_UDK 902.6:903.23(56O.3)"633/636"_
Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII (2010)
The Neolithic-Chalcolithic sequence in the SW Anatolian Lakes Region
Laurens Thissen
Thissen Archaeological Ceramics Bureau-TACB, Amsterdam, NL l.thissen@tiscali.nl
ABSTRACT - This paper reviews the radiocarbon, stratigraphie and pottery evidence from five early pottery sites in SW Turkey. A comparison of the results with data from Ulucak in West Turkey indicates no significant time lag between these areas. The onset of Neolithic sites early in the 7th millennium calBC makes it difficult to link their emergence to the collapse theories applied to SE Anatolian societies at the end of the PPNB period. The chronology proposed is not compatible with allegedly contemporary developments in SE Europe.
IZVLEČEK - V članku predstavljamo radiokarbonske datume, stratigrafske podatke in keramiko iz petih zgodnje keramičnih najdišč v severozahodni Turčiji. Primerjava s podatki iz Ulucaka v zahodni Turčiji kaže, da ni bistvenega časovnega zamika med regijama. Pojav neolitskih najdišč v zgodnjem 7. tisočletju calBC je težko navezati na teorijo kolapsa pri južno Anatolskih skupnostih na koncu PPNB obdobja. Predlagana kronologija ni kompatibilna z domnevno sočasnim razvojem v jugovzhodni Evropi.
KEY WORDS - Neolithic; Anatolia; SE Europe; dating; pottery
Introduction
The Neolithic sites in the Anatolian Lakes Region (Göller Bölgesi) in SW Turkey have played a major role in hypotheses concerning diffusion and/or migration processes from the Near East into Europe (Fig. 1). Apart from the geographic distance easily conflated in such models, a disregard of exact time is a recurrent theme, specifically in Balkan prehisto-ries. The long-time absence of pertinent data from the intervening region of West (Aegean) Turkey made this conflation perhaps understandable, but at the same time more questionable. There was, and there still is, a tendency in Balkan prehistory to invoke a black box-like 'Anatolia' as a donor area for repeated waves of migration into SE Europe. In Romanian prehistory, for example, the 'monochrome', the Dudesti, the Vadastra and the Boian stages have all been explained as caused by demic diffusion from 'Anatolia' (e.g., Lazarovici 1998.7; Lazarovici and Lazarovici 2006.391; Neagu 2000.53). Fully harmonising with this black box idea is that the connec-
tions are never precise, neither geographically, con-textually, nor chronologically. The sites of Hacilar, Çatalhôyûk and Canhasan are among the favoured locations. More recently, the Marmara area is beginning to be used as another potential source for explaining the 'monochrome' stage of the earliest pottery sites in Bulgaria (Elenski 2004). The painted pottery from Hacilar V-II and its correspondences with West Bulgarian sites have been used by Niko-lov as the explaining factor in favour of a migration from Anatolia across the Aegean and up the Struma and Mesta rivers (Nikolov 1989.194; cf. also Lichar-dus and Lichardus 2003.66).
Dedicated work in the Aegean (Takaoglu 2005; Çilingiroglu and Çilingiroglu 2007; Derin 2007; Sa-glamtimur 2007; Horejs 2008; Herling et al. 2008; Çilingiroglu 2009) is now beginning to complicate and refine the cultural connections between SE Europe and the alleged donor region in SW Anatolia,
suggesting the need to emphasize the importance of regional patterns of development and the non-systemic character of material culture correspondences. Recently, alleged hiatuses in the Lakes Region's site sequences (Schoop 2005) have been used to serve as evidence for climatic anomalies around 6200 calBC (better known as the 8.2ka climate event) which led to site abandonment, warfare and general turbulence in the area (Weninger et al. 2005; Clare et al. 2008.65).
