Neolithic Communities in the Eastern Marmara Region (original) (raw)

NEOLITHIC COMMUNITIES IN THE EASTERN MARMARA REGION: AKTOPRAKLIK C

Necmi Karul, Mert Bertan Avci*

Abstract

The increased amount of archaeological research in Northwestern Anatolia means that not only have many questions about the prehistoric occupation of this region been answered, but also new problems have arisen. Aktopraklık, excavated since 2004, is one of those settlements that contributes significantly to this matter 1{ }^{1}. The data obtained from the strata investigated so far in the settlement shows uninterrupted occupation from the middle of the 7th 7^{\text {th }} millennium BCB C to the middle of the 6th 6^{\text {th }} millennium BCB C, including the earliest occurrence of Neolithic pottery in the region and the transition from the Early to the Middle Chalcolithic. The excavations, geomagnetic surveys, and surface scans demonstrate that the different stages of occupation at Aktopraklık were not superimposed on each other, but rather either shifted horizontally and down the slope or from one valley ridge to the other opposite (Karul, 2007: 391-392). Although this circumstance made it difficult for the excavators who started work 6 years ago to establish a reliable stratigraphy, they managed to establish a chronological sequence for each of the different site locations within the settlement called A,BA, B, and CC. At Aktopraklık C the earliest Neolithic strata of the settlement were found. This article provides an overview of the pottery that occurred in Aktopraklık C, and ends with an appraisal on the chronology and cultural links with contemporary sites. The many Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic burials from this settlement are the subject of a separate article in this volume by Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg.

History, Location and Site Setting

Aktopraklık was discovered in 2002 when a team from the Prehistory Department of Istanbul University made a survey in the area where an industrial center had been planned and the remains of Byzantine constructions had been observed. In addition to the ruins of the Byzantine period, a prehistoric settlement was found which was subsequently called section or site B (Karul and Avcı, 2010: 36). Site C, which constitutes the subject of this article, was discovered after the excavation season of 2005 when a factory was going to be constructed close to the protected settlement area. Although soundings made by the archaeological museum of Bursa demonstrated that there were traces of a prehistoric settlement, the lack of systematic investigations made it difficult to draw conclusions.

[1]

- Istanbul University, Department of Prehistory, 34134 Laleli - Istanbul.
  1{ }^{1} The Aktopraklık Mound excavations have been financed by the Unit for Scientific Research Projects of Istanbul University (Year 2009 Project No. 3634). Our studies are also supported by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Turkish Republic, the Aegean Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), New York, and Karsan Otomotiv San. Tic. A.Ş., Mastership Agency Services (Karsan Automotive Ind. Com. Co., Mastership Agency Services). ↩︎

Aktopraklık is situated at about 25 km west of the city of Bursa on one of the terraces rising gradually on the eastern edge of Ulubat Lake (Fig. 1). The settlement extends between two river beds and on the ridge north of one of these beds. All three sites (Aktopraklık A-B-C) are built on Miocene bedrock, and Aktopraklık C is situated on the north ridge mentioned. The settlement begins at the southern edge of the road linking Bursa, Akçalar, and Hasanağa and was built in an east-west direction on a slightly sloping surface. Today the land is covered with olive trees and a number of test pits had been dug before the systematic excavations begun.

Another factor having a negative effect on the prehistoric remains are the Byzantine building foundations. These start south of the Neolithic site and then extend in an east-west direction over the prehistoric remains. In this area we notice structures with stone foundations reaching 1 meter deep which destroyed the older levels. In the Chalcolithic period Aktopraklık C was used as a cemetery after the settlement had shifted to site B. The burials of this cemetery - simple earthen pits - had also caused damage to the older levels.

The settlement was founded directly on limestone bedrock and the prehistoric levels were preserved in varying depths parallel to the inclination of the virgin soil. In the eastern part of the site, the levels were heavily eroded leaving in some places a deposit of 20 cm . Ca. 30 m . in the west the deposit reaches a depth of 1.5 m ., while even further west the settlement was completely destroyed by building activity from the Byzantine period and by modern agriculture. Altogether, the archaeological levels extend ca. 30 meters in east-west and ca. 40 in north-south direction and cover an area of app. 1200 square meters (Fig. 2). The settlement was built on a flat and elevated surface rather than on the slopes that extend towards the southern river bed.

The settlement overlooking the Lake of Ulubat is situated today in a large area including a dry riverbed and a spring still in use. From here the landscape gradually rises to the highest mountain of the region, the Uludağ. Despite increasing construction activities, the vicinity of the settlement is still covered with oak forests.

