Godon 2005
Godon 2005
Godon 2005
Martin Godon
Introduction
A couple of years ago, no excavated archaeological evidences of a Pottery
Neolithic occupation in Cappadocia (Özdo¤an, Baflgelen (eds) 1999; Gérard,
Thissen (eds), 2002) was known. Despite this lack of information, the poten-
tialities offered by settlements like Köflk Höyük, P›narbafl› Bor or Tepecik-
Çiftlik were known but only discussed theoritically. Up to now and as it was
already stressed by M. Özdo¤an (Özdo¤an 1999: 9-12; 2002: 253-261) dis-
cussions were mainly focused on the possible links beetween the aceramic
site of Afl›kl› which ended around 7400BC cal. and the emergence of the
Pottery Neolithic site of Çatal Höyük East, in the Konya plain, with earlier
known dates coinciding with the end of Afl›kl›, without regards to the prob-
able aceramic levels. The archaeological facts were not homogeneous enough
in time and space: Eastern part of Central Anatolia documented for the ac-
eramic neolithic, showing evidences of local developpments out of the Upper
Mesopotamian major influences, and western part of Central Anatolia well
documented for the Pottery Neolithic period to which one must add the ex-
cavated sites in the Lake District region, showing a developpment pattern
based on farmers-like villages (Godon 2004.) Recents excavations at Tepecik-
Çiftlik, in addition to the excavation at Köflk Höyük and Güvercinkayas›,
both located in the same micro region, start to fill the gap in terms of evi-
dences we were faced with after the ending of Afl›kl› (Fig. 1).
In this paper, we will breifly present some premilinary results about the
archeological sequence already excavated at Tepecik-Çiftlik, as well as the
frame of its pottery productions. On the basis of relative datations, will be
presented a first proposal for the Tepecik-Çiftlik chronological sequence.
2 Colloquium Anatolicum IV 2005
I. The stratigraphy
Tepecik-Çiftlik, a höyük of 3,5 hectares first surveyd by I. Todd between
1964/1966 (Todd 1980), is located in the Melendiz Plain, next to the Göllü
Da¤ volcano and its obsidian sources and workshops from the Paleolithic
(Slimak et ali. 2005: 287-294) up to the late Neolthic (Balkan-Atl›, Binder
2000: 199-214), with a extension in the surrounding plain of more or less
11 hectares (B›çakc› 2004.) Excavated since 2000 by the University of Istan-
bul and Ni¤de Museum under the direction of Erhan B›çakc›, further field
works are still needed in order to reach the virgin soil and to catch the com-
plet archaeological sequence.
The 2005 excavation provided us more informations about the stratig-
raphy even if more cross analyses results should be done to present it as a
definitive one. However, we can already distinguish about five main levels
from the top to the deepest excavated point, at four meters deep from the
topographic field reference1.
The levels from the earliest one to the latest are presented below (Fig. 2).
Level 5: (4.00/2.70 meters.) Restricted to the sondage area and covering
a superficy of more or less 27m2, this level shows the characteristics of an
open place area. No architecture was found, due to the limited excavated area.
Basicaly, the nature of the archeological artifacts,according to highly broken
pottery sherds, the sediments, the distribution of artifacts and the large firing
place found at its bottom, leed us to interprete it as an open area. Distinc-
tion between micro levels is rather difficult, as shown by the fragmentation
of the archaeological materials as well as its tri-dimensional distribution.
Level 4: Analyses of the pottery as well as preliminary studies about the
faunal remains show changes at the end of the level five sequence. A large
layer of dark ashes could be recovered, covering the top of this sequence on
almost 64 m2. This can be distinguished as a transitional level, and the rela-
tionship between level five and the earlier layer of level 3 needs to be more
investigated both in the field and with artifacts analyses in order to under-
stand this transition.