Another issue related to the importance of the Lakes Region for neoli-thisation processes is the general thesis that after a PPNC collapse in SE Turkey (Özdogan 2008.173), a period of turbulence involving repeated demic movements from the east to the west is reflected in an increase of sites in SW and W Anatolia, where "every component of the assemblage of the Neolithic sites in the west can be traced back to the core area of primary neolithisation in the east' (Özdogan 2007.21; cf. Perlès 2005.280). Europe's quasi-total dependence on Turkey, the Near East and the Levant (Perlès 2005) can, consequently, be summarised as follows: "Thus, immediately after the expansion of the Neolithic way of life into the western parts of the peninsula, almost all components of the Neolithic culture seem to have gone through a stage of transformation, which provided the means for its survival in Temperate Europe." (Özdogan 2007.21). The most famous site in the Anatolian Southwest, Hacilar, has served as model through which developments in SE Europe have been interpreted and evaluated, whereby its earlier 'monochrome' pottery and its subsequent painted pottery are still argued to have determined, mirror-like, concepts of material culture (notably pottery appearance) during the neolithisation of the Balkans (Weninger et al. 2005.100). It must have been Mellaart's two pages of cautious remarks concerning parallels between Hacilar V-II and Thessaly (Mellaart 1958.154-6) that have inspired Rodden's 'Neolithic package' list (Rodden 1965), and that was later adopted by Renfrew (1987.170, Fig. 7.9) and Perlès (2005.277, Tab. 1).
In order to critique these points of view (i.e. concerning dating, settlement continuity and demic move-
Fig. 1. Map of key sites discussed in the text.
ment across Turkey westwards), I try to get as close as possible to the lapse of time and the date of the Southwest Anatolian key area. Through this exercise, I imply that the breakdown of time, like a precise study of material culture, tends to problematise mechanistic solutions, and favours more regionalised interpretations of culture change and adaptation on a local scale to external pressures, whether from climate or 'newcomers'. I will be targeting the five excavated sites in the Lakes Region, viz. Hacilar, Ku-ruçay, Höyücek, Bademagaci and Karain, and comparing them briefly to the radiocarbon evidence from Western Turkey, specifically the site of Ulucak. I focus on the stratigraphic sequences and the absolute dates, and where necessary use relative dating foremost based on the pottery evidence.
Hacilar
Time at Hacilar is hard to assess, due to the small set of radiocarbon dates available (seven usable dates). Modelling the data (see below for discussion) results in a time span of between 300 to 730 years for Levels IX-IA, covering three substantial settlement stages, each of which fell victim to a great fire (cf. Mel-laart 1975.111). Mellaart estimated the total duration of the site at approximately 750 years (Mellaart 1970.10, 23, 24, 76, 85, 87), stretching from a 'Late Neolithic' (Levels IX-VI) through an 'Early Chalco-lithic' period (Levels V-I).1 Restructuring and conflating Hacilar's stratigraphic sequence, as I will pro-
1 In his 1998 memoir, Mellaart contemplates the existence of a "Hacilar 0" stage recognisable in some of the illicitly excavated material from tombs in the neighbourhood, and distinct from the Hacilar I material as excavated (Mellaart 1998.58-59).
Fig. 2. Hactlar's main section (after Mellaart 1970.Fig. 38).
be demonstrating little development internally, and Mellaart's and subsequent writers' stress on development in the pottery should perhaps be revised (Mellaart 1970; but see Mellaart 1998.56for a more restrained view; Schoop 2005.155-156; Reingruber 2OO8.43O-43I). The group of more or less freestanding buildings IX-VI separated by courtyards may have served several generations of families before
pose, enables a shorter duration more in line with the 14C evidence.
