Balkans. Similarities may be explained by the interaction sphere model. An interaction sphere is defined as an information or item exchange system through which aspects of culture are transferred and which ultimately produces regional similarities. Metabasite stone axes from the §ark6y axe factories were found in the Early Neolithic levels of Hoca Qe§me as well as on settlements in the Edime region. Honey flint of Northeast Bulgaria and Aegean Spondylus were found in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic settlements of Turkish Thrace. These examples begin to introduce the nature of the exchange network in Turkish Thrace. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND PLATES 5 PREFACE 12 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION I.A. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 14 I.A.I. Aim of the Research 14 I.A.2. The Research Design 16 I.A.3. Terminology and Chronology 17 LB. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 18 I.B.I. Topography 18 LB.2. Geology 20 LB.3. Climate, Temperature and Soil 21 I.B.4. Natural Resources 23 LB.5. Vegetation 24 26 I.B.6. The Coastal Morphology of the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara. 27 I.e. HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS 27 I.C.I. Previous Researches in Turkish Thrace 29 I.C.2. Previous Survey and Excavation Results in Turkish Thrace I.e.3. Previous Research on Connections Between 33 Southeast Europe and Anatolia. I.D. RESEARCH PROBLEMS 39 I.D.I. Problems in Material Culture 39 I.D.2. Problems in Settlement Studies 40 I.D.3. Problems in the Relationships between Anatolia and the Balkans 41 CHAPTER II. SURFACE SURVEY DATA n.A. INTRODUCTION 42 n.B. SITE AND NON-SITE 44 n.C. NON-SITE OR OFF-SITE ARCHAEOLOGY 45 n.C. 1. Natural Artefact Transport and Post Depositional Disturbance 46 II.C.2. Interpreting Off-site Artefacts 48 n.D. SURFACE SURVEYS EASTERN THRACE 49 II.D.l. Description of Extensive and Intensive Survey Areas 51 n.D.2. Block and Transect Survey Results 54 n.D.3. lOx 10 m Grid-collecting Results 59 n.D.4. Concluding Remarks 69 n.E. GAZETTER OF SETTLEMENTS 71 CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF SETTLEMENT PATTERN m.A. INTRODUCTION 81 m.B. SETTLEMENT PATTERNING 82 ni.C. SETTLEMENT TYPES 87 m.D. SETTLEMENT MOBILITY 88 m.E. SETTLEMENT PATTERN IN TURKISH THRACE 91 ni.E.l. Settlement pattern in the Edime Region 93 m.F. CONCLUDING REMARKS 106 CHAPTER IV. ARTEFACTS rV.A. INTRODUCTION 109 IV.B. POTTERY 110 rV.B.l. Introduction 110 IV.B.2. Social and Cultural Aspects of Pottery 111 IV.B.3. Pottery From The Edime Region 113 IV.B.3.1. Manufacture 114 IV.B.3.2. Wares 115 IV.B.3.3. Forms 120 IV.B.3.4. Decoration and Design 129 IV.B.3.5. Function and Size 136 IV.B.3.6. Analysis 141 IV.B.4. Concluding Remarks 144 IV.B. CHIPPED STONE 146 IV.B.l. Introduction 146 IV.B.2. Technological Analysis of Chipped Stone Industries in the Edime Region 147 IV.B.3. Raw Material 149 IV.B.4. Typological Analysis of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Chipped Stone Industries in the Edime Region 150 IV.B.5. Analysis and Typological Analogies 157 IV.B.6. Concluding Remarks 159 IV.C. STONE AXES 159 IV.C.l. Introduction 159 rV.C.2. Prehistoric Axe Factories in Turkish Thrace 162 IV.C.3. Axe-manufacturing Processes 164 IV.C.4. Raw material and Source 165 IV.C.5. Distribution of the Stone Axes 165 IV.C.6. Dating Prehistoric Stone Axe Factories 