ISSN 1301 7667 MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ KILIKIA ARKEOLOJİSİNİ ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ MERSIN UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH CENTER OF CILICIAN ARCHAEOLOGY KAAM YAYINLARI O LBA XXIV (Ayrıbasım / Offprint) MERSİN 2016 KAAM YAYINLARI OLBA XXIV © 2016 Mersin Üniversitesi/Türkiye ISSN 1301 7667 Yayıncı Sertifika No: 14641 OLBA dergisi; ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX, EBSCO, PROQUEST ve TÜBİTAK-ULAKBİM Sosyal Bilimler Veri Tabanlarında taranmaktadır. Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü’nün (DAI) Kısaltmalar Dizini’nde ‘OLBA’ şeklinde yer almaktadır. OLBA dergsi hakemlidir. Makalelerdeki görüş, düşünce ve bilimsel değerlendirmelerin yasal sorumluluğu yazarlara aittir. The articles are evaluated by referees. The legal responsibility of the ideas, opinions and scientific evaluations are carried by the author. OLBA dergisi, Mayıs ayında olmak üzere, yılda bir kez basılmaktadır. Published each year in May. KAAM’ın izni olmadan OLBA’nın hiçbir bölümü kopya edilemez. Alıntı yapılması durumunda dipnot ile referans gösterilmelidir. It is not allowed to copy any section of OLBA without the permit of the Mersin University (Research Center for Cilician Archaeology / Journal OLBA) OLBA dergisinde makalesi yayımlanan her yazar, makalesinin baskı olarak ve elektronik ortamda yayımlanmasını kabul etmiş ve telif haklarını OLBA dergisine devretmiş sayılır. Each author whose article is published in OLBA shall be considered to have accepted the article to be published in print version and electronically and thus have transferred the copyrights to the Mersin University (Research Center for Cilician Archaeology / Journal OLBA) OLBA’ya gönderilen makaleler aşağıdaki web adresinde ve bu cildin giriş sayfalarında belirtilen formatlara uygun olduğu taktirde basılacaktır. Articles should be written according the formats mentioned in the following web address. Redaktion: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Deniz Kaplan OLBA’nın yeni sayılarında yayınlanması istenen makaleler için yazışma adresi: Correspondance addresses for sending articles to following volumes of OLBA: Prof. Dr. Serra Durugönül Mersin Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü Çiftlikköy Kampüsü, 33342 Mersin - TURKEY Diğer İletişim Adresleri Other Correspondance Addresses Tel: 00.90.324.361 00 01 (10 Lines) 4730 / 4734 Fax: 00.90.324.361 00 46 web mail: www.kaam.mersin.edu.tr www.olba.mersin.edu.tr e-mail: sdurugonul@gmail.com Baskı / Printed by Matsis Matbaa Hizmetleri Sefaköy / İstanbul Tel: 0212 624 21 11 www.matbaasistemleri.com Sertifika No: 20706 Zero Prod. Ltd. Tel: 00.90.212.244 75 21 Fax: 00.90.244 32 09 info@zerobooksonline.com www.zerobooksonline.com/eng MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ KILIKIA ARKEOLOJİSİNİ ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ (KAAM) YAYINLARI-XXIV MERSIN UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH CENTER OF CILICIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (KAAM)-XXIV Editörler Serra DURUGÖNÜL Murat DURUKAN Gunnar BRANDS Deniz KAPLAN OLBA Bilim Kurulu Prof. Dr. Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN Prof. Dr. Fikri KULAKOĞLU Prof. Dr. Serra DURUGÖNÜL Prof. Dr. Marion MEYER Prof. Dr. Susan ROTROFF Prof. Dr. Kutalmış GÖRKAY Prof. Dr. İ. Hakan MERT Prof. Dr. Eda AKYÜREK-ŞAHİN Prof. Dr. Yelda OLCAY-UÇKAN MERSİN 2016 İçindekiler / Contents Fulya Dedeoğlu – Ali Ozan What Happened in Inland Southwestern Anatolia before 5500 BC? A Review of the Archaeological Evidence from the Selcen-Örenarası Settlement (MÖ 5500 Öncesinde İç Güneybatı Anadolu’da Ne Oldu?: Selcen-Örenarası Yerleşimi Arkeolojik Kanıtları Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme) ..................................................... 1 Erim Konakçı A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi (Asopos Tepesi’nde Bulunan Bir Grup Kalkolitik Dönem Çanak Çömleği) ................. 31 Hatice Ergürer Kınık Höyük Demir Çağ Boyalılarında Bezeme Geleneği (Embellished Ceramic Tradition from Kınık Höyük During the Iron Age) .................... 67 Onur Zunal A Group of Submycenaean - Protogeometric Cups from Klaros (Klaros’dan Bir Grup Submyken-Protogeometrik Fincan) ........................................................ 171 Erkan Alkaç - Gonca Cankardeş-Şenol Amphora Mühürleri Işığında Miletos ve Alexandria Ticari İlişkileri (Commercial Relations of Miletus and Alexandria by means of Amphora Stamps) .................................................................................................................................................................. 191 Banu Özdilek 2009-2012 Andriake Kazılarından Ele Geçen Unguentarium, Şişe, Lykion ve Mortar Örnekleri (Uncovered Unguentarium, Bottle, Lykion and Mortar Examples from Andriake Excavations 2009-2012) ........................................................................................................................ 217 Tayfun Selçuk Kyme ve Larissa’da Bulunmuş İki Figürlü Mezar Steli (Two Figured Grave Stele from Kyme and Larissa) .......................................................................... 267 Murat Çekilmez Tralleis’ten Bir Eros Yontusu (An Eros Statue from Tralleis) ................................................................................................................................. 297 VI İçindekiler / Contents Mustafa Koçak Antakya’da “Dansa Davet”?: İki Heykel Başı Üzerine Düşünceler (“Aufforderung zum Tanz”? in Antiocheia: Überlegungen über zwei Statuenköpfe) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 323 Mustafa Şahin Değirmenkaya Anıt Mezarı (Das Grabdenkmal in Değirmenkaya) ............................................................................................................. 341 Hakan Mert Priene’deki Gıda Pazarı (Der sog. Lebensmittelmarkt von Priene) .................................................................................................... 365 Feriştah Soykal-Alanyalı Side Dionysos (?) Tapınağı Işığında Tiyatro ile Çevresinin Kentsel Değişimi ve Dönüşümü (The Urban Change and Transformation of the Theater and its Surroundings in the light of the Side Dionysos (?) Temple) ........................................................................................... 419 Oğuz Koçyiğit – Çağman Esirgemez Lampsacus’da Geç Antik Bir Kırsal Yerleşim ve Şarap Üretim Atölyesi (A Late Antique Rural Settlement and Wine Production Installation in Lampsacus) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 451 Hatice Özyurt-Özcan Marmaris’in İçmeler Mevkiinde Yer Alan Bir Bazilika ve Vaftizhane Üzerine İncelemeler (Studies on a Basilica and Baptistery Located in İçmeler Section of Marmaris) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 479 Ayça Tiryaki Rhodiapolis Piskoposluk Kilisesi’nin Geometrik Desenli Taban Mozaikleri (The Mosaic Pavements with Geometric Patterns of the Episcopal Church of Rhodiapolis) ................................................................................................................................................... 505 Burcu Ceylan Geç Antik Dönem Kentlerinde Gerileme/Devamlılık Modellerine Kanunlar Üzerinden Bir Bakış (A Re-Evaluation of Decline/Continuity Theories, Based on the Late Antique Laws) .............................................................................................................................................................. 535 Zeliha Demirel-Gökalp Bizans Bronz Konkav (İçbükey) Sikkeleri ve Kütahya Müzesi’ndeki Define (Byzantine Bronze Concave Coins and a Hoard in Kütahya Museum) ......................... 555 MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ KILIKIA ARKEOLOJİSİNİ ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ BİLİMSEL SÜRELİ YAYINI ‘OLBA’ Kapsam Olba süreli yayını Mayıs ayında olmak üzere yılda bir kez basılır. Yayınlanması istenilen makalelerin en geç her yıl Kasım ayında gönderilmiş olması gerekmektedir. 1998 yılından bu yana basılan Olba; Küçükasya, Akdeniz bölgesi ve Ortadoğu’ya ilişkin orijinal sonuçlar içeren Antropoloji, Prehistorya, Protohistorya, Klasik Arkeoloji, Klasik Filoloji (ve Eskiçağ Dilleri ve Kültürleri), Eskiçağ Tarihi, Nümizmatik ve Erken Hıristiyanlık Arkeolojisi alanlarında yazılmış makaleleri kapsamaktadır. Yayın İlkeleri 1. a. Makaleler, Word ortamında yazılmış olmalıdır. b. Metin 10 punto; özet, dipnot, katalog ve bibliyografya 9 punto olmak üzere, Times New Roman (PC ve Macintosh) harf karakteri kullanılmalıdır. c. Dipnotlar her sayfanın altına verilmeli ve makalenin başından sonuna kadar sayısal süreklilik izlemelidir. d. Metin içinde bulunan ara başlıklarda, küçük harf kullanılmalı ve koyu (bold) yazılmalıdır. Bunun dışındaki seçenekler (tümünün büyük harf yazılması, alt çizgi ya da italik) kullanılmamalıdır. 2. Noktalama (tireler) işaretlerinde dikkat edilecek hususlar: a. Metin içinde her cümlenin ortasındaki virgülden ve sonundaki noktadan sonra bir tab boşluk bırakılmalıdır. b. Cümle içinde veya cümle sonunda yer alan dipnot numaralarının herbirisi noktalama (nokta veya virgül) işaretlerinden önce yer almalıdır. c. Metin içinde yer alan “fig.” ibareleri, küçük harf ile ve parantez içinde verilmeli; fig. ibaresinin noktasından sonra bir tab boşluk bırakılmalı (fig. 3); ikiden fazla ardışık figür belirtiliyorsa iki rakam arasına boşluksuz kısa tire konulmalı (fig. 2-4). Ardışık değilse, sayılar arasına nokta ve bir tab boşluk bırakılmalıdır (fig. 2. 5). VIII Kapsam / Yayın İlkeleri d. Ayrıca bibliyografya ve kısaltmalar kısmında bir yazar, iki soyadı taşıyorsa soyadları arasında boşluk bırakmaksızın kısa tire kullanılmalıdır (DentzerFeydy); bir makale birden fazla yazarlı ise her yazardan sonra bir boşluk, ardından uzun tire ve yine boşluktan sonra diğer yazarın soyadı gelmelidir (Hagel – Tomaschitz). 