About 10m East of the small elevation formed by the Aceramic mound, Building P.VI.1-3 (Mellaart 1970. Fig. 7) was built in a N-S orientation and probably founded on virgin soil, representing the first occupation during the Pottery Neolithic at Hacilar (Fig. 2. Walls K, L, E). Although only the remains of Level VI are excavated, I believe this building to be the latest stage of renewals of an original building created in Level IX. The buildings extending westwards confirm this sequence of events. Room Q.VI.5 having stone substructures is cut into the brim of the Ace-ramic mound (Wall G), the West wall foundations seemingly showing reinforcement against the pressure of the early mound. Also, the north wall of House Q.VI.5 has stone foundations cutting into the Aceramic mound, and was built during Level IX (Wall I, and Mellaart 1970.Fig. 39). This room, Q.VI.5, connects to the eastern stone wall (Wall E), which like many of the other walls in Hacilar is probably a foundation for a mud-brick wall later erased during Level VI (or missed, as seems suggested by a post slot fitted into wall E's west face, Mellaart 1970.Pls. Vb, Vila; for full argument see Thissen 2000a.138). As the section drawing shows, Room Q.VI.5 connects via walking surfaces starting in Level IX to Rooms Q.1-4 in the West, which are built directly on top of the Aceramic mound without stone substructures, evidently deemed unnecessary here, but possibly so as not to create too big a difference in elevation between the western and eastern houses. I suggest that Hacilar Levels IX-VI are a single stratigra-phic unit where all the major buildings were founded directly on virgin soil or over the Aceramic mound during what may be called Level IX, to see only refurbishings in the subsequent Levels VIII, VII and VI.2 Following this reinterpretation, the finds from the combined stratigraphic unit IX-VI should
2 Refloorings and replasterings must have been frequent (cf. Mellaart 1961.40-. "Level Vii is no more than an early floor of Level VF, and "Levels Vili and IX were two floors of one building level"), and room divisions, screens and storage bins may have shifted place during this period.
Fig. 3. Hacilar V-IIA typical pots and jars with two vertically placed strap handles, often with downward 'tongues' reinforcing attachment on the body (after Mellaart 1970.Figs. 60.23; 70:28; 75:16, 19, 22).
the settlement fell victim to a devastating fire.
Likewise, it is tenable to treat Haci-lar Levels V-IIA/B as another strati-graphic unit, largely built directly over the destruction level of Level VI. Level IIA walls are sitting directly on top of Level VI ones and can be connected to Level V walls strati-graphically (Fig. 2, walls A, D). Moreover, the overall orientation and layout of houses between Levels IX-VI and IIA were maintained. Levels VIII are not found in the western excavation area, and seem to represent minor adjustment stages restricted in scope and location within an original IIA settlement (cf. Thissen 2000a. 140-141 for full argument). Conceptually, the pottery is changing from a dominance of holemouth vessels with small or tubular suspension lugs often set in fours in the Level IX-VI unit (Mellaart 1970.Fig. 46), to a ceramic assemblage where manipulation, tactility and ways of carrying are guided (or perhaps defined) by vertical strap handles set in twos on necked pots and jars in Levels V-IIA/B (Fig. 3).3 This handling system was already in use during the earlier unit (Mellaart 1970.Figs. 48. 25, 26; 53.9; 59.7, 13), but not yet popular. Its full adoption in the Level V-IIA/B unit and the concomitant change in vessel forms suggest new ways of vessel use and possibly changing cooking habits. Emerging attitudes vis-à-vis material culture in terms of the pottery decoration first occurring in Levels IX-VI are also becoming more pronounced in this second stage, suggesting a rethinking of visuality and symbolism through specific ceramic categories including carinated bowls and (water?) jars (Mellaart 1970.Fig. 65). Profound shifts are even stronger in Hacilar I, where a restructuring of the settlement, involving a denial of previous building history, a different pottery which makes use of new clay sources, and changing concepts of pottery form have led Mel-laart to claim 'newcomers' (Mellaart 1975.118; 1998. 55) to have been responsible for the reoccupation of
Fig. 4. Hactlar 14C dates contiguous boundary model. BM-125 and BM-48 treated as outliers due to large stdev; AA-samples combined stemming from a single tree. Dark grey distributions show modelled dates, the light grey areas signify the original, individually calibrated distributions. Median indicated by + sign.
the site. However, water-jar manipulation concepts may have continued the tradition matured in the previous occupation (Mellaart 1970.Figs. 110.4, 7; 111.18, 19), and this may also have been the case for cooking pots (Mellaart 1970.Fig. 110.1-3, 5-6, 8). This would strengthen the idea that the gap between the destruction of Level IIA/B and the building of the large new settlement of Level I was not very wide, as is also suggested by the 14C data.
