Chalcolithic Pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia1

Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia1

Serap Ala Çelik a a Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bursa Uludağ University, 16059 Nilüfer-Bursa, Turkey; serapala@uludag. edu.tr ABSTRACT Aktopraklık is situated 25 km west of Bursa and located on one of the eastern terraces of Lake Ulubat. Having started in the late 7th millenium, a process has been traced uninterruptedly for a period of nearly one thousand years. In Aktopraklık, the Neolithic and Chalcolithic layers have been detected at three different mound forma- tions which we have labelled as A, B and C. In Area B, the remnants of a settlement, which are characterised with the wattle and daub structures and which date to the Early Chalcolithic Era (around 5800–5700 BC), have been detected. Limited area of this layer has been unearthed; thus, our knowledge about this phase’s settlement plan is limited, but it is clear that this layer shows close similarities with Ilıpınar VII in terms of its architectural technique. This paper presents technological and typological concept of this phase’s pottery assemblage. Ex- amining the technological and typological concept of the pottery assemblage of this phase has an importance for understanding the meaning of pottery production and its usage primarily in Aktopraklık scale and then in the region during that period. Archaeometric analysis on the pottery has not been carried out. The pottery assemblage of this layer is divided into groups. Additives, firing conditions and surface colours are taken into consideration during this process, and a typological concept is functionally classified. Pottery assemblage of this layer shows similarities with other settlements that are not only from Northwest Anatolia, but also from other regions in Anatolia and East Thrace. This article aims to contribute to the understanding of this period of time in Aktopraklık scale by evaluating and comparing pottery assemblage from wattle and daub layer according to its material-technique and typological concept. KEYWORDS Northwestern Anatolia, Chalcolithic, Aktopraklık, wattle-and-daub structure, pottery

Introduction

Comparisons between the Balkans and Anatolia have a long history. But in recent years, in contact areas, numerous salvage excavations in Bulgaria and newly started excavations both in Thrace and Marmara have taken place and have brought new dimensions to the comparisons. Now, it’s not enough to consider this topic in a linear perspective. From this point of view, Aktopraklık which is located in southern Marmara offers plenty of evidence that let us understand supraregional relations. With the increasing number of researches and excavations in recent years, our knowledge about the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of Northwest Anatolia have been en- riched. The first evidence about the neolithic communities in the region was found in 1950’s in Fikirtepe. Following this, thanks to the results obtained from Pendik, Demircihöyük,

1 This paper is based on the author’s master thesis submitted to the Department of Archaeology, Bursa Uludağ University.

Be-JA Бе-СА Supplementa 7 (2019) 1–20 Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology Българско е-Списание за Археология http://be-ja.org ISSN 2603-3216 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 1. Wattle and Daub Layer from Aktopraklık (courtesy Aktopraklık Archive) Обр. 1. Пласт със следи от плет с обмазка от Актопраклък (предоставен от архива на обекта) Ilıpınar and Menteşe excavations, it became possible to obtain more detailed information about the first agricultural communities founded in the region and also to make absolute and relative datings of these settlements. In the last decade, with the discoveries made in Barcın, Yenikapı and Aktopraklık excavations, the cultural process from the mid-7th millennium BC to the mid-6th millennium BC has become clearer throughout the region (Özdoğan 2007; 2013). Aktopraklık is one of the most important settlements in the region due to the observ- able neolithisation and succeeding processes taking place continuously for a period of approximately one thousand years. It is possible to monitor the first agricultural communities founded from 64th century until 55th century BC in the region with all their cultural ele- ments. Aktopraklık is located 25 km west of the centre of Bursa, near Akçalar Town. The settlement is composed of three chronologically successive areas labelled as area A, B and C (Karul 2007, 387). Here, the chronological and stratigraphical developments of each area within itself will not be presented in detail but will be briefly introduced. The first settlement in Aktopraklık (Area C) dates back to 6350 BC. Two settlement phases of the Last Neolithic Age have been observed in this area. It is understood that the construction techniques of both phases are almost identical to each other. These structures had a sunken floor and after the wall bases formed with stones, walls were constructed with wattle and daub technique. During the Early Chalcolithic, Area C was used as a cemetery (Karul, Avcı 2013, 46-47). Around 6000 BC, the settlement was moved 100 meters south and continued to spread in Area B. The construction tradition and technique have changed during the first settle-