3. “Bibliyografya ve Kısaltmalar” bölümü makalenin sonunda yer almalı, dipnotlarda kullanılan kısaltmalar, burada açıklanmalıdır. Dipnotlarda kullanılan kaynaklar kısaltma olarak verilmeli, kısaltmalarda yazar soyadı, yayın tarihi, sayfa (ve varsa levha ya da resim) sıralamasına sadık kalınmalıdır. Sadece bir kez kullanılan yayınlar için bile aynı kurala uyulmalıdır. Bibliyografya (kitaplar için): Richter 1977 Richter, G., Greek Art, NewYork. Bibliyografya (Makaleler için): Corsten 1995 Corsten, Th., “Inschriften aus dem Museum von Denizli”, Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi III, 215-224, lev. LIV-LVII. Dipnot (kitaplar için) Richter 1977, 162, res. 217. Dipnot (Makaleler için) Oppenheim 1973, 9, lev.1. Diğer Kısaltmalar age. adı geçen eser ay. aynı yazar vd. ve devamı yak. yaklaşık v.d. ve diğerleri y.dn. yukarı dipnot dn. dipnot a.dn. aşağı dipnot bk. Bakınız 4. Tüm resim, çizim ve haritalar için sadece “fig.” kısaltması kullanılmalı ve figürlerin numaralandırılmasında süreklilik olmalıdır. (Levha, Resim, Çizim, Şekil, Harita ya da bir başka ifade veya kısaltma kesinlikle kullanılmamalıdır). Kapsam / Yayın İlkeleri IX 5. Word dökümanına gömülü olarak gönderilen figürler kullanılmamaktadır. Figürlerin mutlaka sayfada kullanılması gereken büyüklükte ve en az 300 pixel/inch çözünürlükte, photoshop tif veya jpeg formatında gönderilmesi gerekmektedir. Adobe illustrator programında çalışılmış çizimler Adobe illustrator formatında da gönderilebilir. Farklı vektörel programlarda çalışılan çizimler photoshop formatına çevrilemiyorsa pdf olarak gönderilebilir. Bu formatların dışındaki formatlarda gönderilmiş figürler kabul edilmeyecektir. 6. Figürler CD’ye yüklenmelidir ve ayrıca figür düzenlemesi örneği (layout) PDF olarak yapılarak burada yer almalıdır. 7. Bir başka kaynaktan alıntı yapılan figürlerin sorumluluğu yazara aittir, bu sebeple kaynak belirtilmelidir. 8. Makale metninin sonunda figürler listesi yer almalıdır. 9. Metin yukarıda belirtilen formatlara uygun olmak kaydıyla 20 sayfayı geçmemelidir. Figürlerin toplamı 10 adet civarında olmalıdır. 10. Makaleler Türkçe, İngilizce veya Almanca yazılabilir. Türkçe yazılan makalelerde yaklaşık 500 kelimelik Türkçe ve İngilizce yada Almanca özet kesinlikle bulunmalıdır. İngilizce veya Almanca yazılan makalelerde ise en az 500 kelimelik Türkçe ve İngilizce veya Almanca özet bulunmalıdır. Makalenin her iki dilde de başlığı gönderilmeldir. 11. Özetin altında, Türkçe ve İngilizce veya Almanca olmak üzere altı anahtar kelime verilmelidir. 12. Metnin word ve pdf formatlarında kaydı ile figürlerin kopyalandığı iki adet CD (biri yedek) ile birlikte bir orijinal ve bir kopya olmak üzere metin ve figür çıktısı gönderilmelidir. 13. Makale içinde kullanılan özel fontlar da CD’ye yüklenerek yollanmalıdır. MERSIN UNIVERSITY ‘RESEARCH CENTER OF CILICIAN ARCHAEOLOGY’ JOURNAL ‘OLBA’ Scope Olba is printed once a year in May. Deadline for sending papers is November of each year. The Journal ‘Olba’, being published since 1998 by the ‘Research Center of Cilician Archeology’ of the Mersin University (Turkey), includes original studies done on antropology, prehistory, protohistory, classical archaeology, classical philology (and ancient languages and cultures), ancient history, numismatics and early christian archeology of Asia Minor, the Mediterranean region and the Near East. Publishing Principles 1. a. Articles should be written in Word programs. b. The text should be written in 10 puntos; the abstract, footnotes, catalogue and bibliography in 9 puntos ‘Times New Roman’ (for PC and for Macintosh). c. Footnotes should take place at the bottom of the page in continous numbering. d. Titles within the article should be written in small letters and be marked as bold. Other choises (big letters, underline or italic) should not be used. 2. Punctuation (hyphen) Marks: a. One space should be given after the comma in the sentence and after the dot at the end of the sentence. b. The footnote numbering within the sentence in the text, should take place before the comma in the sentence or before the dot at the end of the sentence. c. The indication fig.: * It should be set in brackets and one space should be given after the dot (fig. 3); Scope / Publishing Principles XI * If many figures in sequence are to be indicated, a short hyphen without space between the beginning and last numbers should be placed (fig. 2-4); if these are not in sequence, a dot and space should be given between the numbers (fig. 2. 5). d) In the bibliography and abbreviations, if the author has two family names, a short hyphen without leaving space should be used (Dentzer-Feydy); if the article is written by two or more authors, after each author a space, a long hyphen and again a space should be left before the family name of the next author (Hagel – Tomaschitz). 3. The ‘Bibliography’ and ‘Abbreviations’ should take part at the end of the article. The ‘Abbrevations’ used in the footnotes should be explained in the ‘Bibliography’ part. The bibliography used in the footnotes should take place as abbreviations and the following order within the abbreviations should be kept: Name of writer, year of publishment, page (and if used, number of the illustration). This rule should be applied even if a publishment is used only once. Bibliography (for books): Richter 1977 Richter, G., Greek Art, NewYork. Bibliography (for articles): Corsten 1995 Corsten, Th., “Inschriften aus dem Museum von Denizli”, Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi III, 215-224, pl. LIV-LVII. Footnotes (for books): Richter 1977, 162, fig. 217. Footnotes (for articles): Oppenheim 1973, 9, pl.1. Miscellaneous Abbreviations: op. cit. in the work already cited idem an auther that has just been mentioned ff following pages et al. and others n. footnote see see infra see below supra see above XII Scope / Publishing Principles 4. For all photographies, drawings and maps only the abbreviation ‘fig.’ should be used in continous numbering (remarks such as Plate, Picture, Drawing, Map or any other word or abbreviaton should not be used). 5. Figures, embedded in Word documents can not be used. Figures have to be in the length in which they will be used in the page, being at least 300 pixel/ inch, in photoshop tif or jpeg format. Drawings in adobe illustrator can be sent in this format. Drawings in other vectoral programs can be sent in pdf if they can’t be converted to photoshop. Figures sent in other formats will not be accepted. 6. Figures should be loaded to a CD and a layout of them as PDF should also be undertaken. 7. Photographs, drawings or maps taken from other publications are in the responsibility of the writers; so the sources have to be mentioned. 8. A list of figures should take part at the end of the article. 9. The text should be within the remarked formats not more than 20 pages, the drawing and photograps 10 in number. 10. Papers may be written in Turkish, English or German. Papers written in Turkish must include an abstract of 500 words in Turkish and English or German. It will be appreciated if papers written in English or German would include a summary of 500 words in Turkish and in English or German. The title of the article should be sent in two languages. 11. Six keywords should be remarked, following the abstract in Turkish and English or German. 12. The text in word and pdf formats as well as the figures should be loaded in two different CD’s; furthermore should be sent, twice the printed version of the text and figures. 13. Special fonts should be loaded to the CD. OLBA XXIV, 2016 A GROUP OF CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY DISCOVERED AT ASOPOS TEPESİ Erim KONAKÇI * ABSTRACT Although the material culture of the Early and Late Chalcolithic periods are well defined and illustrated in Western Anatolia, the nature of the 5th millennium B.C. material culture is not clear, probably because of the limited number of excavations. The pottery assemblage unearthed in a thin cultural layer above the main rock in the Laodikeia/Asopos Tepesi belonging to the province of Denizli, provides valuable information on this barely known period. The forms and surface features of this pottery group reveal the existence of a settlement dated to the first half of the 5th millennium B.C. Though local qualities are dominant in the settlement, the traces of the interaction with the Aegean Islands are clearly visible. Keywords: Western Anatolia, 5th Millennium BC, Chalcolithic, Pottery, Laodikeia, Asopos Tepesi. ÖZET Asopos Tepesi’nde Bulunan Bir Grup Kalkolitik Dönem Çanak Çömleği Batı Anadolu’da Erken ve Geç Kalkolitik Dönem tanımlaması ile ele alınan süreçte görülen materyal kültür daha tanımlıyken MÖ. 5. binyıl içerisinde görülen materyal kültürün içeriği özellikle kazı sayısının azlığından dolayı belirgin değildir. Denizli İlinde yer alan Laodikeia/Asopos Tepesi kazılarında ana kayanın hemen üzerinde ince bir kültürel dolgu içerisinde ele geçen tabaka içerisindeki çanak çömlek grubu bu az bilinen dönem hakkında yeni veriler ortaya koymaktadır. Bu tabakada bulunan çanak çömleklerin formları ve yüzey özellikleri MÖ 5. bin yılın 1. yarısına tarihlenen bir yerleşimin varlığını ortaya koymuştur. Yerleşimde yerel nitelikler baskın olmakla birlikte özellikle Ege Adaları ile olan etkileşimin de izleri açık bir biçimde takip edilebilmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Batı Anadolu, MÖ. 5. Binyıl, Kalkolitik, çanak çömlek, Laodikeia, Asopos Tepesi * Yrd. Doç. Dr. Erim Konakçı, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Protohistorya ve Önasya Arkeolojisi