Although studies on plant and animal remains and geo-archaeological analyses have not yet been completed yet, it is possible to suggest that people who had lived at prehistoric Aktopraklık exploited fresh and salt water resources as well as the forest zone.

ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY

The preservation at Aktopraklık C of the prehistoric deposit in only a small area and its destruction as by causes outlined above, as well as the newly discovered structures comprising simple round huts, make it difficult to determine layers based on architecture (Karul and Avcı, 2010: 36). In spite of these problems, a small number of architectural remains together with the pottery finds, which are still in a preliminary stage of evaluation, show that the chronological sequence of Aktopraklık C can be at least divided into two sub-cultural stages. The earliest structural remains of the settlement established directly on virgin soil comprise of several rows of stones with a circular plan (Fig. 3). These remains are located in close proximity to each other in the southern section where the

Byzantine structure remains were discovered. Two constructions built at about 1 m from each other are an irregular, single row of stones of about 1 m in diameter, and a similar one just south of the first constitute the architectural remains from this period. The southernmost structure was also constructed with a single row of stones, but its diameter is at least 1.5 m . Unfortunately, because the majority of these structures remained under the Byzantine ruins, we cannot determine their size and plan with certainty.

Throughout the whole excavated area traces of a second stage were encountered. Similar to the earlier level, this stage shows courtyards paved with small stones. Vestiges of 5 structures have so far been found which in spite of small differences were constructed with a similar technique. Although no traces of postholes were noted on the borders of these structures which had a diameter between 3-6 m, we assume that the superstructures consisted of a framework of wooden posts and branches interlinked in a wattle-and-daub manner. In three of the structures the wall bases were built with stone courses. It appears that theses stone courses were usually constructed along half of the diameter of the structure, while the other half was left open to the elements (Fig. 4). In the remaining two structures no regular stone courses were noticed. These structures are characterized by concave floors which were dug directly in the soil. One of these structures displays a floor which is better preserved than others. The edges descend with a slight slope and reach a depth of 40 cm in the center; it was hollowed in the bedrock and shows stages of restoration (Fig. 5). In another structure the floor consisted of bedrock which was paved with small stones (Fig. 6-7). The depth of the hollowed floor of this structure also reaches ca. 40 cm . There are ovens in three structures whose borders are relatively better preserved. These ovens, built close to the wall, are dome-shaped and have a diameter of ca. 60 cm .

All of the data enables us to develop an idea about the arrangement of the settlement in question. This consists of simple, circular huts with hollow floors constructed adjacent or in close proximity to each other; these huts had irregular sides and some had a course of stones supporting one of the side walls. As door openings are not recognized, the orientation of these structures cannot be determined with certainty. Nevertheless, there are spaces around the structures paved with small stones that have been interpreted as courtyards (Fig. 8). The deliberate placement of these structures next to one another and surrounded by courtyards can be understood as a settlement arrangement rather than simply random buildings.

During this period, there are large trash pits in the vicinity of the buildings reaching 1.5 m in diameter. These pits contained a huge amount of bones from cattle and deer, and once they were filled were covered with stones. Although the archaeozoological studies have not been completed yet, large numbers of bones belonging to the same animals in these pits may point to the performance of collective butchering and consumption at regular intervals next to daily food consumption at the level of single home economics (Fig. 9).

Also at this stage, we sometimes encounter bodies interred deliberately in pits under floors of the stone structures, and complete vessels at the head and the feet of the deceased deposited in a contracted position accompanied with ornaments and bone tools.

POTTERY

The Neolithic pottery of Aktopraklık C as in other settlements of the region is characterized by monochrome wares. Different shades of brown and red wares constitute the majority, but the percentage of the cream and beige-colored wares in lower levels of the Neolithic Period in Aktopraklık C, which are frequent in the mounds of Menteşe (Roodenberg et al., 2003: 39) and Barçın, cannot be underestimated. This type of pottery constituted a small percentage at Fikirtepe and Pendik (Özdoğan, 1979: 208-209), but was more intensively used in the early stages of the Fikirtepe Culture. Black wares which are characterized by their form or surface treatment and appeared in the later stages of the Fikirtepe Culture, constitute a small group in Aktopraklık C. This ware group, wellknown from the Fikirtepe, has a good paste, is well polished and usually thin-walled. The black wares are found in small numbers in Aktopraklık C, their surface treatment is not as qualified as in Fikirtepe, but there are thin-walled examples similar to those from Fikirtepe and Pendik. Mention should be made also of a subgroup among the black wares having black slip but no polish; this is another type without parallels among the Fikirtepe pottery.