2 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 2. Dark Burnished Coarse Ware (by the author) Обр. 2. Груба керамика с тъмнa излъскана повърхност (от автора) ment layer in Area B. Now, we can see the rectangular buildings of mudbrick instead of the simple wattle and daub huts (Karul 2007, 389; 2008, 68; Karul, Avcı 2013, 49). The upper- most layer of Area B is formed by round-shaped huts and dates back approximately to 55th century BC (Karul, Avcı 2013, 48). Area A is located at the edge of a small valley extending towards Lake Ulubat and roughly 100 meters south of Area B. Here, a very restricted area, only the ditch, was excavated. A stone wall and blocking system were built in parallel to each other with the intervals of about 10 meters apart from the ditch which filled with burnt mudbrick (Karul 2009, 481).

Material

Pottery assemblage of wattle and daub layer which has been found in Area B con- stitutes the subject of this paper. Supported by radiocarbon analyzes, this phase approximately dates to 58th-57th centuries BC and only a small area of this layer has been excavated. Therefore, the information about the plans of the buildings and about the layout of this phase is limited. The wattle and daub architecture is distinguished by postholes which are placed in parallel to each other and at frequent intervals (fig. 1). These postholes are sometimes surrounded by stones. It is presumed that the structures in this layer made of wooden posts were covered with relatively thin branches and plastered with mud / mudbrick. A hearth and a possible silo area are also excavated. However, as already mentioned, since the excavation of this layer took place in a very small area, the relations between these structures, the hearth and the silo, are not yet clear.

3 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 3. Dark Burnished Fine Ware (by the author) Обр. 3. Фина керамика с тъмнa излъскана повърхност (от автора)

Fig. 4. Mottled Brown Burnished Fine Ware (by the author) Обр. 4. Керамика с кафява (на петна) излъскана повърхност (от автора)

4 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 5. Light Brown Burnished Ware (by the author) Обр. 5. Керамика със светлокафява излъскана повърхност (от автора)

Fig. 6. Buff Burnished Coarse Ware (by the author) Обр. 6. Груба керамика с бежова излъскана повърхност (от автора)

5 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 7. Buff Burnished Fine Ware (by the author) Обр. 7. Фина керамика с бежова излъскана повърхност (от автора)

Fig. 8. Red Slipped Ware (by the author) Обр. 8. Червеноангобирана кeрамика (от автора)

6 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 9. Red Painted Ware (by the author) Обр. 9. Червенорисувана Керамика (от автора)

Fig. 10. Slip Painted Ware (by the author) Обр. 10. Ангобирана рисувана керамика (от автора)

7 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 11. Simple Shaped Bowls (by the author) Обр. 11. Купи с проста форма (от автора)

8 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 12. Simple Shaped Bowls (by the author) Обр. 12. Купи с проста форма (от автора)

Firstly, the architectural drawings, the profile drawings, the reports about the layer’s filling are reviewed in order to determine the lower and upper limits of this settlement phase. After that, the material to be studied is selected from the structures and its surround- ing area. Physical or chemical analysis on the pottery has not been performed. The pottery assemblage of this layer is divided into ware groups. Additives, firing conditions and surface treatments/colours observed by naked eye are taken into consideration during this process. Almost all of the material is small stone and sand tempered. For this reason, the distinction of the ware groups cannot be made according to the additives but according to their surface treatments/colours. In this respect, after the ware groups have been identified, the pieces belonging to each group are counted, and statistics are made. A functional typological distinction has been made according to the drawings of the rims, bases, knobs and handles. The pottery assemblage of this phase consists of 7231 pieces in total and is divided into four main groups. The first main group is dark faced burnished ware accounting for 65% of the material. Almost all of the pieces of this group have well refined clay, small stone and sand tempered and generally well fired. The subgroups have been identified according to surface colours and wall thickness. Accordingly, the dark faced ware seperates into three subgroups as the dark burnished coarseware, the dark burnished fineware and the mottled brown burnished fineware (figs. 2-4). These two groups, which are examined as