Anabilim Dalı, Denizli. E-posta: erimkonakci@hotmail.com 32 Erim Konakçı One may observe that the culture in Western Anatolia, which can be traced uninterruptedly until the end of Early Chalcolithic Age, gives way to a new cultural formation exhibiting different cultural components by the mid-6th millennium B.C. This period, named by some scholars of West Anatolian archaeology as Middle Chalcolithic1, covers the period approximately between 5500-4000 B.C2. The following millennium, known as Late Chalcolithic, is relatively better defined depending on the archaeological excavations. Nevertheless, the cultural process in Anatolia runs smoothly during the transition from Late Neolithic to Chalcolithic, and Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age3. However, the information in hand pertaining to the period dated before Late Chalcolithic and after Early Chalcolithic is rather scarce. Recent research and publications indicate that the mentioned lack of information is based on lack of research. Moreover, the mentioned deficiency of data might also depend on the weak archaeological remains dated to the period, as some scholars suggest4. Indeed, investigations carried out at different locations exhibit diverging material cultures and different lifestyles at different settlements during the mentioned period. The material culture, architecture, lifestyle and also the roots of this new cultural formation, emerging before the 5th millenium BC with the end of Early Chalcolithic in the western half of Anatolia, is still under debate. It has been argued that the discussed culture emerged and fulfilled its development in Inner Northwestern Anatolia by the end of the Early Chalcolithic, and it was even suggested that the culture was conveyed to the Balkans in its earliest stage, when the first cultural characteristics appeared5. According to this approach, the roots of the Vinca culture should be sought in Anatolia. It was also considered that the same cultural properties were shared by a common cultural zone extending from Central Anatolia to the Western Balkans6. Despite the dissimilarities in the approaches, there are a series of similarities in the pottery assemblage of the two regions7. During the mentioned 1 Eslick 1980, 12-13; Efe 1990, 112; Özdoğan 1993, 176; Steadman 1995, 17: fig. 2; Düring 2011, 201; Schoop 2011, 158; Gülçur 2012, 213. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Düring 2011, 128: Table 5.1; 200-230. Schoop 2011, 152. Düring 2011, 200. Efe 2000, 175-176. Özdoğan 1993, 180-181; Steadman 1995, 21, 27; Garašanin 2000, 345-346; Nikolov 1997, 87. Nikolov 1997, 84-87; Steadman 1995, 20-26. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 33 interim period, pottery types including black-slipped fluted crested cups, dishes with thickened rims and flat edges and fluted decoration inside and necked vessels8 are considered as elements of the above-mentioned relationship between the Balkans and Northwest and Central Anatolia. Moreover, it was also discussed that the Anatolian – Balkan interrelation was not merely limited to Northwest or Central Anatolia. It is known from the 5th millennium B.C. settlements at the Troad region9 that this relationship can be traced to İzmir and its vicinity along the East Aegean shore, to the East Aegean islands10, and even to Inner Southwest Anatolia11 through the basins of Gediz12 Great Meander. The mentioned links are established mainly throuh pottery. Indeed, pottery discovered in recent excavations in and around İzmir is important for determining and supporting the cultural features expanding from the Aegean shore to inner regions through river valleys, and also for discovering the relationships within the region. From the 6th millennium B.C. onwards, the settlements in İzmir and its vicinity exhibit dark surfaced (brown and grey), sometimes slipped bowls with out-turned rims, and bowls with thickened in rims, pots with unperforated handles and pottery with spurred handles. Fluted decoration and burnishing are among the features of the pottery13. Some features of this pottery continue during the middle of the 5th millennium B.C. with increasing popularity of crested vessels and basket handles, and the addition of horned handles14. However, it is difficult to assert that both the material culture and the regional relationships of the interim period, which was studied at a few settlements within the region, were fully understood. In comparison to Western Anatolia, this new process is better defined in Eastern Thrace, some regions of Northwest Anatolia and Central Anatolia. However, information regarding the period can also be obtained from settlements such as in Western Anatolia: Kumtepe, Beşik-Sivritepe, Gülpınar and Alacalıgöl located in the southern part of the Marmara Sea. In the coastal Aegean region: Ulucak, Ege Gübre, Yeşilova and Kulaksızlar. In the islands: Emporio, Tigani and Ayio Gala Upper Cave. In the lower Meander 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Özdoğan 1993, 180. Takaoğlu 2006, 295-302. Caymaz 2010, 227; Schoop 2011, 159. Düring 2011, 220. Takaoğlu 2005, 19-20. Caymaz 2010, 223-228. Caymaz 2010, 241. 34 Erim Konakçı valley: Çine-Tepecik (fig. 1)15. Although several studies were conducted on the Aegean shore and the Inner Aegean region about the structure of the settlement patterns being followed after the Early Chalcolithic period, the types of settlements and upon which type of pottery remains this process should be defined, together with the relationships within the region, still remain as obscure areas with only partial information16. The data in hand about the Chalcolithic period in the Upper Meander Basin, which was directly or indirectly related to the above named settlements and regions, also remain limited because of the scarcity of the excavations. The earliest information about the issue comes from the field surveys conducted by J. Mellaart in the years 1951-195217. The earliest stratigraphical data concerning the features of the Chalcolithic culture of the region were presented by S. Lloyd and J. Mellaart between1954 and 1959, and later in 2008 by E. Abay, who re-initiated the excavations at Beycesultan18. Another settlement where the Upper Meander Basin Chalcolithic period can be defined over archaeological layers is Pekmeztepe19, which was excavated within the Aphrodisias excavations directed by K.T. Erim. Along with Beycesultan and Aphrodisias, in relation to the Upper Meander Basin, important data about the characteristics of the cultural process experienced during the 4th millennium B.C. was obtained from the Kuruçay and Bademağacı settlements in the Lake District. The last contribution about the Chalcolithic process is the field surveys conducted by E. Abay and F. Dedeoğlu, illuminating the Chalcolithic period settlements in terms of their location, settlement plan, intensity and the pottery produced20. The earliest discussions concerning the Chalcolithic period in the Upper Meander Basin were started by J. Mellaart, who excavated Beycesultan and Hacılar, and were based on the findings from these two sites. J. Mellaart has associated the settlement layers and dark surfaced pottery with the newcomers from the north21. According to this suggestion, Beycesultan 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 See Schoop 2005: 1 ff. for Chalcolithic period settlements in Anatolia and their chronology. Akdeniz 2002, 59 ff. Mellaart 1954, 175 ff. Lloyd – Melaart 1962, 17 ff., Dedeoğlu – Abay 2014, 1 ff. Joukowsky 1986, 57, 349 ff Dedeoğlu 2014, 33 ff. Lloyd – Mellaart 1962, 71, 106. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 35 Late Chalcolithic pottery and Hacılar Early Chalcolithic paint-decorated pottery together uninterruptedly reflect the Chalcolithic period in the region. Recent surveys at the region provide results supporting J. Mellaart’s view that at least Early Chalcolithic culture in the Upper Meander Basin were similar to and coincided with Hacılar. The field surveys at Çivril, Çal and Baklan plains22, paint-decorated pottery discovered at Akkaya Höyük in Tripolis23 and monochrome and paint-decorated pottery discovered at Laodikeia24, indicate that the basin was within the range of Lake District Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic culture, represented by the pottery group known as “Hacılar style Painted Ware”25. From this viewpoint, the earlier phases of the Chalcolithic at the Upper Meander Basin are better defined as with many other parts of Anatolia. On the other hand, as many other researchers assert, the Chalcolithic layers at Beycesultan are dated to the end of the period, to the Late Chalcolithic26. Both the pottery of these layers and the corrected radiocarbon dating results point to the end of the era. Indeed, the view that Beycesultan Chalcolithic Age layers and pottery should be dated to the Late Chalcolithic was discussed by C. Eslick and it was asserted that an interim period existed between the Beycesultan – Hacılar series27. C. Eslick, unlike J. Mellaart, after studying material from the Elmalı Plain28, suggests that the period between Hacılar Early Chalcolithic culture and Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic culture can be completed with the material discovered at Kızılbel and Bağbaşı29. Eslick discusses that the material discovered at Kızılbel and Bağbaşı resembles especially the Aegean island settlements and should be defined within the Middle Chalcolithic period30. As discussed above, the period between the Early and Late Chalcolithic periods marking the transformation during the 5th millennium B.C. in Southwest Anatolia, where Upper Meander Basin is located, could not be 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Abay – Dedeoğlu 2005, 41 ff., Abay – Dedeoğlu 2007, 277 ff., Dedeoğlu 2010, 97 ff., Abay 2011, 1 ff., Dedeoğlu – Konakçı – Çarkı 2014, 367 ff. Konakçı 2016, in print. Şimşek 2014, 37, 39, Pic. 8, Oğuzhanoğlu 2014, 74, Pic. 3. Dedeoğlu 2014, 33 ff. Düring 2011, 223-226. Eslick 1980, 7. Eslick 1980, 7 ff. Eslick 1978, 138. Eslick 1980, 10 ff., Eslick 1992, 83. 