Red pottery sherds make up another large group in Aktopraklık C and indicate diversity in the pottery corpus. The red wares were used intensively in all settlement layers. There are the wares of good quality, bright red color, thin-walled, and well polished, a group consisting of unpolished examples having a gritty paste, and another group whose sand-contained surface is left coarse. Curved S-shape bowls constitute the fine quality group among the red wares, while the main form for both the coarse, sandtempered and the polished wares with gritty surfaces are vessels with thin restricted rims. Such rims are generally found on pots, called holemouths; these pots also have large horizontal handles fixed on the belly or between the belly and the rim. These handles are observed quite often on pottery vessels from the Pendik excavations of 1981 (Özbaşaran, 1989: 14), and it is possible that they occurred more frequently in the Archaic stage of the Fikirtepe Culture.

In addition to holemouth pots and S-shape bowls there is another type group in Aktopraklık C: flat sided simple pots. Perforated tubular and crescent-shaped handles occur on all forms, while horizontal handles are usually found on holemouth pots. Apart from pot and bowl types, the assemblage also includes boxes, often called cult tables. These boxes, generally square but also more rarely triangular, usually have well polished surfaces provided with incised, normally geometric line motifs as was observed in the other settlements belonging to the Fikirtepe Culture (Schwarzberg, 2009: 167ff).

Another noticeable difference in Aktopraklık C is the presence of the decorative surface treatment such as the excised decorations with white incrustation known from Pendik (Özdoğan, 1983). Decorative patterns characteristic for the developed stages of the Fikirtepe Culture (Özdoğan, 2007: 413) are only noticed on cult tables in Aktopraklık C. The impresso decoration from phases IX and VIII of Ilıpınar (Thissen, 2001: 40) has parallels in Aktopraklık’s Neolithic period only. Similarly, collared vessels rather common in the developed Fikirtepe phases constitute another pottery shape that precedes Aktopraklık C (Fig. 10-11-12).

Late Neolithic - Early Chalcolithic Burials

Aktopraklık belongs to a settlement category called Flachsiedlung. In prehistoric Europe this was a widespread form of settlement that can be contrasted to Anatolia and the Near East where tell sites are common. As can be observed at Aktopraklık, long lasting occupation - continuous or interrupted - in flat settlements is expressed by spatial extention rather than by the accumulation of habitation levels at one spot. Aktopraklık constitutes a good example of this type of settlement where juxtaposition and relocation at some distance from the original site location occurred. The Neolithic occupation came to an end at Aktopraklık C when the dwelling quarters moved 100 m to the south; that new residence is called Aktopraklık B. From then onwards site C was merely used as a cemetery.

About 50 burials were uncovered in systematic excavations, while skeletal fragments from 14 humans had been previously collected in the soundings made by the Bursa Museum. A dozen were found in Aktopraklık B, all from the Early Chalcolithic period, and almost three dozens in the cemetery belonging to the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods.

No settlement layers representing the Early Chalcolithic period have been discovered in site B so far, but pottery finds at the surface strongly suggest that there was occupation contemporary with the Early Chalcolithic burials in the cemetery.

The above indicates that the idea of burial within the settlement, which is characteristic for the Neolithic Period, was abandoned in the Chalcolithic Period as the concept of a ‘city of the dead’ replaced the tradition of living with the dead.

The burials of Aktopraklık C, spread over an area of 1400 sqm, were primarily close to the surface and had been affected by medieval construction and modern agriculture. Aside from some exceptions each individual had his own grave and was often accompanied with grave goods, mostly pottery vessels placed near the head or feet and limestone beads from necklaces and marble bracelets. Despite the generally bad preservation of the burials the study of the human remains and their deposition has yielded sometimes a detailed view of the inhabitants (Alpaslan Roodenberg, this volume).

EARLY BYZANTINE REMAINS

The last settlers of Aktopraklık C could be dated to the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods on the basis of two coins that were found. Wall remains, seen in some places at the surface and in initial soundings, show that constructions from that time were superimposed over the prehistoric settlement to the west and covered the entire flat space. Given that terrace walls also surface on the southern slope, it means that the building remains were spread over area of about 10 hectares. Moreover, in 2002 the Archaeology Museum of Bursa recognized vestiges of a chapel at the westernmost end of the site. Conclusions about the nature and exact age of this building complex must wait until systematic excavations have been carried out.