9 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 13. S Profiled Bowls (by the author) Обр. 13. Купи с s-овиден профил (от автора) dark burnished coarse ware and dark burnished fine ware are well smoothed and carefully burnished. They have black, blackish-dark brown and dark brown surface colours. The mottled brown ware is burnished in brown tones and has thin walls. The light faced burnished ware accounts for 33% of the material, and, again, almost all of the pieces in this group have well refined clay, small stone and sand tempered and well fired. According to the material’s surface colour and thickness of the walls, the light faced burnished ware is divided into three categories as the light brown burnished ware, the buff burnished coarse ware and the buff burnished fine ware (fig. 5-7). The brown burnished ware is distinguished by thin walled and elaborate burnish. The buff burnished

10 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 14. S Profiled Bowls (by the author) Обр. 14. Купи с s-овиден профил (от автора) coarse ware has rather thick walls and the surface burnish is not very elaborate. Unlike the other ware groups, it has been observed in some rare examples that straw temper has also been used in addition to small stone and sand temper. The buff burnished fine ware is distinguished by its careful and well burnished surfaces. The group which is subdivided as the red slipped ware and the red painted ware con- stitutes only 1,5% of the material (figs. 8, 9), and this ware groups’s paste has high quality. The red slipped ware has shiny surface colours from pinkish red to the claret red surfaces. In the other group, it is understood that the red paint has been applied to the surface of the vessel, which has been carefully burnished in the light brown and brown tones. However, it is not possible to understand what kind of a motif decorated on the red painted ware. A small part of the group consists of the slip painted sherds (fig. 10). In this group, it is seen that the semi-matte brown burnished sherds are decorated with a band of slip in

11 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 15. Hole Mouth Pots and Concave Necked Pots (by the author) Обр. 15. Съдове със затворени устия и съдове с конкавно гърло reddish and dark brown tones. There is no complete or almost complete pottery among the studied material. But we can say that various forms were in use during this period. Mainly, the forms of this layer consist of plates, bowls and pots. Plates are represented in small rates and have a rather shallow and wide shape. The plates are made out of buff burnished coarse ware and brown burnished fine ware. Bowls can be divided as the simple shaped bowls and the “S” profiled bowls (figs. 11-14). It is understood that the bowls are mostly made of the dark faced burnished fine ware, the mottled brown burnished fine ware and the brown burnished fine ware. Lack of complete pottery makes it hard to identify the pot types. While trying to determine the type of pots, there is an attempt at considering the similar forms in the contemporary settlements and understanding what kind of a form the piece has represented. According to this criteria, the hole mouth pots, the long or short and concave necked pots, the vertical necked pots and the “S” profiled pots are identified (figs. 15, 16). The vertical handles are often seen as implements on containers while the horizontal handles are rarely seen. Another implement often seen is lugs. Lugs are usually located near the mouth but sometimes they are placed on a part of the body. The knobs, the crescentic and the tubular lugs are limited in number (fig. 17). The flat bases are preferred more frequently, and the ring bases draw attention among the material. There is only one piece which is identified as a foot (figs. 18, 19). Sieve frag- ments and miniatur forms are also seen among the assemblage. Although decorations are not used very frequently, it is possible to say that different decoration techniques have been implemented. Grooving, scraping, relief decorations have been identified. Geometric designs and dots have been made by grooving and scraping techniques while relief decorations are seen only in linear shapes. Decorations are im-

12 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 16.Vertical Necked Pots and S Profiled Pots (by the author) Обр. 16. Съдове с цилиндрично гърло и съдове с s-овиден профил

plemented mainly on the body parts of the pottery but there are some examples in which decoration has been implemented near the mouth.

Parallels

Comparisons with other contemporary settlements in Northwest Anatolia, West Ana- tolia and East Thrace, can be made. This geographical entity covers a very wide area.There- fore, key settlements have been selected from each region. Firstly, the published data of the settlements’ stratification processes are selected. Then, it is considered that the pottery assemblage of the related layers of these settlements have been studied and published. It is possible to compare this layer’s pottery assemblage with the other contemporary settlements in Northwestern Anatolia. Ilıpınar VII and Orman Fidanlığı have similarities in pottery traditions with Aktopraklık. All these three settlements’ pottery consists of the dark faced burnished ware, and the mineral temper has been used, and also the simple and “S” profiled bowls and necked pots are analogous (Van As, Wijnen 1995; Thissen 2001; Seeher 1987; Efe 2001). To understand the relation between the regions, it is possible to make comparisons with West Anatolia, Lakes District and East Thrace. In this period, Çukurici VIII has equal number of the red slipped and the dark faced burnished ware (Horejs 2012, 119; Galik, Horejs 2011, 87) while Ulucak IV and Ege Gübre III have mostly the red slipped pottery. Also, according to the published data, Çukuriçi VIII and Ege Gübre III have impresso decorated wares (Abay 2005, 78; Çilingiroğlu, Çilingiroğlu 2007, 365; Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, 143-144). As mentioned before, the slipped pottery has a low ratio and there is no impressed