36 Erim Konakçı fully defined. However, this interim period was better defined in the regions which are directly or indirectly in relation with the Upper Menderes Basin. Actually, pottery and architectural elements dated to the period after 5500 B.C. were discovered at Aşağı Pınar in Thrace, Gülpınar, Kumtepe Ia, Beşik Sivri Tepe and Ilıpınar, Aktopraklık and Toptepe in Troad Region; Kanlıtaş and Orman Fidanlığı in Eskişehir and its vicinity; Can Hasan in Central Anatolia, Tigani and Emporio in East Aegean islands; Ulucak, Ege Gübre and Yeşilova Höyük on the Aegean shore31. Thus, these settlements indirectly prove why this period is not satisfactorily known in the Upper Meander Basin: lack of proper research. Recent surveys and excavations in the Upper Meander Basin provide results that support this condition. The data from Asopos Tepesi enables at least evaluations on the first half of the 5th millennium B.C. culture in the Upper Meander Basin. Asopos Tepesi Asopos Tepesi, located 6 km northeast of Denizli province within the border of the former Eskihisar, Bozburun and Goncalı villages, is a bi-conical mound settlement32. The excavations at the mound are being carried out since 2007 within the Laodikeia Ancient City excavations. The excavations indicate that the settlement process in the mound begins during the Chalcolithic period and ends by the Late Roman Period. It is sure that some geographical considerations were effective in choosing Asopos Tepesi as a place of settlement since the Chalcolithic period (fig. 2). On the close west of the settlement runs Gümüşçay, and on the north runs Çürüksu, one of the large tributaries of the Greater Meander River, both suggesting that the water sources were important reasons for choosing the location of the settlement. Moreover, it is known, thanks to Roman Imperial Period epigraphs, that to the northwest of the settlement there was a now dry lake where fishing was possible33. Considering that a commanding hilltop surrounded by the named water sources was chosen Takaoğlu 2006, 289 ff; Caymaz 2010, 223-269; Derin 2012, 178, Caymaz 2013, 44, Sağlamtimur – Ozan 2012, 101, Düring 2011, 201 ff; Gabriel 2014, 991-993, 994-1005. 32 For Laodikeia Asopos Tepesi excavations see Şimşek – Konakçı 2013, 1 ff., Konakçı 2014, 87 ff. 33 The lake is mentioned in an epigraph that belongs to Emperor Hadrianus (117-138 A.D.) which was unearthed at Hierapolis excavations in 2003. Moreover the location and borders of the lake were determined using satellite images. Scardozzi 2007, 86, Fig. 18, 19. 31 A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 37 as the habitation zone, it might be asserted that sheltering places were also preferred for settlement. Another important factor for the existence and development of the settlement must be the geographical position of the Lykos valley, where Asopos Tepesi is located. The Lykos valley is at the crossroad of the natural passages connecting Central Anatolia, the Mediterranean and Western Anatolia to each other34. As a matter of fact, the obsidians discovered at the Chalcolithic layer originate from both the Melos Island and Göllüdağ in Central Anatolia, and prove that the mentioned roads were in use during the mentioned period35. The excavations at Asopos Tepesi continued at three trenches opened over two cones, adding up to an area of 750m2 36. As a result of the excavations, it was determined that the settlement process at the mound started by the Chalcolithic period, and continued during the Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, Hellenistic Period, Early Roman Period and Late Roman Period. Another settlement area within Laodikeia with prehistoric layers is the Prehistoric Western Necropolis. The excavations at the site approximately 1 km away from Asopos Tepesi in a beeline, pithos graves dated to EBA II and houses dated to EBA III37 were unearthed. Moreover, two fragments of paint decorated Early Chalcolithic pottery were discovered inside a mixed context. The Chalcolithic Period representing the earliest settlement process at Asopos Tepesi was discovered on both cones of the settlement. The Chalcolithic period, classified into A and B layers, is represented by weak contexts. The Chalcolithic pottery discovered at G3-G4 trenches at Asopos Tepesi I came from either mixed context or from limited earth fill. The contexts regarding the earliest settlement process over the bare main rock were reached in 2008 and 2013. A Late Chalcolithic Period compressed earth floor with a preserved dimension of 0.50 x 0.76 m, and scattered sets of stones were unearthed on this cone. The pottery investigated 34 Johnson 1950, 4; Demirkent 2002, map 1-4. Şimşek – Konakçı – Pernicka 2014, 123 ff. 36 The trenches at both cones covered the squares G3-G4, D3-D4 and C-D 2, C-D 3, C-D 4. 37 Oğuzhanoğlu 2014, 71 ff. 35 38 Erim Konakçı within the scope of this study laid over the main rock (Layer VIIb) inside a 40 cm thick fill (fig 3). No architectural elements but unplanned sets of stones were observed in this area. Moreover, an architecturally unorganised deposit and pottery contemporary with VIIb layer were discovered at Asopos Tepesi II. Although the scarce group of stones suggest a kind of wattle-and-daub architectural understanding, lack of proof hinders detailed commentary on the architectural texture and building techniques. A bone fragment discovered immediately above the main rock was analysed using C14, yet a date could not be provided as the sample did not have sufficient collagen. Stone tools such as sickle blades discovered at the Chalcolithic layer suggest that agriculture played a major role in the subsistence economy of the settlement. The present day dry lake in the vicinity of the settlement and streams including Asopos and Lykos make one think that fishing should also be a part of the subsistence economy. It is not possible to make extended inferences about the Chalcolithic period identity of the settlement, for only a limited area was excavated. The thickness of the archaeological layers and limited architectural remains might also point to a seasonal settlement. Chalcolithic Age Pottery The most characteristic feature of the handmade pottery unearthed over the main rock at Asopos Tepesi excavations is the intensity of coarse wares. The forms discovered at the settlement do not have a vast variety. All the samples discovered at this layer are coarse vessels, generally with large and medium sized grit in their paste. The paste also includes a large amount of mica and sand, and poor straw and limestone. The paste is generally in the shades of brown and red. Although there are well-fired samples, most of the pottery was low or middle fired. Although there are burnished samples, unburnished samples are in larger numbers. Self-slip is prevalent on the outer surface. Most of the washed samples have a thick slip. The pottery discovered at the settlement may be grouped under Black Burnished Wares, Grey wares, Coarse wares and Brown wares (fig. 14). A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 39 1) Black Burnished Wares: This group represents 11% of the pottery. Most of the pottery is thickly coated and the surfaces are either black or very dark. The paste generally contains a small amount of fine, sometimes middle sized sand, mica and straw. Although the surface is burnished, it is not very shiny. The items are generally well-fired. 2) Grey Ware Group: Grey wares represent 3% of the pottery. Most of the pottery is thickly coated and outer surfaces are either grey or dark grey. The paste contains a small amount of fine grit and sand, and the outer surfaces are generally burnished. 3) Coarse Ware Group: This group of wares represent the largest group encountered with a rate of 44%. The outer surfaces are black, brown, grey or different shades of these colours. Their most important feature is the large amount of coarse grit, mica and straw used in the coarse paste. This group of wares received particular attention due to their very coarse paste and surface. Only some samples are burnished and slipped. They are moderately or badly fired. The outer surfaces of some samples are mottled. 4) Brown Ware Group: This group of wares represent the second largest group of wares discovered with a rate of 42%. Their outer surfaces are in different shades of brown. These shades include pale brown, reddish brown and yellowish brown. Thick slip and self-slip applications are very common in this group of wares. Most of the pottery includes a high amount of grit, sand and mica. A small number of samples have limestone. Burnished surfaces are rare. This group of wares are generally moderately fired. Forms 1-) Bowls The bowls have similar forms. The bowls with hemispherical bodies and simple rims are the most common type of the bowls in this level (fig. 4: 8-16, fig. 5). The mouth diameters of these bowls range from 12 to 34 cm. Among the mentioned pottery there are black, well-fired, thick slipped and burnished samples. Although most of the bowls do not have attachments, some have vertical handles that run from the rim or slightly below the rim to the body (fig. 5: 6-7) and triangular spur shaped lugs starting above the rim (fig 5: 1-4, fig. 4: 15). On two of these handles there are two holes that 40 Erim Konakçı resemble two eyes (fig. 5: 2, 4). Although most of the bowls in this group do not have handles, they characteristically have unperforated lugs on the rim or slightly below the rim (fig. 5: 8-12). Such lugs are also observed on jars (fig. 7). The bowls are generally black, brown or grey and moderately or well fired. They generally have a thick slip and are burnished. Another widespread bowl form observed at the settlement is the conical bowls, which have either simple or flat rims. The mouth diameters of these bowls range from 14 cm to 46 cm (fig. 4: 1-8). There is no ornamentation or application on the bowls. Some samples are burnished. There are unburnished self-slipped samples within this group of wares. While the paste of conical bowls have limited or few added material, the wares are generally well fired. The pottery studied within this group does not have lugs except one sample (fig. 4: 4). 