CHRONOLOGY AND REGIONAL LINKS

The first pottery manufacturing people arrived in Northwestern Anatolia in the middle of the 7th 7^{\text {th }} millennium BC , approximately 500 years after the first evidence of pottery in Southeastern and Central Anatolia. One can find not only pottery, which was introduced as an accomplished technology, but also assemblages including grinding and pounding equipment and long flint blades which are specific attributes of farming and became regular commodities. These assemblages, as well as the location of settlements and their residential architecture suggest that these innovations were not the result of local adaptation to a new way of life, but rather were brought with people immigrating from elsewhere, probably from the east (Özdoğan, 2007: 412).

It is assumed that when the Neolithic communities appeared in the region, Northwestern Anatolia was inhabited by Epi-paleolithic groups. This assumption is based on indirect evidence from a few settlements that exhibited a different life style (Karul, 2010a). The first data on farming communities in the Marmara Region came from Fikirtepe excavated during 1950s (Bittel, 1960), subsequently from Pendik (Özdoğan, 1983), Yarımburgaz (Özdoğan, 1983), Ilıpınar (Roodenberg, 1995; Roodenberg et al., 2001, 2008), Menteşe (Roodenberg et al., 2003), and Barcın (Roodenberg et al., 2008). As our knowledge of the Neolithic communities and their natural environment in Northwestern Anatolia increased through recent investigations at Barçın, Aktopraklık, and Yenikapı, our understanding of the cultural groups that populated this region is growing. Regarding their original aspects and development, M. Özdoğan thinks that the Neolithic communities mentioned above belonged to the Fikirtepe Culture (Özdoğan, 1997). This culture was first defined in the settlements along the coast of the Marmara Sea, while afterwards it became clear through excavations at Demircihöyük and surveys in the region of Eskişehir that it had a much larger spread.

Two unpublished Radiocarbon determinations (OxA-20596, 7444+/-37BP (6322 +/−52calBC+/-52 \mathrm{cal} \mathrm{BC} ), and OxA-20597, 6800+/-36 BP ( 5692+/−27calBC5692+/-27 \mathrm{cal} \mathrm{BC} ), made on human bones samples from burials in Aktopraklık C, provide a chronological framework. The oldest places Aktopraklık among the earliest Neolithic settlements in the Marmara region, while the second one dates its Early Chalcolithic occupation. Both determinations are in full accordance with the chronology as was established by the other settlements in the eastern Marmara. (Roodenberg and Schier, 2001; Roodenberg et al., 2003: Fig. 11; Roodenberg et al., 2008), which enables us to better define Aktopraklık C’s position and its similarities and differences in relation to the other settlements.

In contemporary Neolithic Menteşe and Barcın we notice a developed monochrome pottery specific to the farming communities. The buildings have rectangular plans and mud-slab, pisé or wattle-and-daub walls. In the earliest levels of Ilıpınar (ca. 6000 BC ) the mud-slab building tradition was synchronous with mud-coated post-wall houses. The pottery of these settlements sharing common traits underwent gradual changes. Wares from the earliest levels of Menteşe, Barçın, and Aktopraklık comprise Sprofile pots with mineral additives, S-profile oval bowls, restricted pots, vessels with black, brown, or cream-colored, dimly polished surfaces, and cult tables. Although forms only slightly change in the course of time, surfaces become more dull in brown and red

tones, fine incised decorations appear and vessels have tubular, crescent or large handles. This briefly summarizes development in Neolithic pottery of the region and corresponds to the pottery assemblage of Aktopraklik C outlined above, which reflects the characteristics of the second phase of Archaic Fikirtepe.

Regardless of the common elements already mentioned, there are differences in architecture and dietary habits between the settlements in the Marmara region.

Despite the common characteristics in pottery types, we do not find in coastal settlements the mud-slab architecture known from in the settlements of Menteşe and Barçın, and Ilıpınar which share a similar environment. On the contrary, at Fikirtepe and Pendik, both coastal sites, round huts constitute the only excavated architectural form. The same is true for the earliest occupation at Aktopraklık. It is also noteworthy that the latter three are flat sites where occupation extended horizontally in time, whereas the former ones are traditional tell mounds that grew in height through accumulation of successive occupation stages (Karul, 2010b). Similarly, they show different dietary habits. Although the results of the archaeo-zoological and palaeo-botanical studies are not yet available, the relative scarcity of subsistence-related findings in the archaeological deposit of Aktopraklık may be an indication that plant cultivation was a secondary activity compared to what we know from contemporary sites. The inhabitants of Ilıpınar, for instance, grew a whole range of food plants including barley, wheat, oats, bitter vetch, lentils, grass pea, peas, and also flax (van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooyen, 1995: Fig. 2; Cappers, 2008: 117-148).