13 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 17. Vertical Handles, Horizontal Handles, Tubular Lugs, Crescentic Lugs, Knobs (by the author) Обр. 17. Вертикални дръжки, хоризонтални дръжки, цилиндрични издатъци/ тунелести дръжки, с форма на полумесец и пъпковидни pottery in this period in Aktopraklık. Impressed ware was seen in the beginning of the 6th millenium in Aktopraklık. Preceding to the wattle and daub layer, the rectangular mudbrick building phase is characterised with impressed pottery. Therefore, we can assume that the wattle and daub layer in Aktopraklık represent a later period than that of Çukuriçi VIII and Ege Gübre III. It is reported that Yeşilova II pottery assemblage is similar to that of Ilıpınar VIII and VII. The pottery assemblage of Yeşilova in this period consists of blackish- gray and brown burnished tones (Derin 2007, 379; 2012, 178-179). We think that Ilıpınar VII and the wattle and daub layer in Aktopraklık are contemporary and analogous both in the building technique and the pottery tradition. Thus, we can say Yeşilova II and Aktopraklık pottery assemblages share common features both in surface treatments and shapes. In Lakes District, the pottery assemblages from Hacılar, Kuruçay, Bademağacı and Höyücek show different characteristics with their well developed paint decorated pottery (Duru 1994; 2008; 2012; Duru, Umurtak 2005). In this respect, the painted decoration tradition did not exist in Northwestern Anatolia during the Early Chalcolithic Period. Pottery from Yarımburgaz 3 and Yenikapı have similarities with the Aktopraklık material both in paste and surface treatments. All of the three setlements’ pottery assemblages are mineral tempered and burnished in dark tones, and they also share common ware

14 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Fig. 18. Flat Bases (by the author) Обр. 18. Плоски дъна (от автора) forms. Therefore, it is understood that the pottery tradition of Yarımburgaz and Yenikapı in the East Thrace are more similar to Eastern and Southern Marmara in connection with Fikirtepe Culture (Özdoğan 2013, 177-178; Özdoğan et al. 1991, 72-73; Kızıltan, Polat 2013a, 119-120; 2013b, 16). But Aşağı Pınar 6 and Hoca Çeşme II show different pottery traditions.

15 Serap Ala Çelik

Fig. 19. Flat Bases, Ring Bases, Foot (by the author) Обр. 19. Плоски дъна, пръстеновидни дъна, краче (от автора) In Aşağı Pınar, the dark burnished ware exists as well as the red slipped and white painted ware (Özdoğan 2013, 188-189; Parzinger, Schwarzberg 2005, 41) but almost all of the Hoca Çeşme material consists red slipped ware (Karul, Bertram 2005, 123-125). During this period, the tradition of white on red painted pottery and red slipped pottery predominated in Thrace and the Balkans. As mentioned before, red slipped and red painted ware groups exist in Aktopraklık’s wattle and daub layer pottery assemblage, despite being low in ratio. Only one piece is decorated white on red and it’s not possible to define the shape because the piece belongs to a body part. Nevertheless, it is possible to say

16 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia that during this period there was communication with East Thrace, but it has quite weak indicators for now.