2-) Jars The most common pot form encountered at the VIIb layer of the settlement is simple rimmed jars with ascending vertical or incurving mouths (fig.7-9). Most of the jars are brown and undecorated. Some of the pots studied under this category have vertical handles (fig. 9: 2-3). Simple rimmed short necked jars are another form encountered at the settlement (fig. 6). The mouths are either vertical or incurving. These quite small vessels have mouth diameters ranging from 12 to 16 cm. There is a decorative burnishing including three juxtaposed vertical bands that start from the rim and continue down the neck on one of the samples (fig. 6: 3). A large number of the jars studied within this group of wares are brown and coarse ones. Another widely encountered jar type is the simple rimmed jars, some of which have vertical bodies while others have incurving or slanting bodies that have unperforated lugs (fig. 7). Lugs are the distinctive feature of the mentioned pots. Although lugs are placed just below the rim, it was placed over the rim on one sample (fig. 7: 4). The mouth diameter of these jars range from 25 to 40 cm. No traces of burnishing were encountered over these jars except for a few samples. The mentioned group comprises many samples in relation with the coarse wares group. Since large grit was used, there are bulges and dimples on the surface. The external surface is generally brown, pale brown and greyish brown. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 41 Bases: All of the bases discovered at the settlement are flat. Some samples have slightly raised bases (fig 10-11). Handles: It is possible to assert that a strong tradition of lugs exist at Asopos Tepesi VIIb pottery. Especially unperforated lugs placed right below the rim are very prevalent (fig. 5: 8-12, fig. 7, fig 13: 7-10). The triangular face-shaped lugs on the bowls (fig 5: 2, 4) and horn-shaped lugs (fig 12: 1) are also significant. Alongside the mentioned lugs there are also samples of vertical and horizontal handles (fig. 5: 6-7, fig 9: 2-3, Fig 9: 5-7, fig 13: 1-6). Another type of handle discovered at the settlement is the spurred handle. Except a sample on a simple rim bowl, all the spur handles were discovered as fragments. All of the mentioned spurred handles are black and burnished (fig. 4: 15, fig 12: 2, 3, 6). Decorations It is not possible to assert that a common understanding of decoration exists in the Chalcolithic pottery of Asopos Tepesi VIIb layer. The small number of decorations on decorated pottery can be classified under two main groups: decorative burnishing and applications. 1) Decorative Burnishing: There are two samples in this group. Both samples are black slipped. Since the discovered fragments are small, it has not been possible to define the decoration patterns in detail ( fig 12: 12). On a necked bowl, where decorative burnishing could be best followed, a decoration comprising three juxtaposed narrow bands running from the rim to the neck was observed (fig 6: 3). 2) Knobs and Applications: It is possible to assert that the most frequent decoration style observed at Asopos Tepesi is knobs and applications. Moreover, it is considered that some types of handles were used not only functionally but decoratively, as well (fig. 5: 2, 4, 8-12, fig. 12: 1-4). A single knob on pottery (fig 8: 4, fig 13: 11.) especially on the handles was very popular (fig. 12: 5, 7, fig. 13: 1, 3). Comparison and Evaluation The excavated Chalcolithic layers in Western Anatolia are usually dated to the Early or Late Chalcolithic periods. However, recent excavations and surveys provide new findings for a better understanding, evaluating the 42 Erim Konakçı period at least within the context of its material culture. In this context, the Chalcolithic pottery of Asopos Tepesi has presented novel data concerning on what sort and type of material this process should be studied at the Upper Meander Basin during the first half of the 5th millennium BC. The Chalcolithic culture, which we have discussed over Asapos Hill pottery of the Upper Meander Basin, generally reflects the features of the settlements in Western Anatolia during the 5th millennium BC, yet local types mark a significant feature of this group of findings. As a matter of fact, Asopos Tepesi pottery shows that the region has established relationships with a vast geography over particular vessel forms during the 5th millennium BC. However, local features are dominant on particular pottery applications, while particular forms are dispersed over a wide chronological time zone. The best example for the mentioned pottery is the widely encountered flat bowls. These vessels have a simple outturned rim and its parallels might be observed at settlements from the 5th millennium to the 4th millennium BC. The local features are foregrounded with an abundance of coarse wares among Asopos Tepesi pottery. A very large portion of the pottery discovered at the settlement was coarse and unburnished, showing that the pottery tradition of the region differs from the burnished and thinwalled pottery production understanding of settlements such as Gülpınar38 Ulucak39 and Çine Tepecik40. The lack of high-handled crested bowls, cheese-pots, basket or horned handles observed at the inventory of the settlements dated to the 5th millennium BC at Asopos Tepesi strengthens these dissimilarities. It should not be disregarded that this situation might be the equivalent of the subsistence economy of the Upper Meander Basin in the material culture. Despite all these differences, various examples of horn handles frequently encountered at Thracian and Marmara settlements and the Aegean islands, including examples with pointed tips, were discovered at Asopos Tepesi. Similar horn handles pertaining to the mentioned period were unearthed at Gökçeada Uğurlu41, Kumtepe (Ia)42, 38 Takaoğlu 2007, 345, Takaoğlu – Özdemir 2013, 19. Çilingiroğlu – Derin – et al. 2004: 19, Caymaz 2013, 48. 40 Günel 2007, 234, 235; Günel 2008, 78, Çayır-Büyükulusoy 2010, 110. 41 Erdoğu 2014, 175, Fig. 19: 2, Fig. 20: 5. 42 Sperling 1976, 318, Fig. 8: 114. 39 A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 43 Ilıpınar (VB)43, Yarımburgaz O44, Gülpınar45, Orman Fidanlığı46, Ulucak47, Ege Gübre48, Emporio X-VIII49, Tigani I-II50, Ayio Gala Yukarı Mağara51, and Çine Tepecik52. Different variations of the decoratively burnished ware represented at Asopos Tepesi with a few examples were known to exist at Gülpınar53, Kumtepe54, Ulucak55, Tigani56, and Çine Tepecik Höyük57. Two decoratively burnished samples discovered at the settlement might be accepted as a reflection of the decorative burnishing tradition we are acquainted with from Northwestern Anatolia and the Aegean58. This decorative understanding of the Early Chalcolithic Period weakens during the Late Chalcolithic Period. Examples exactly corresponding to the burnished decoration motifs applied at Asopos Tepesi were unearthed at settlements including Ulucak, Kumtepe, Çine Tepecik, and Aşağı Pınar II59. Although this tradition was known at Asopos Tepesi, the number of samples at the settlement is very few. There are close similarities among the forms discovered at Asopos Tepesi and those discovered at Kızılbel and Aşağı Bağbaşı settlements. Especially close parallels of bowls with ascending incurving mouths and handles with knobs were discovered at Kızılbel and Aşağı Bağbaşı60, settlements considered as of the Middle Chalcolithic period. Parallels of the 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Van As - Jacobs – et al. 2001, 168, Fig. 7: 11. Özdoğan – Miyake – et al. 1991: 109, Fig. 13, 8. Takaoğlu 2006, 295, Pic. 6: 13, 14; Takaoğlu – Özdemir 2013, 19. Efe 1999, 86, Fig. 13; Efe 2001, Fig. 20, 301. Caymaz 2013, 46. Caymaz 2013, 46. Hood 1981, Fig. 135. Felsch 1988, Taf. 15: 4, 5,Taf. 52: 43, Taf. 78: F 75. Hood 1981, Fig. 13:2, Fig. 24: 140, Fig. 40, 250. Günel 2008: 78, 89, Res. 6, Çayır-Büyükulusoy 2010, Plt. 43a. Takaoğlu – Özdemir 2013, 20. Korfmann 1996, 50 ff., Sperling 1976, 305 ff. Caymaz 2013, 46. Felsch 1988, Taf. 57-60, 62, 65-68, 71, 78, 80. Günel 2007, 234, 235, Günel 2008, 78, Çayır-Büyükulusoy 2010, 110. Eslick 1992, 86. Çayır-Büyükulusoy 2010, Table 3, Çayır-Büyükulusoy 2014: 81 ff. Eslick 1980, 9-10. 