Finally, the chipped stone industry of some Marmara settlements, in particular the coastal sites, is said to reflect the continuation of Epi-paleolithic influences on tool fabrication. It is perhaps too early to draw conclusions on this subject.

Through the preliminary study of its find assemblage and with help of Radiocarbon determinations Aktopraklık C can already be situated chronologically and culturally within the group of Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic communities in the Marmara region. To what extent this village incorporates influences from an Epipaleolithic background or solely represents a newly settled community of farmers migrating to this region in the second half of the 7th 7^{\text {th }} millennium BC is a question that must be investigated in detail during the coming years.

REFERENCES

Bittel, K., 1960 - Fikirtepe Kazısı, V. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye Sunulan Tebliğler, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından, Seri: IX, No. 5, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara.
Karul, N., 2007a - Aktopraklık: Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Gelişkin Bir Köy. In: M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds.) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem,yeni kazılar, yeni bulgular. İstanbul, 387-392.
Karul, N., 2007b - Aktopraklık Höyüğü 2006 Yılı Kazı Sonuçları. Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Haberler 23, 19-20.
Karul, N., 2010a - Die Entwicklung des vorbronzezeitlichen Siedlungsschemas in der südlichen MarmaraRegion. In: Natural Science in Archaeology, Springer Verlag (in press).
Karul, N., 2010b - The Neolithic and its Development in Southern Marmara. In: R. Krauss, B. Horej (eds.). BYZAS, İstanbul (in press).
Karul, N., Ö. Özeren, 2005 - Aktopraklık (Akçalar Sırtı) Çalışmaları - 2004., Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Haberler 20, 23-24.
Karul, N., M.B. Avci, 2010 - The First Farmers of Marmara, İlgi 117, Sevgi Baş (eds.), 34-39, İstanbul.
Özbaşaran, N., 1989 - Pendik Çanak Çömleği, (unpublished MA thesis). İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Prehistorya Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
Özdoğan, M., 1979 - Fikirtepe (unpublised PhD thesis). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Prehistorya Kürsüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Özdoğan, M., 1983 - Pendik: A Neolithic Site of Fikirtepe Culture in the Marmara Region. In: R. M. Boehmer und H. Hauptmann (Hrsg.) Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasien, Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz, 401-411.
Özdoğan, M., 1988 - Yarımburgaz Mağarası 1986 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları. V. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara.
Özdoğan, M., 1997 - The Beginning of Neolithic Economies in Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian Perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5:2, 1-33.
Özdoğan, M., 2007 - Marmara Bölgesi Neolitik Çağ Kültürleri. M. Özdoğan ve N. Başgelen (yay.) Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, s. 401-426 (metin), 405-430 (levhalar).
Roodenberg, J., 1995 - The Ilıpınar Excavations I. PIHANS 72, Leiden.
Roodenberg, J., L.C. Thissen, 2001 - The Ilıpınar Excavations II, PIHANS 93, Leiden.
Roodenberg, J., W. Schier, 2001 - Radiocarbon Determinations. In: The Ilıpınar Excavations II, J.J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (eds.). PIHANS 93, Leiden, 257-278.
Roodenberg, J., S. Alpaslan Roodenberg, 2008 - Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia. The Ilıpınar Excavations III. With contributions on Hacılartepe and Menteşe. PIHANS 110, Leiden.
Roodenberg, J., A. van As, L. Jacobs and M.-H. Wijnen, 2003 - Early Settlement in the Plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia).The Basal Occupation Layers at Menteşe. Anatolica XXIX, 17-60.
Schwarzberg, H., 2009 - Neolithic “Cult Tables” from Barcın Höyük. Anatolica XXXV, 167-177.
Thissen, L.C., 2001 - The pottery of Ilıpınar, Phases X to VA. In: The Ilıpınar Excavations II, J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (eds.), PIHANS 93, Leiden, 3-154.
Zeist, W. van, W. Waterbolk-van Rooijen, 1995 - Floral Remains From Late-Neolithic Ilıpınar. In: The Ilıpınar Excavations I, Five Seasons of Fieldwork in NW Anatolia 1987-91, J.J. Roodenberg (ed.). PIHANS 72, Leiden, 159-166.