Applying a phase-boundary model to the Hacilar sequence, and conceiving the main stratigraphic units as defined above as contiguous (including Level IA), this results in a good fit of the data with an overall agreement of 117% (Fig. 4).4 The early start of IX-VI is generated primarily by, and might be distorted by, the three AA samples all taken from a single tree
3	Mellaart has gone so far as to label such vertical lugs as 'Hacilar handles' (Mellaart 1958.143).
4	All calculations in this paper are based on the IntCal09 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2009), and carried out with OxCal v.4.1.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). In this article, 14C measurements are standardly rounded by 10, ranges are quoted with 1o confidence intervals.
(from which, incidentally, also BM-48 was taken). (These three dates have their probability distributions combined, yielding 6380-6250, Acomb 115,8%.)5 It must be remembered that after IIA was burnt, the settlement was reused during Level IIB; likewise, after the IA destruction, the site was reoccupied (Levels IB-ID) - for which no dates are available. If we may trust these dates, few as they are, they establish three things: firstly, 'Late Neolithic' Hacilar Levels IX-VI date to the 3rd-4th quarters of the 7th millennium calBC; secondly, 'Early Chalco-lithic' Levels V-IIA still largely fall in the late 7th millennium as well; and thirdly, only Level I is definitely datable to the conventional 'Chalcolithic' (read: 6th millennium calBC) (its first two, or else three centuries, if we want to account for a post-IA occupation) (Tab. 1).
Even though the conventional labels used in Anatolian prehistory as Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic are rather arbitrary, taken together they denote a highly dynamic time frame seeing the destruction, rebuilding and relocation of settlements, as well as changing concepts towards pottery use and function, and investing in symbolic detail. These patterns in material culture will have reflected changing food habits and varying concepts of presentation and status. How is the situation at the neighbouring site of Kuruçay Höyük, of which recently Çilingiroglu rather aptly stated - arguing against its excavator's claims - that it would be rather "perverse" not to see some contemporaneity between both settlements (Çilingiroglu 2009.285)?
Kuruçay Höyük
Also for Kuruçay, a case can be made to combine/ conflate building remains - and hence material cul-
Phase Boundaries	calBC (io)	Median
Start Levels IX-VI	6410-6250	6350
Transition IX-VI / V-IIA	6210-6040	6120
Transition V-IIA / IA	6060-5850	5960
End Level IA	597°-567°	5780
Tab. 1. Hacilar: grouping of dates into bounded phases using the median as point estimator for the start and end of the phases.
Fig. 5. Kuruçay Level 11 üst, two-handled pots (after Duru 1994.Pls. 73. 7-11; 74.1, 3).
ture. From basal Levels 12 up to and including Level 10, similar elevations averaging at about 6m in the main excavation area (E-G/4-7), taken on the (single) stone foundation walls, suggest just a single, major building horizon, obviously with adjustments and rearrangements. If accepted, it follows that Kuru-çay was also occupied south of, that is outside of, the alleged fortification of Levels 12-11 (cf. Duru 1994.Pl. 30)6 Even the SW rectangular structure from Level 8 (no. 2) has similar elevations, and some walls from Level 9 have elevations only slightly higher than these. Consequently, it is conceivable that large tracts of the pre-Level 7 walls from Kuruçay are associated with one another. The stra-tigraphic complexity of the site and the absence of mud-brick superstructures are not aided by excavation methods. There is a general absence of systematic profile sections (but cf. Duru 1994.Pls. 8.1; 17.1), and stone foundations from higher levels remain standing during the dig (e.g., Duru 1994.Pl. 20.1), prohibiting a clear overview. In terms of orientation and use of space, Kuruçay Level 7 breaks with the previous tradition, radically overlaying the older set-tlement(s) in a N-S orientation. The monocellular, isolated or chained rectangular units are exchanged
5	Full details on all data used in this paper can be found in Table 6 and on the CANeW website: http://www.canew.org/data.html.