44 Erim Konakçı knob decoration on the handle were also observed at Kulaksızlar settlement, and this group of findings is considered as a reflection of the interaction between the Aegean islands and Anatolia61. The small handles that run from the rim to the body were known from Tigani I and II62. Parallels of lugs on the rim were also encountered at Tigani I63 and Emporio X-VIII64. The handles applied on the lugs that rise on the rim was a tradition known from Tigani65. The Chalcolithic pottery discovered at Asopos Tepesi VIIb layer show significant similarities mostly with settlements in Southwest Anatolia such as Kızılbel and Bağbaşı, and also with the East Aegean islands. The connections with the Aegean islands were probably established through the natural route of the Great Meander valley. All these features observed within Asopos Tepesi pottery indicate that the settlement should be dated to the first half of the 5th millennium BC, yet the limited archaeological context prevents one reaching proper results (fig. 15). The above comparisons and evaluations over Asopos Tepesi pottery indicate that the settlement in the Upper Meander Basin had both direct and indirect relationships with several regions and similar changes and transformations were undergone through the same process. Within the basin, the paint decorated pottery tradition of the Early Chalcolithic period replaced by to the dark surfaced and sometimes burnished pottery tradition like many other places in Anatolia and the Balkans. As a matter of fact, the general characteristics of the pottery at the settlement are parallel to the dark surfaced and burnished pottery tradition observed at settlements in the western half of Anatolia during 5500 BC. Whether these developments are accounted for by a wave of migration or cultural interaction, they are clear indicators that the Upper Meander Basin was influenced by the developments in the western half of Anatolia. The similarities of Asopos Tepesi pottery with the East Aegean islands indicate that the Upper Meander Basin was related to a cultural region that expanded to the Aegean islands. The existence of some of the pottery features of the settlement at Kızılbel 61 Takaoğlu 2004, 2, 4, Fig. 2: 1-3. Felsch 1988, Taf. 78. 63 Felsch 1988, Taf. 52: 42, Taf. 58: 164, Taf. 79, 3 h, 3i, 4a-c. 64 Hood 1981, 281, Fig. 135: 331, 332, 334. 65 Felsch 1988, Taf. 81: up9. 62 A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi 45 and Bağbaşı settlements indicate, as above mentioned, that the valley facilitated the passage of cultural features of the Aegean islands to inner regions. The similarities with the Troad region indicate that the Balkan influence emerging at the western half of Anatolia during 5500 BC has spread through the Aegean shore, reaching inner regions via the Upper Meander Basin. However, there is some data suggesting the only influence at the Upper Meander Basin during 5500-4000 BC did not come from the East Aegean islands or the Balkans, but the region was connected to Central Anatolia as well. Indeed, it is also asserted that the settlements at DenizliÇal such as Killikin cave and Ekşi Höyük were settled right after the Early Chalcolithic by 5500 BC. The similarities between some sherds of pottery discovered on the surface at these settlements and pottery from settlements in Central Anatolia dated to 5500 BC indicate that some relationships existed between the two regions. However, it should be stressed once more that this inference remains an estimation based on only a few sherds of pottery. It might be said that the change observed at the Upper Meander Basin was not limited only to pottery, but also influenced the choices about the location of settlements. As a matter of fact, Asopos Tepesi, though peopled towards the late centuries of the period, proves that safeguarded places were preferred. It might be considered that during the Early Chalcolithic, as known from settlements like Akkaya Höyük and Karakurt, settlements near water sources like lakes and streams and the settlements inside valleys were replaced with settlements at safeguarded places. Perhaps it would be possible to associate these location preferences with societies that have different means of support. To conclude, it was understood that corresponding samples to the pottery of Asopos Tepesi settlers, whom we considered as a continuation of communities that replaced the Early Chalcolithic culture of the region represented by “Hacılar style Painted Ware,” expanded over a vast geography. These similarities observed in pottery production have expanded to the Troad region and Northwestern Anatolia on one hand, while on the other it has similarities with the Aegean islands. There is also limited information that the region might also be connected to Central Anatolia during the period. These relationships defined over pottery indicate that the Upper Meander Basin during 5500-4000 BC should be considered as the meeting point of different cultures. 46 Erim Konakçı Bibliograpghy and Abbreviations Abay 2011 Abay - Dedeoğlu 2005 Abay - Dedeoğlu 2007 Akdeniz 2002 Caymaz 2010 Caymaz 2013 Abay, E., “Preliminary Report on the Survey of Çivril, Baklan, Çal Plains in the Upper Meander Basin, Southwest Anatolia”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 48, 1-87. Abay, E., - Dedeoğlu F., “2003 Yılı Denizli/Çivril Ovası Yüzey Araştırması”, AST 22/2, 41-51. Abay, E. – F. Dedeoğlu, “2005 Yılı Çivril Ovası Yüzey Araştırması”, AST 24/1, 277-293. Akdeniz, E, “Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Çağlarda Büyük Menderes Havzasındaki Kültürel Yapılanma ve Orta Kalkolitik Çağ Problemi”, Olba 5, 59-75. Caymaz, T., Yeni Buluntuların Işığında Orta Batı Anadolu Kalkolitik Dönem Kültürü (Unpublished Phd Thesis), İzmir. Caymaz, T., “Yeni Veriler Işığında Orta Batı Anadolu Kalkolitik Çağı Kültürü”, Arkeoloji Dergisi XVIII, 39-122. Çayır-Büyükulusoy 2010 Çayır-Büyükulusoy, Ü., Batı Anadolu Bölgesi’ndeki Kalkolitik Çağ Bezemeli Seramik Geleneği (Unpublished Phd Thesis), Ankara. Çayır-Böyükulusoy 2014 Çayır-Büyükulusoy, Ü., “Batı Anadolu Kalkolitik Çağ Seramiğinde Perdah Bezeme Tekniği”, Armizzi-Engin Özgen’e Armağan (ed. E. Atilla – B. Helwing – B. Uysal), 81-100. Çilingiroğlu – Derin – et al. 2004 Çilingiroğlu, A. – Z. Derin – E. Abay – H. Sağlamtimur – İ. Kayan, Ulucak Höyük, Excavations Conducted Between 1995-2002, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 15, Peeters. Dedeoğlu 2010 Dedeoğlu 2014 Dedeoğlu – Abay 2014 Dedeoğlu, F., Neolitik Çağdan Erken Tunç Çağ Sonuna Kadar Yukarı Menderes Havzası, Kültürel, Ekonomik, Sosyal Süreç (Unpublished Phd Thesis), İzmir. Dedeoğlu, F., “Yukarı Menderes Havzası Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çağ Yerleşimlerinin Materyal Kültür ve İskân Düzeni Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 18, 33-56. Dedeoğlu, F. – E. Abay, “Beycesultan Höyük Excavation Project: New Archaeological Evidence from Late Bronze Age Layers, Arkeoloji Dergisi XVII, 1-39. Dedeoğlu – Konakçı – et al. 2014 Dedeoğlu, F. – E. Konakçı – M. Çarkı, “Yukarı Menderes Havzası Dağlık Kesim Yüzey Araştırması Projesi 2012 Yılı Çalışmaları”, KST 31/2, 367-376. Demirkent 2002 Demirkent, I, “XII. Yüzyılda Bizans’ın Ege Bölgesinden Güneye İnen Yolları Hakkında”, Anadolu’da Tarihi Yollar ve Şehirler Semineri, Globus Dünya Basımevi, İstanbul, 1-13. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Derin 2012 Düring 2011 Efe 1990 Efe 1999 Efe 2000 Efe 2001 Erdoğu 2014 Eslick 1978 Eslick 1980 Eslick 1992 Felsch 1988 Gabriel 2014 Garašanin 1997 Gülçur 2012 Günel 2007 Günel 2008 47 Derin, Z, “Yeşilova Höyük”, The Neolithic In Turkey, Vol 4 (ed. M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm) İstanbul, 177-195. Düring, B.S., The Prehistory of Asia Minor, from Complex HunterGatherers to Early Urban Societies, Cambridge University Press. Efe, T., “An lnland Anatolian Site with Pre-Vinça Elements: Orman Fidanlığı, Eskişehir”, Germania 86, 67-113. Efe, T., “Orman Fidanlığı Kurtarma Kazısı: 1992-1994 Yılları Arasında Yapılan Çalışmalara Ait Ön Rapor”, Anadolu Araştırmaları XV, 73-104. Efe, T., “Recent Investigation in Inland Northwestern Anatolia and Its Contribution to Early Balkan-Anatolian Connections”, Karanovo Band III, Beitrage Zum Neolithikum in Sudosteeuropa (ed. S. Hiller – V. Nikolov), Wien, 171-183. Efe, T., Salvage Excavations at Orman Fidanlığı. A Chalcolithic Site in Inland Northwestern Anatolia, Task Vakfı, İstanbul. Erdoğu, B., “Gökçeada Uğurlu Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report from the 2011-2013 Field Seasons”, Anatolica XL, 157-178. Eslick, C., The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Elmalı Plain, South-Western Turkey, Bryn Mawr. Eslick, C., “Middle Chalcolithic Pottery from Southwest Anatolia”, AJA 84, 5-14. Eslick, C., Elmalı-Karataş I, The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods: Bağbaşı and Other Sites, Bryn Mawr. Felsch R., Das Kastro Tigani: Die Spätneolitische und Chalcolitische Siedlung, Deutches Archäologisches Institut. Samos Band II, Mainz. U. Gabriel, Die Keramik der Troadischen Fundorte Kumtepe A, Beşik-Sivritepe und Çıplak Köyü im Kontext ihrer überregionalen Vergleichsfunde, in: Troia 1988–2008. Grabungen und Forschungen 1. Forschungsgeschichte, Methoden und Landschaft (ed. Pernicka, E. – C. B. Rose – P. Jablonka), Studia Troica Monographien 5, Darmstadt, 990–1057. Garašanin, M., “Zum Begriff des Balkanisch-Anatolischen Komplexes des Spaten Neolithikums”, Karanovo Band III, Beitrage Zum Neolithikum in Sudosteeuropa (ed. S. Hiller – V. Nikolov), Wien 2000, 343-347. Gülçur, S, “The Chalcolithic Period in Central Anatolia AksarayNiğde Region”, ORIGINI XXIV, Nuova Serie V, 213-227. Günel, S., “Çine-Tepecik Höyüğü 2005 Yılı Kazıları”, KST 28/1, 231-247. Günel, S., “Çine-Tepecik Höyük 2006 Yılı Kazıları”, KST 29/1, 73-90. 