Level 3: Here appear the first changes for on top and/or embedded into
the thin level four and upper level five, six human burials were discovered
in open area. So, from an open area (level five) used for external activities
and as a discharge place, it became a much more symbolical place. Linked
1 For a presentation of the field work and architectural patterns, see B›çakc› 2004.
Martin Godon/New results and remarques about Pottery Neolithic in Central Anatolia ... 3
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Fig. 3
4 5 6
7 Amount of sherds
8 9 among the corpus
With the production of large jars, a new building method appears, as evi-
denced on the material found from level 3.2 to the level 2. This method con-
sists to build and shape the lower part of the pottery in a concave mould, in
our case a basket. The upper part of the walls (from the carene inclination
until the shoulder) is built by slabbing portions of paste, stickind them
together and then shaping them on the already made base by pinching. For
the long necked jars, the neck is added at the shoulders enclosing point. In
some cases, this upper part is moulded on a convex mould made of basket.
The finishing process have a tendancy to erase the negative traces of the
mould so this methode might have been more common than it can be seen
among the whole corpus. Such negative basket traces are also present at Köflk
Höyük and Gelveri (personal observation) as well as at Bogazköy-Büyükkaya
were similar negative traces were found at the bottom of some potteries from
the Lower Plateau (Schoop 2005: 15-37) and interpreted as mat impressions
(as far as no basket traces are found on the walls themselves or other techni-
cal traces undoubtely linked to a moulding technic, traces on the bottom can
be related to a mat rather than to a basket mould.) (Fig. 5).
As the diversity of shapes increases (cups, red-slipped footed cups) from
level 3.4 to 3.1, another step is reached with the production, on basket moul-
ded jars, of applied antropomorphic and faunal decors. This new kind of
productions, made for the specific purpose of secondary sepultures found in
level 3.1, is certainly the result of a specialized work made by craftsmen rath-
er than by common potters. Skills involving obviously a learning of what can
be called new artistic techniques and time investment were developped in
order to make those decors while the building of the jars themselves were
executed according to the same earlier method (Fig. 6).
Level 2: Among the mixed materials from the surface and scant informa-
tions about the archaeological context, a new kind of decorated potteries
appears, still sharing the organic temper used in earlier levels but distinctively
different by the pattern of the decors and the techniques of decoration. Decors
basicaly consist on series of incised triangles or waves filled by small pips
made with sharp tools. Mainly made on black burnished carinated bowls, it
occurs as well on more simple pottery types (Fig.7).
level 2 (Öztan 2002: 57-72; Silistreli 1989), wich is dated around 5500bc
cal.2, a bit earlier than the earliest levels from Güvercinkayas›. The fact that
this incised pottery is not found deeper than level 2 can be due to a gap in
the chronological sequence. This comment is supported by the presence of
relief decorated potteries in level 3.1, similar to the ones from Köflk Höyük
level 4, dated around 6500 BC cal3. No comparison are available for the ear-
liest level and potteries do not share strong similarities with Çatal Höyük
East or other Pottery Neolithic settlements from south-eastern or western
Anatolia but still some elements can suggest chronological informations: A
very few amount of imported black burnished ware, especially impresso dec-
orated ones and related to the upper layers of level 5 are similar to Tarsus
(Goldman 1956) and Mersin Yumuktepe (Caneva, Sevin (eds.) 2004; Garstang
1953), dated around 7000 BC cal. Level 5 present also bifacial obsidian tools
wich can be related to Çatal Höyük. Those found in Tepecik-Çiftlik may be
related to already known ateliers on the Göllü Da¤. In those respects, it seems
that Tepecik-Çiftlik archaeological sequence covers at least the Pottery Neo-
lithic period. A minimum of four meters in the archaeological sequence still
need to be excavated to capture the complet chronological sequence.
Acknowledgement:
Tepecik-Çiftlik excavation is supported by the Research Found of Istan-
bul University (project n°1478/28082000.)