6	Also speaking against the idea of a fortification are the openings in the so-called towers, interpreted as doors, and facing the area extra muros (Duru 1994.12, Fig. 1).
for sturdier square units having inner buttresses, without obvious floor-level entrances (Duru 1994.Pl. 24). Elevations of the stone foundations are generally higher than the earlier levels, assuring that the stratigraphic sequence of Level 7 is definitely later than the 12-8 assembly. The difficult stratigraphic record of Kuruçay is one of the main reasons the pottery as presented (Duru 1994) shows a strong mix of what at the neighbouring site of Hacilar is separated between Hacilar V-IIA and I. At Kuruçay, pottery with Hacilar I characteristics turns up massively in Level 7, but it occurs consistently from the basal levels upwards as well (e.g., Duru 1994.Pls. 58.2; 65.10-14; 92, etc). Simultaneously, painted pottery in the Hacilar V-II style is found in Kuruçay 7 (Duru 1994.Pls. 165-166), which Duru regards as intrusions (e.g., Duru 1982.22; 1983.42). Schoop has interpreted this circumstance by inserting the whole Kuruçay sequence in an alleged gap between Hacilar V-II and I (2005.190, Fig. 4.9; also Clare et al. 2008.71-72); however, this is not supported by the 14C dates (below).
Regarding pottery, from Level 13 onwards at Kuruçay, the typical vertical strap handles known from Hacilar since Level VIII, but dominant there during the V-IIA/B unit, occur up to Level 7 (horn handles or down-turned ones) (Fig. 5). Together with a decrease in tubular lugs and the presence of the Haci-lar V-II painted style, the pronounced presence of vertical handled pots suggests that the whole sequence of Kuruçay parallels perhaps the tail-end of Hacilar VI, as well as the V-IIA/B period. The predominance of vertical handled pots even in Kuruçay 7 would place that occupation at the very end of Haci-lar II or the beginning of Hacilar I.
Fig. 6. Kuruçay 14C dates boundary model, where all dates are treated as deriving from a single phase.
later). Alternatively, the Level 7 date is from 'old wood' (Reingruber 2008.447), or is intrusive from older levels, as Duru thinks (Duru 1994.114). The latter is indeed plausible in view of the mixing of the pottery in all levels. The only secure procedure is to regard all dates (including the Level 7 one) as resulting from a short series of events following my conflation of the pre-Level 7 deposit, and thus providing a terminus post quem for Level 7. Conceived thus, all of 'Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic' Kuruçay dates to a time frame mostly filling the 61st century calBC, and agrees rather well with the span reached for the Hacilar V-IIA stratigraphic unit when considering the median estimators (Tab. 2).
The earlier extreme of the modelled start boundary of 6190 calBC would suggest that Kuruçay was founded somewhere during the final years of Hacilar IX-VI, subsequently continuing life contemporary to Hacilar V-IIA/B. The Kuruçay dates would confirm the final 7th millennium date for the 'Early Chal-colithic' painted pottery style in the Lakes Region.
Höyücek
The Kuruçay 14C data are very ambiguous and do not fit into a phase model, where the Level 7 date is earlier than the two dates from Levels 12 and 11, which, themselves, are nearly mutually exclusive on the 1g level (Fig. 6). There is also a Level 13/12 date from a wash-down deposit, even earlier. The samples do not have an exact provenance and context. Within conventional wisdom, where Kuruçay 7 would be about contemporary to Hacilar I given the pottery and architecture, the Level 11 date may have an original provenance as from Level 7, whereas the Level 7 date may stem from the earlier unit (12 or
Of the four i4C dates available from this site, only two can be used, where dates HD-14219 and 14218 do not fit the boundary model and are treated as outliers (Fig. 7). On the basis of the radiocarbon dates,
Phase Boundaries	calBC (10)	Median
Start	6190-6030	6120
End	6060-5910	597°
Tab. 2. Kuruçay: grouping of dates into bounded phases using the median as point estimator for the start and end of the phases.