48 Hood 1981 Johnson 1950 Joukowsky 1986 Konakçı 2014 Konakçı 2016 Korfmann 1996 Erim Konakçı Hood, S., Excavations at Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 15, British School at Athens Thames and Hudson. Johnson, S. E., “Laodiceia and Its Neighbors”, The Biblical Arcaeologist 13, no 1, 1-18. Joukowsky, M. S., Prehistoric Aphrodisias, An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies. Vol I-II, Excavations and Studies, New Jersey, USA. Konakçı, E., “Laodikeia’nın İlk Yerleşimi: Asopos Tepesi”, 10. Yılında Laodikeia (ed. C. Şimşek), İstanbul, 87-123. Konakçı, E., “Tripolis’te iki Prehistorik Yerleşim Akkaya ve Hamambükü Höyük”, Tripolis Çalışmaları I (ed. B. Duman), in Press. Korfmann, M., “Troia, Ausgrabungen 1995”, Studia Troica 6, 1-63. Lloyd – Mellaart 1962 Lloyd, S. – J. Mellaart, Beycesultan Vol I, The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels, Ankara. Mellaart 1954 Nikolov 1997 Oğuzhanoğlu 2014 Özdoğan 1993 Mellaart, J., Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-classical Remains in Southern Turkey”, Anatolian Studies IV, 175-240. Nikolov, V. “The Circumpontic Cultural Zone During the 6th Millennium BC”, Documenta Praehistorica XXV, 81-89. Oğuzhanoğlu U., “Laodikeia’dan Batı Anadolu Erken Tunç Çağı’na Yeni Katkılar”, 10. Yılında Laodikeia (ed. C. Şimşek), 71-87. Özdoğan, M., “Vinça and Anatolia: A New Look at a Very Old Problem (or redefining Vinça Culture from the perspective of Near Eastern tradition)”, Anatolica 19, 173-193. Özdoğan – Miyake – et al. 1991 Özdoğan, M. – Y. Miyake – N. D. Özbaşaran, “An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace”, Anatolica XVII, 59-121. Sağlamtimur – Ozan 2012 Sağlamtimur, H. – A. Ozan, “Ege Gübre Neolitik Yerleşimi”, Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Kazıları (ed: A. Çilingiroğlu – Z. Mercangöz – G. Polat), İzmir. Scardozzi 2007 Schoop 2005 Scardozzi, G., “Ricerche Topografiche e Telerilevamento”, Hierapolis di Frigia, Le Attivita Delle Campagne Di Scavo e Restauro 2000-2003, ed: F D’Andria-M. Piera Caggia, 67-86. Schoop, U. D., Das Anatolische Chalkolithikum: eine chronologische Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kultursequenz im nordlichen Zentralanatolien und den angrenzenden Gebiten Urgeschichtliche Studien 1. Remshalden. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Schoop 2011 Sperling 1976 Steadman 1995 49 Schoop, U. D., “The Chalcolithic on the Plateau”, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000-323 BCE), Sharon R. Steadman – Gregory McMahon (Ed.), Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 150-173. Sperling, J., “Kumtepe in the Troad: Trial Excavations, 1934”, Hesperia 45/4, 305-364. Steadman, S. R., “Prehistoric interregional interaction in Anatolia and the Balkans: An overview”, Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Studies 299/300, 13-32. Şimşek – Konakçı 2013 Şimşek C. – E. Konakçı, “Güneybatı Anadolu’da Yeni Bir Prehistorik Yerleşim: Asopos Tepesi (A New Prehistoric Settlement in Southwestern Anatolia: The Asopos Tepesi), Arkeoloji Dergisi XVIII, 1-37. Şimşek – Konakçı - Pernicka 2014 Şimşek, C. – E. Konakçı – E. Pernicka, “Analyses of Origin for the Obsidian found at Asopos Hill, Laodicea (Laodikeia Asopos Tepesinde Bulunan Obsidyenlerin Köken Analizleri), 10. Yılında Laodikeia (2003-2013), Laodikeia Çalışmaları 3, Ed. C. Şimşek, Ege Yayınları, 123-145. Takaoğlu 2004 Takaoğlu 2005 Takaoğlu 2006 Takaoğlu 2007 Takaoğlu, T., “Interactions in the Fifth Millenium B.C. Eastern Aegean: New Evidence, Anatolia Antiqua 12, 1-6. Takaoğlu T., A Chalcolithic Marble Workshop At Kulaksızlar In Western Anatolia: An Analysis Of Production And Craft Specialization, British Archaeological Reports- International Series No. 1358, Oxford: Arcaeopress. Takaoğlu, T., “The Neolithic in the Eastern Aegean: Excavations at Gülpınar in the Troad”, Hesperia 75, 289-315. Takaoğlu, T, “Pattern Burnished Pottery from Gülpınar in the Troad”, Patonvs, Coşkun Özgünel’e 65. Yaş Armağanı, Festchrift für Çoşkun Özgünel, zum 65. Geburstag, Ed. E. Öztepe – M. Kadıoğlu – B. Avunç, Homer Kitabevi, İstanbul, 345-350. Takaoğlu – Özdemir 2013 Takaoğlu, T. – A. Özdemir, Smitheion, Apollon Smintheus’un İzinde, ed: Ç. Özgünel, “Smintheion Öncesi: Prehistorik Yerleşim”, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul, 15-29. van As – Jacobs et al. 2001 Van, As A. – L. Jacobs – M H. Wijnen, The Ilıpınar Excavations II, “Technological Study of the Chalcolithic Pottery of Ilıpınar Phase VB, The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Ed: J.J. Roodenberg-L. C. Thissen. Nedherland Instituut vor Het Nabue Oosten, 155-168. 50 Erim Konakçı CATALOGUE Fig. 4:1 Fig. 4:2 Fig. 4:3 Fig. 4:4 Fig. 4:5 Fig. 4:6 Fig. 4:7 Fig. 4:8 Fig. 4:9 Fig. 4:10 Fig. 4:11 Fig. 4:12 Fig. 4:13 Fig. 4:14 Fig. 4:15 Fig. 4:16 Fig. 5:1 Fig. 5:2 Rim fragment of bowl, light brown clay color with grit, mica and sand inclusion, black burnished ware group. D. at Rim 29, Pres. H. 4.4 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, gray-black clay with sand and mica inclusion, black burnished ware group. D. at Rim 33.4, Pres. H. 3.6 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, gray-black clay with sand inclusion, gray ware group. D. at Rim 34, H. 5.2 cm. Rim fragment of large bowl, brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group, Exterior has a handle just below rim. D. at Rim 45, Pres. H. 8.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, gray clay with grit and mica inclusion, brown ware group. Pres. D. at Rim 24, Pres. H. 5.8 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, yellowish brown clay with grit and mica inclusion, black burnished ware group. D. at Rim 23.4, Pres. H. 5.4 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, light brown clay with sand, mica, lime and grit inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 24.6, Pres. H. 5.6 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, brown clay with straw and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 26, Pres. H. 5 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, black clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group, D. at Rim 26, Pres. H. 8.4 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, brown clay with straw, grit and mica inclusion, brown ware group. Pres. H. 7.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, gray clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group. Pres. H. 5.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, black clay with sand inclusion, black burnished ware group. Pres. H. 4.4 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, black clay with sand and mica inclusion, black burnished ware group. D. at Rim 13.2, Pres. H. 4.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, gray clay with sand inclusion, gray ware group. D. at Rim 15.2, Pres. H. 3.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, red-brown clay with grit and mica inclusion, brown ware group, The exterior has a handle just below the rim. Pres. H. 4.8 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, red-brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 20.4, Pres. H. 5.6 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, gray clay with sand, mica and straw inclusion, black burnished ware group, The exterior has a handle just on the rim. D. at Rim 18, Pres. H. 3.8, Handle wide, 1.8 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and triangular lug, black clay with mica and grit inclusion, brown ware group. Pres. H. 4.4 cm. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 5:3 Fig. 5:4 Fig. 5:5 Fig. 5:6 Fig. 5:7 Fig. 5:8 Fig. 5:9 Fig. 5:10 Fig. 5:11 Fig. 5:12 Fig. 5:13 Fig. 6:1 Fig. 6:2 Fig. 6:3 Fig. 6:4 Fig. 6:5 Fig. 6:6 Fig. 6:7 Fig. 6:8 51 Rim fragment of bowl and lug, black clay with mica and sand inclusion, black burnished ware group. Pres. H. 2.3 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and lug, brown clay with grit and mica inclusion, black burnished ware group. D. at Rim 26.2, Pres. H. 3.4, lug wide 5.6 cm. Rim fragment of bowl, brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 17, Pres. H. 3 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and handle, brown clay with grit, straw and mica inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 17,4, Pres. H. 4,6, handle wide: 3,2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and handle, gray clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 25.2, Pres. H. 4, handle wide, 3.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and lug, light brown clay with grit, lime and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 18, Pres. H. 4.2 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and lug, yellowish brown clay with sand and straw inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 19.4, Pres H. 4.6 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and llug, brown clay with sand and straw inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 26, Pres H. 4 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and lug, light brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 31.4, Pres H. 6.6 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and lug, gray-black clay with sand, grit and mica inclusion, brown ware group. Pres H. 6.8 cm. Rim fragment of bowl and handle, red clay with sand and lime inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 11.2, Pres H. 5 cm. Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with sand and lime inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 8.2, Pres H. 3 cm. Rim fragment of jar, brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 11.6, Pres H. 4 cm. Rim fragment of jar, brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, black burnished ware group. D. at Rim 11.4, Pres H. 5.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with sand, lime and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 11.8, Pres H. 6.4 cm. Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with grit and mica inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 10, Pres H. 8.6 cm. Rim fragment of jar, brown clay with sand mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 11.4, Pres H. 8.4 cm. Rim fragment of jar, black clay with grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 13.4, Pres H. 5.