Thanks to E. B›çakc› for giving me the opportunity to collaborate to this
excavation project. Are thanks too the Prehistory Department of Istanbul
University and its director M. Özdo¤an for welcoming me in the Prehistory
laboratory of Istanbul University.
2 Thissen 2002, and the Canew website which provide updated radiocarbon databases: http://www.canew.org/
3 Öztan, 2005: “Köflk Höyük Kaz›larn›n Öntarih Arkeolojisindeki Yeri ve Önemi” oral presentation held at
the Ni¤de Symposium organized by Ni¤de ‹l Kültür ve Turizm Müdürü, Ni¤de, 25/27 May 2005.
8 Colloquium Anatolicum IV 2005
Özet
Bibliography
Balkan-Atl›, N. – D. Binder
2002 “L’atelier néolithique de Kömürcü-Kaletepe: Fouilles de 1999”, Anatolia
Antiqua VIII: 199-214.
B›çakc›, E.
2004 “Tepecik-Çiftlik: A new site in central Anatolia (Turkey)”, Architectura
34: 21-26.
Caneva, I. – V. Sevin (eds.)
2004 Mersin Yumuktepe: a Reappraisal, Universita degli Studi, Lecce.
Garstang, J.
1953 Prehistoric Mersin, Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey, Oxford.
Gérard, F. – L. Thissen (eds.)
2002 The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, ‹stanbul.
Godon, M.
2004 Le Néolithique en Anatolie, un patrimoine archéologique aux origines de
nos sociétés actuelles, Les dossiers de l’IFEA, serie: patrimoines au présent
N°4, IFEA, ‹stanbul.
Goldman, H.
1956 Excavation at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: From the Neolithic through the Bronze
Age, Princeton.
Özdo¤an, M. – N. Baflgelen (eds.)
1999 Neolithic in Turkey, The craddle of civilization, Ancient Anatolian Civili-
zation Series: 3, ‹stanbul.
Özdo¤an, M.
1999 “Preface”, Neolithic in Turkey, The craddle of civilization, Ancient Anatolian
Civilization Series: 3, Özdo¤an M., Baflgelen N. (eds.), ‹stanbul: 9-12.
Özdo¤an, M.
2002 “Defining the Neolithic of central Anatolia”, The Neolithic of Central
Anatolia, Gérard F. – L. Thissen (eds), ‹stanbul: 253-261.
Öztan, A.
2002 “Köflk-Höyük: Anadolu Arkeolojisine Yeni Katk›lar”, TÜBA-AR V:
57-72.
Schoop, U.D.
2005 “Early Chalcolithic in north-central Anatolia: the evidence from Bo¤azköy-
Büyükkaya”, TÜBA-AR VIII: 15-37.
Silistreli, U.
1989 “Köflk Höyük’te Bulunan Kabartma ‹nsan ve Hayvan Figürleriyle Bezeli
Vazolar”, Belleten LIII: 361-374.
Slimak, L. – N. Balkan Atl› – D. Binder – B. Dinçer
2005 “Installations paléolithiques en Cappadoce”, Anatolia Antiqua XIII: 287-
294.
10 Colloquium Anatolicum IV 2005
Thissen, L.
2002 “Appendix I, Canew 14C databases and C14 charts”, 2002, The Neolithic
of Central Anatolia, Gérard F. – L. Thissen (eds), ‹stanbul: 299-338.
Todd, I. A.
1980 “The prehistory of central Anatolia I: The Neolithic period”, Studies in
mediterranean archaeology LX. Paul Åstroms Förlag: Göteborg.
Martin Godon/New results and remarques about Pottery Neolithic in Central Anatolia ... 11
Fig. 1 Localisation of
Tepecik-Çiftlik in
Cappadocia
Fig. 2 Plan of
Tepecik-
Çiftlik and
archaeological
levels
12 Colloquium Anatolicum IV 2005
Fig. 6
Exemple of
relief decorated
potteries from level 3.1
Fig. 7
Decorated potteries
from level 2