Fig. 7. Höyücek 14C dates sequentional boundary model. (HD-14219, room 4; HD-14218, room 3; HD-14217, room 2 - p.c. Gül-sün Umurtak, April 2010.)
one could defend the view that Höyücek's Shrine Phase ('ShP') as well as the allegedly wattle-and-daub deposit underlying it (Early Settlements Phase, 'ESP') parallel the Hacilar IX-VI stratigraphie unit, but predate the occupation at Kuruçay. Höyücek's subsequent village (Sanctuary Phase, 'SP') has not been radiocarbon dated, but will have followed immediately, given the continuation of material culture, except for the introduction of painted pottery in the Hacilar V-II style. Such an estimate would confirm the still mainly 7th millennium cal BC association of this material reached when dating Hacilar V-IIA and Kuruçay 12-8. However, also the younger ShP date (HD-14127) was taken from a wooden post, and the date result may also have suffered from the old wood effect. The pottery from both the Shrine and the Sanctuary Phases has important aspects in common, notably the vertical strap handles on pots and jars (Fig. 8), as well as the typical feature of fenestra-ted ring bases. I argue that the handle sets suggest an important shift in tactility and manipulation patterns that reflect changing vessel-use concepts, probably involving cooking methods. I assume that within the SW Anatolian Lakes Region, these changing concepts from a previous assemblage of food processing vessels dominated by tubular or knoblike suspension lugs must have been more or less contemporary. If so, this would provide us with a tool with which to date the sites more precisely.
time; and secondly, that the single 14C date for the Shrine Phase is possibly too old, and the actual date of the phase is more probably contemporary with the Kuruçay pre-Level 7 deposit, as well as the final years of Hacilar VI and the beginning of the Hacilar V-IIA unit. Perfect parallels exist between the Shrine Phase and Hacilar VI in terms of the pottery, but most of these can also be found in Hacilar V-II.7 Consequently, Höyücek's boundary model and its median estimators possibly give a misleading picture, and it is probably the tail-ends of both start and end boundaries for the Shrine Phase - viz. 6140 calBC and 6080 calBC resp. - that make a better fit considering the pottery parallels (Tab. 3). Höyücek's Early Settlements Phase will have run largely contemporary with the Hacilar IX-VI stratigraphic unit. The undated Sanctuary Phase, finally, would - immediately ensuing -fall into the 61st millennium calBC.
Bademagaci
Importantly, vertically placed strap handles set in twos on pots and jars are largely absent from the Bademagaci assemblages as published up to now (the site is still being excavated). Instead, manipulation and tactility are resolved by tubular lugs, which are often large, with vessels often having only two (Fig. 9). Parallel vessels are also part of the repertoire of Hacilar IX-VI (Mellaart 1970.Figs. 46.5; 49.12-13; 54.10; 55.8), and are yet another solution to the manipulation of what are most obviously cooking pots (flat bases, easily accessible orifices, sturdy lugs high up near the rims). Pots with vertical strap handles occur only very rarely at Bademagaci (Duru 2002.Pl. 17.5; 2004.Pl. 24.1). The 14C dates largely confirm the parallelism with early Hacilar, at
Phase Boundaries	calBC (1G)	Median
Start 'ESP'	6380-6230	6330
End 'ESP'	6330-6210	6260
Start 'ShP'	6280-6140	6220
End 'ShP'	6250-6080	6160
Since vessels with two vertical strap handles are conspicuously present in both main phases of Höyücek, this could suggest two things: first, that the Shrine Phase and the Sanctuary Phase are very close in
Tab. 3. Höyücek: grouping of dates into bounded phases using the median as point estimator for the start and end of the phases. See text for validity of estimations.
7 The fenestrated ring/disk bases from the ShP and SP stages (Duru 1995.Pl. 19.8-9), compare with Hacilar IIB (Mellaart 1970.
Fig. 90.32-33). Also in Kuruçay (Levels 10-9, Duru 1994.Pl. 108.21-25).
least as far as Bademagaci Levels 4A-1 are concerned (Fig. 10). The basal Level 9 date is on a long wiggle section of the IntCal 2009 calibration curve, between 70006700 calBC. With a start in the early 64th C calBC for Level 4A, a beginning of Badema-gaci at about the tail end of that wiggle (6700 calBC) seems more likely (Tab. 4).