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar, sand, mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 13.8, Pres H. 4 cm. 52 Fig. 6:9 Fig. 6:10 Fig. 6:11 Fig. 7:1 Fig. 7:2 Fig. 7:3 Fig. 7:4 Fig. 7:5 Fig. 8:1 Fig. 8:2 Fig. 8:3 Fig. 8:4 Fig. 8:5 Fig. 8:6 Fig. 8:7 Fig. 8:8 Fig. 8:9 Fig. 8:10 Fig. 8:11 Fig. 8:12 Erim Konakçı Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with sand, straw and grit inlusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 13.8, Pres H. 8 cm. Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with sand, mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 16, Pres H. 6.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar, yellowish brown clay with sand, mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 22.6, Pres H. 6.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar and lug, brown clay with sand, mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 31, Pres H. 8.4 cm. Rim fragment of jar and lug, reddish brown clay with sand, mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 6.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar and lug, yellowish brown clay with straw, sand and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 5 8 cm. Rim fragment of jar and lug, light brown clay with sand and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 5.6 cm. Rim fragment of jar and lug, brown clay with sand, mica and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 4.2 cm. Rim fragment of jar, brown clay with mica, grit and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 22, Pres H. 5.6 cm. Rim fragment of jar, light brown clay with mica and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 23.8, Pres H. 6.4 cm. Rim fragment of jar brown clay with lime and sand inclusion brown ware group. D. at Rim 28.2, Pres H. 5.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar and knob, light brown clay with mica, grit and straw inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 28, Pres H. 4.8 cm. Rim fragment of jar, brown clay with straw and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 33.6, Pres H. 3 cm. Rim fragment of jar, light brown clay with straw, sand and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 35, Pres H. 6.4 cm. Rim fragment of jar, brown clay with straw, sand and grit inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 35.4, Pres H. 4.6 cm. Rim fragment of jar, yellowish brown clay with mica, grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 35.8, Pres H. 6.6 cm. Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with mica, grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 41.8, Pres H. 3 cm. Rim fragment of jar, gray clay with grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 9 cm. Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with with mica, grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H.6.6 cm. Rim fragment of jar, gray-black clay with sand, lime, and mica inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 4 cm. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 9:1 Fig. 9:2 Fig. 9:3 Fig. 9:4 Fig.10:1 Fig. 10:2 Fig. 10:3 Fig. 10:4 Fig. 10:5 Fig. 10:6 Fig. 10:7 Fig. 10:8 Fig. 10:9 Fig. 11:1 Fig. 11:2 Fig. 11:3 Fig. 11:4 Fig. 11:5 Fig. 11:6 53 Rim fragment of jar, reddish brown clay with mica and sand inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 18, Pres H. 5.2 cm. Rim, body and base fragment of jar with handle, yellowish brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 17.4, Pres H. 25.6, handle wide 3 cm. Rim and body fragment of jar with handle, brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Rim 26,6, Pres H. 15.2 cm, handle wide 3.4 cm. Small jar, reddish brown clay with grit and sand inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Rim 14.6, Pres H. 10 cm. Base, light brown clay with mica and sand inclusion, brown ware group, D. at Base 2.6, Pres H. 2.2 cm. Base, reddish brown clay with grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 6.6, Pres H. 3.1 cm. Base, brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 7, Pres H. 4 cm. Base, light brown clay with mica, straw, grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 7.8, Pres H. 4 cm. Base, light brown clay with lime, straw and sand inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Base 8, Pres H. 2.4 cm. Base, red clay with mica and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 7, Pres H. 2.4 cm. Base, brown clay with grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 8, Pres H. 2.8 cm. Base, reddish brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 9, Pres H. 4 cm. Base, red clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Base 10, Pres H. 2.2 cm. Base, light brown clay with mica, straw, grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 10, Pres H. 3.4 cm. Base, brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 10.2, Pres H. 4.8 cm. Base, reddish brown clay with grit and sand inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Base 10, Pres H. 1.4 cm. Base, gray-black clay with sand, lime, grit and mica inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 10, Pres H. 3.8 cm. Base, brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 9, Pres H. 4 cm. Base, brown clay with lime, straw and sand inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Base 11, Pres H. 2.8 cm. 54 Fig. 11:7 Erim Konakçı Base, brown clay with grit, sand and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. D. at Base 13, Pres H. 5 cm. Fig. 11:8 Base, light brown clay color with mica and grit inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Base 14.2, Pres H. 3 cm. Fig. 11:9 Base, reddish brown clay with grit and sand inclusion, brown ware group. D. at Base 14.8, Pres H. 3.4 cm. Fig. 12:1 Handle, brown clay with mica and grit inclusion, black burnished ware group, Pres H. 6, Handle wide 2.2 cm. Fig. 12:2 Handle, dark brown clay with sand inclusion, black burnished ware group Pres H. 6.2, Handle wide 2.2 cm. Fig. 12:3 Handle, brown clay with mica and grit inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 4, Handle wide 4.4 cm. Fig. 12:4 Handle, brown clay with sand and mica inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 8, Handle wide 5 cm. Fig. 12:5 Handle, light brown clay with straw, sand and grit inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 5.2, Handle wide 2.8 cm. Fig. 12:6 Handle, light red-brown clay with mica and grit inclusion, gray ware group, Pres H. 4, Handle wide 2 cm. Fig. 12:7 Handle, light brown clay with sand and grit inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 5.2, Handle wide 3.2 cm. Fig. 12:8 Lug, dark brown clay with sand, mica and grit inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 5.2, lug wide 6 cm. Fig. 12:9 Handle, red clay color with mica inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 5 cm. Fig. 12:10 Handle, brown clay with mica and grit inclusion, brown ware group Pres H. 7, Handle wide 4.2 cm Fig. 12:11 Handle, dark brown clay clor with sand inclusion, black burnished ware group, Pres H. 4.2 cm. Fig. 12:12 Body fragment, brown clay color with mica inclusion, black burnished ware group Pres H. 2.8, wide 3 cm. Fig. 13:1 handle with knob, red clay with mica, grit and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 10.2, handle wide 3 cm. Fig. 13:2 handle, dark brown clay with mica, grit and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 9.4, handle wide 3.6 cm. Fig. 13:3 handle with knob, red clay with mica, grit and sand inclusion, brown ware group. Pres H. 7.8, handle wide 3.2 cm. Fig 13:4 Handle, red-yellow clay with mica, grit and sand inclusion, brown ware group. Pres H. 6.4 cm. Fig. 13:5 Handle and fragment of jar, red-yellow clay with mica, grit, straw and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 4.8 cm. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 13:6 55 Handle and fragment of jar, red clay color with mica, grit and straw inclusion, brown ware group. Pres H. 7.8, handle wide 2.4 cm. Fig. 13:7 Lug, red clay with mica, grit and sand inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 3.4 cm. Fig. 13:8 Lug, light brown clay color with mica, grit and straw inclusion, brown ware group, Pres H. 3.8 cm. Fig. 13:9 Lug, brown clay color with mica, grit and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 4.6 cm. Fig. 13:10 Lug, brown clay color with sand, grit and straw inclusion, coarse ware group. Pres H. 6.2 cm. Fig. 13:11 body fragment with knob, brown clay color with mica and grit inclusion, brown ware group. Pres H. 4.4 cm. 56 Erim Konakçı Fig. 1 Major Prehistoric sites in Western Anatolia. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 2 Aerial view of Laodikeia and Asopos Tepesi. Fig. 3 Asopos Tepesi, Level VII architectural remains. 57 58 Erim Konakçı Fig. 4 Asopos Tepesi, bowls from VIIb. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 5 Asopos Tepesi, bowls from VIIb. 59 60 Erim Konakçı Fig. 6 Asopos Tepesi, jars from VIIb. Fig. 7 Asopos Tepesi, jars from VIIb. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 9 Asopos Tepesi, jars from VIIb. 61 Fig. 8 Asopos Tepesi, jars from VIIb. 62 Erim Konakçı Fig. 10 Asopos Tepesi, bases from VIIb. Fig. 11 Asopos Tepesi, bases from VIIb. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 12 Asopos Tepesi, handles and lugs from VIIb. 63 64 Erim Konakçı Fig. 13 Asopos Tepesi, handles and lugs from VIIb. A Group of Chalcolithic Pottery Discovered at Asopos Tepesi Fig. 14 Asopos Tepesi, Chalcolithic Age pottery sherds Fig. 15 The chronological table 65