167 IV.C.7. The Axes Found During the Survey in the Edime Region 168 IV.C.8. Concluding Remarks 169 IV.D. FIGURINES 169 IV.D.l. Introduction 169 IV.D.2. Previous Researches in Prehistoric Figurines 171 IV.D.3. The Figurines Found During the Survey in the Edime Region 173 IV.D.3.1. Catalogue 174 IV.D.3.2. Typological Analogies 175 IV. D.4. Concluding Remarks 176 CHAPTER V: THE NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CULTURES IN TURKISH THRACE AND THEIR EXTERNAL RELATIONS V. A. INTRODUCTION 178 V.B. THE NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CULTURES OF TURKISH THRACE 179 V.B.I. Neolithic 179 V.B.2. Chalcolithic 204 V.C. CONCLUDING REMARKS 216 CHAPTER VI. THE ROLE OF TURKISH THRACE BETWEEN THE BALKANS AND ANATOLIA VI.A. THE EXPLANATION OF CULTURAL CHANGE IN NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLnfflC TURKISH THRACE 220 VI.A. 1. The origins of farming 220 VLA.2. Dark burnished wares 224 VI.A.3. Changes during the Chalcolithic period in the Balkans and explanatory models for Turkish Thrace 225 VLB. THE EXPLANATION OF THE SEVULARiriES IN MATERIAL CULTURE BETWEEN THE BALKANS AND ANATOLLA 231 VI.C. THE ROLE OF TURKISH THRACE BETWEEN THE BALKANS AND ANATOLLA 235 CHAPTER VII. CONCLUSIONS 238 APPENDICES 244 Appendix 1. Turkish Thrace Field Record Form. Appendix 2. Turkish Thrace Grid Collection Form. Appendix 3. PLATES. BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST OF HGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Fig.I.l. Map showing the topographic features of Turkish Thrace. Fig.1.2. Climatic diagrams of Edime. Fig ILL Location map of extensive survey areas. Fig.II.2. Geological map of the Edime province. Fig.n.3. Schematic model of surface survey method in the Edime region. Fig.II.4. Relative ground visibility of fields in the Kavakli-Ortakgi area. Fig.n.5. Distribution of sites and off-site finds in the Kavakli-0rtak9i area. Fig.II.6. Relative ground visibility of fields in the Tepeyani-Baglari9i area. Fig.n.7. Distribution of sites and off-site finds in the Tepeyani-Baglari^i area. Fig.II.S.a. Kavakli 1; (a) absolute sherd counts (b) chipped stone counts (c) sketch plan of sampled area. Fig.II.8.b. Interpolated contour plan of Kavakli 1: Chalcolithic (Karanovo VI) sherd distribution (density of sherds per 100 m^). Fig.n.S.c. Interpolated contour plan of Kavakli 1: Pottery weight. Fig.II.9.a. Tepeyani; (a-b) absolute sherd counts (c) chipped stone counts (d) sketch plan of sampled area. Fig.II.9.b. Interpolated contour plan of Tepeyani: Chalcolithic (Kocatepe) sherd distribution (density of sherds per 100 m^). Fig.II.9.c. Interpolated contour plan of Tepeyani: Chalcolithic (Karanovo VI) sherd distribution (density of sherds per 100 m^). Fig.II.9.d. Interpolated contour plan of Tepeyani: Pottery weight. Fig.n.lO.a. Hamaylitarla; (a) absolute sherd counts (b) chipped stone counts (c) sketch plan of sampled area. Fig.II.lO.b. Interpolated contour plan of Hamaylitarla: Early Neolithic sherd distribution (density of sherds per 100 m^). Fig.n.lO.c. Interpolated contour plan of Hamayhtarla: Pottery weight. Fig.n.U.a. Yumurta Tepe; (a) absolute sherd counts (b) chipped stone counts (c) sketch plan of sampled area. Fig.n.ll.b. Interpolated contour plan of Yumurta Tepe: Chalcolithic (Karanovo VI) sherd distribution (density of sherds per 100 m^). Fig. II. 1 I.e. Interpolated contour plan of Yumurta Tepe: Pottery weight. Fig.n.l2.a.