Karain
The cave site at Karain is very close to Bademagaci, and partly contemporary, judging from the 14C evidence, and therefore likely to yield a similar cultural assemblage. This is difficult to ascertain, since the pottery presented by Seeher (1989) is mixed, as is often the case at cave sites (Reingru-ber 2008.452). Three dates suggest intermittent use of the site between the mid 7th and the beginning of the 6th millennium calBC (Fig. 11). Among the pottery, the tongue-shaped handles (Seeher 1989.Figs. 1.4; 2.7-8) suggest a final 7th millenium date contemporary with the Hacilar V-II unit, and some of the painted material would correspond to Hacilar I (Seeher 1989.Fig. 3.9-17). Other red slipped profiles of dishes, holemouth and S-shaped pots with vertically pierced knobs high up on the vessel shoulders parallel Bademagaci Levels 4B-2 and basal Hacilar (Seeher 1989.Figs. 1.12, 18; 2.1).
Ulucak
The Ulucak 14C data are rather difficult to interpret, since many seem too old or too young for their context in relation to the stratigraphy (cf. Çilingiroglu 2009.44-48). Therefore, sequencing the dates is virtually impossible and the result presented in Fig. 12
Fig. 8. Höyücek selected vessels with two vertically placed strap handles from the Shrine Phase and Sanctuary Phase (after Duru and Umurtak 2005).
has an Agreement of 0%, and must therefore be treated with the utmost caution. Be that as it may, barring the two earliest dates from Level VI which take the site back into the first half of the 7th millennium calBC8, Ulucak Vf may have started about halfway through the 65th century calBC, and the village may have existed down to 5800 calBC (Tab. 5). Within the poor radiocarbon sequence, some stable points exist, allowing for termini post and ante quem. Level Vb, for example, was burnt and can be securely
Phase Boundaries	calBC (10)	Median
Start 4A	6420 - 6280	637°
Transition 4A \ 4	6390 - 6260	6330
Transition 4 \ 4-3A	6350 - 6240	6290
End 4-3A	6290 - 6210	6250
Start 1	6260 - 6160	6210
End 1	6230 - 6110	6170
Phase Boundaries	calBC (10)	Median
Start Via	6810-6650	6740
Transition Via \ Vf	6460-6430	6450
Transition Vf \ Ve	6450-6430	6440
Transition Ve \ Vd	6450-6390	6420
Transition Vd \ Vc	6340-6290	6320
Transition Vc \ Vb	6330-6270	6290
Transition Vb \ Va	6230-6100	6180
End Va	6080-5970	6030
Start IVi	6040-5930	6000
End IVi	6010-5890	5940
Start IVb	5930-5810	5870
End IVb	5880-5740	5800
Tab. 4. Bademagaci: grouping of dates into bounded phases using the median as point estimator for the start and end of the phases, starting with Level 4A.
Tab. 5. Ulucak: grouping of dates into bounded phases using the median as point estimatorfor the start and end of the phases (full data in Çilingiroglu 2009).
8 An age currently confirmed by more dates from Level VI (Çiler Çilingiroglu, p.c. April 2010).
Fig. 9. Bademagaci selected pottery with two zontal (tubular) lugs (after Duru 1997.Pls. 2000.Pl. 6.1; 2004.Pl. 23.4-5).
dated on a four times combined date as having ended anywhere between 62306100 calBC. This would make the Vb village contemporary with Hacilar's early unit IX-VI and Bademagaci Level 1.
Regarding pottery, there are clear links between Ulucak and the Lakes Region primarily in the earlier part of the sequences (i.e., the Hacilar IX-VI and Bademagaci units), but whereas in the Lakes area new concepts concerning vessel use and manipulation emerge towards the end of the 7th millennium, together with a fashion for painted bowls and jars, development in the West was much more gradual. Tubular lugs and vertically pierced knobs determine ideas about the handling of vessels and vessel use as much in the later stages of Ulucak as they did in the early levels. Vertically placed strap handles are very rare in Ulucak, where they occur during Levels Va-IVb (Çilingiroglu 2009.Pls. 16.4; 20.23; 28.16; 37.14, 16, 17), a range confirming contemporaneity with Kuruçay 128 and Hacilar V-IIa/IA. Also, Ulucak's impresso pottery (Çilingiroglu 2009.85, Fig. 4.1) fits this date, making it contemporary also with Ilipinar phases IX-VIII having similar impresso pottery (Thissen 2001.Figs.