Conclusions

Although the wattle and daub architectural layer at Aktopraklık occurs only in a limited area, it is possible to say that the Northwest Anatolian region is unique and has a character which is diversified in itself when evaluated together with the other settlements located in the region. It is also understood that the close similarities observed about traditions between the Northwest Anatolia and West Anatolia at the end of the 7th millennium BC began to disappear as of the 58th century BC. It is not possible to make definite conclusions about the relationship between Northwest Anatolia and East Thrace in this period. Nevertheless, we can suggest that communication between the regions was weak. When we evaluate the Early Chalcolithic Period in Northwest Anatolia, it is clear- ly observed that there is continuity with the Late Neolithic Period despite the significant changes reflected in the architecture and finds. Although the layer dates back to 5800–5700 BC, it cannot be surely known in terms of the architecture and settlement pattern, yet the existing evidence reminds us of a process known from the contemporaries in the region. This period is closely similar to a tradition known from Thrace and the Balkans, especially with the use of wood intensively in the architecture when it’s compared with the contemporary settlements in the other regions of Anatolia. As mentioned earlier, even though it is low in ratio, the existence of the red slipped and red painted ware at Aktopraklık supports the communication with Thrace.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to my advisor Necmi Karul who encourages me to study this topic. Also, my profound thanks to the organising committee of the doctoral student conference of Balkan Archaeology.

References

Abay, E. 2005. Neolithic Settlement at Ulucak Hoyuk and its Cultural Relations with Neigh- bour Regions in Western Anatolia. In Lichter, C. (ed.) BYZAS 2: How Did Farming Reach Europe?: Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium cal. BC: Proceedings of the International Workshop, İstanbul, 20-22 Mayıs 2004. İstanbul: Ege Publications, 75-84. Çilingiroğlu, A., Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2007. Ulucak. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds.) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 372- 383. Çilingiroğlu A., Çevik Ö., Çilingiroğlu Ç., 2012. Ulucak Höyük: Towards Understand- ing the Early Farming Communities of Middle West Anatolia: Contribution of Ulu- cak. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm, P. (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations&New Research Vol. 4: Western Turkey. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publica- tions, 139-175.

17 Serap Ala Çelik

Derin, Z., 2007. Yeşilova Höyüğü. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen (eds.) Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar-Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 377-384. Derin, Z., 2012. Yeşilova Höyük. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm, P. (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations&New Research Vol. 4: Western Turkey. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 177-195. Duru, R., 1994. Kuruçay Höyük I. 1978–1988 Kazılarının Sonuçları. Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çağ Yerleşmeleri-Results of the Excavations 1978–1988. The Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Settlements. Ankara: TTK Yayınları Dizisi V, Sayı 44. Duru, R., 2008. M.Ö 8000’den M.Ö 2000’e Burdur-Antalya Bölgesinin Altıbin Yılı. Antalya: AKMED-Suna-İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü. Duru, R., 2012. The Neolithic of the Lakes Region: Hacılar-Kuruçay Höyük-Höyücek- Bademağacı Höyük. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm, P. (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations&New Research Vol. 4: Western Turkey. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 1-65. Duru, R.,Umurtak G., 2005. Höyücek: 1988–1992 Yılları Arasında Yapılan Kazıların Sonuçları - Results of the Excavations 1989–1992. Ankara: TTK Yayınları Dizisi V, Sayı 49. Efe, T., 2001. The Settlement, its Architecture and Pottery. In Efe, T. (ed.)The Salvage Excava- tions at Orman Fidanlığı A Chalcolithic Site in Inland Northwestern Anatolia. İstanbul: Task Vakfı Yayınları 3, 1-125. Galik, A., Horejs, B., 2011. Çukuriçi Höyük: VariousAspects of its Earlier Settlement Phase. In Krauss, R. (ed.) Beginnings – Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen Band 1: New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin: Studien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Papers of the Internation- al Workshop 8th-9th 2009 April, İstanbul. Rahden-Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 83-94. Horejs, B., 2012.Çukuriçi Höyük: A Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement in the Region of Ephesos. In: Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm P. (eds.) The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations&New Research Vol.4: Western Turkey. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publi- cations, 117-131. Karul, N., 2007. Aktopraklık: Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Gelişkin Bir Köy. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N. (eds) Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar-Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 387-392. Karul, N., 2008. Aktopraklık 2004-2006 Yılı Çalışmaları Genel Bir Değerlendirme. 25. Araş- tırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Cilt 1, 65-78. Karul, N., 2009. Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Anahatlarıyla Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Dönemler. Türk Eski Çağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 28, 1-7. Karul N., Avcı, M. B., 2013. Aktopraklık. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm P. (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations&New Research Vol.5: Northwestern Turkey and Is- tanbul. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 45-68. Karul, N., Bertram, J., 2005. From Anatolia to Europe: The Ceramic Sequence of Hocaçeşme in Turkish Thrace. In Lichter, C. (ed.) BYZAS 2: How Did Farming Reach Europe?: Anato- lian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millen- nium cal. BC: Proceedings of the International Workshop, İstanbul, 20-22 Mayıs 2004. İstanbul: Ege Publications, 117-129. Kızıltan, Z., Polat, M. A., 2013a. The Neolithic at Yenikapı: Marmaray-Metro Project Res- cue Excavations. In Özdoğan, M., Başgelen, N., Kuniholm P. (eds) The Neolithic in Tur- key, New Excavations&New Research Vol. 5: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul. İstanbul:

18 Chalcolithic pottery from Aktopraklık Höyük in Northwestern Anatolia

Archaeology&Art Publications,113-165. Kızıltan, Z., Polat, M. A., 2013b. Yenikapı Kurtarma Kazıları: Neolitik Dönem Çalışmaları. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 143, 1-40. Özdoğan, M., 2007. Marmara Bölgesi Neolitik Çağ Kültürleri. In M. Özdoğan, M., Başge- len, N. (eds) Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar-Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 401-426. Özdoğan, M., 2013. Neolithic Sites in the Marmara Region: Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Toptepe, Hoca Çeşme and Aşağı Pınar. In Özdoğan, M., N. Başgelen, N., Kuniholm P. (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations&New Research Vol.5: Northwestern Turkey and İstanbul. İstanbul: Archaeology&Art Publications, 167-269. Özdoğan, M., Miyake, Y., Özbaşaran Dede, N., 1991. An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica XVII, 59-121. Parzınger, H., Schwarzberg, H., 2005. Aşağı Pınar 2: Diemittel-und spatneolithische Keramik. Studien im Thrakien‐Marmara Raum Band 2, Archäologie in Eurasien 18, Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Seeher, J., 1987. Demircihüyük, Band III: 1, Die Keramik 1, A. Die Neolithische und Chalkolith- ische Keramik, B. Die Frühbronze zeitliche Keramik Der Älteren Phasen (bis Phase G). Mainz Am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Thissen, L., 2001. Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500-5500 cal BC: Studies in Chronology and Culture Contact. (unpublished PhD thesis), Leiden University. Van As, A.,Wijnen, M. H. 1995. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery from Ilıpınar’s Phases X-V: A Technological Study. In Roodenberg, J. (ed.) The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in NW Anatolia, 1987-91. İstanbul: Nederlands Historisch Archaeologisch In- stituut, 77-107.

Xалколитна керамика от селищната могила Актопраклък в Северозападна Анатолия

Серап Ала Челик

(резюме)

Актопраклък е разположен на 25 км западно от Бурса на една от източните те- раси на езерото Улубат. Стартирайки в края на VII хилядолетие пр. Хр. са установен непрекъснат процес на обитаване и развитие за период от почти хиляда години. В Актопраклък са регистрирани неолитни и халколитни пластове в три различни мо- гилни формирования, номерирани като A,B и C. В сектор В са намерени останките на селище, характеризиращо се със структури от плет с обмазка и датирано в ранния халколит (около 5800–5700 г. пр.Хр.). Проучена е малка част от този сектор и затова познанаваме само част от плана на селището от тази фаза , но е ясно, че този пласт показва близки сходства с Илъпънар VII по отношение на техниките, използвани в архитектурата. Изследването на технологическата и типологическата концепция на керамичния ансамбъл от тази фаза е важно за разбирането на значението на произ- водството на керамика и нейната употреба както в рамките на Актопраклък, така и за

19 Serap Ala Çelik

региона през този период. На този проблем е посветена и настоящата статия, без да е извършен археометричен анализ на керамиката. Керамиката от този пласт е разпределена в групи. Взети са под внимание при- месите, условията на изпичане и цветът на повърхността, а типологичната класифи- кация е функционално класифицирана. Керамиката от този пласт показва сходства с други селища не само в северна Анатолия, но и с други региони в Анатолия и Източна Тракия. Тази статия има за цел да допринесе за разбирането на този период в Актоп- раклък като оцени и сравни керамиката от пласта на плет с обмазка според нейните технико-типологически характеристики.