opposing hori-12.1-2; 15.7;
33-43). Ceramic traditions may have been stronger and more stable in the West than they were in the Lakes area. Importantly, painted pottery, like the brilliant material from Hacilar V-II and I, is conspicuously absent in Ulucak, as it is at all Turkish Aegean sites explored until now (Lichter 2005.64; 2006.34-36; Herling et al. 2008.21).
Conclusions
The data presented lead me to several preliminary observations. Both in the Lakes Region and in Western Turkey, pottery Neolithic sites are at least as early as 6400 calBC (Fig. 13). The deep deposits at Höyücek, Ba-demagaci and possibly an occupation level at the Karain cave, all in the Southwest, and those present in Ulucak in the West, still seem to carry pottery, although there may be less and less at succeeding levels (cf. the Bademagaci evidence - Duru 2002. 583). The dating evidence for these basal levels at Bademagaci and Ulucak is still ra-
Fig. 10. Bademagaci 14C dates sequentional boundary model, phase 4-3A to phase 1 contiguous. Phase 4-3A dates Hd-22339 and Hd-20910 treated as outliers.
ther poor, but suggests that technologically sophisticated pottery may have been in use as early as 6700 calBC.
Judging from the conceptual similarities between the early potteries of Bademagaci 4A-1, Hacilar IX-VI and Ulucak V - mainly evident from shapes, handle sets and surface treatments - technological knowledge and shared ideas concerning manipulation and vessel use were widespread at the beginning of the 2nd half of the 7th millennium calBC, encompassing an area stretching from (parts of) Aegean Turkey to the Lakes Region, including the Antalya area (Karain). They may well have gone back earlier. It is only at about the later part of the 62nd century calBC that West and SW begin to diverge, as best seen in changes in the handle sets applied to pots and jars in the SW; meanwhile, in the West, traditions are being maintained and continued into the 6th millennium calBC.
Given the parallel development both in time and material culture in both areas, starting during the first half of the 7th millennium calBC, there is little support for migration or diffusion models claiming a general East-West direction across Anatolia and finding their origin in a collapse at the end of the PPNB period. If a demic movement is not at the base
Modelled date (BC)
Fig. 11. Karain 14C dates, calibrated individually.
of the Neolithic in SW and Aegean Anatolia, this necessarily discredits any additional movement into Europe (read: Greece) from the western parts of Turkey as merely yet another step in such a process. I do not oppose the idea of migration into Greece, but I think this to have been a small-scale, local, even peripheral event isolated from the grand sweep of collapse models. The neolithisation of Thessaly and the Peloponnesus were, most likely, separate and unconnected events (Thissen 2000b), and these events took place several centuries later than the first occupations bearing pottery in the Turkish Aegean (Reingruber and Thissen 2008).
The dating evidence gathered in this paper does not straightforwardly confirm (or deny) the 8.2ka climate event to have been a direct influence on the occupation histories either of sites in Aegean Turkey or the Lakes Region. The sequences at Hacilar and Höyücek probably continue across the 6200 calBC point, despite the burning of individual villages (Hacilar IX-VI, Höyü-cek's Shrine and Sanctuary Phases). Villages appear to have been rebuilt and reused. It is equally difficult to prove that the definitely major shift in concepts of dealing with pottery and in cooking methods, and the emerging predilection for 'fantastic' painted bowls and jars, were also linked to 8.2ka, since the germs of this methodological shift and the idea of enhancing visuality and symbolic language by means of ceramics were already present in the preceding occupations. Nor is such a shift demonstrable in Ulucak, where tradition is more stable or conservative, and painted pottery very rare.
7000-6500
Modelleddate (BC)
Fig. 12. Ulucak 14C dates boundary model (for full dates refer to Çilingiroglu 2009.536-537;.
In the Balkans, pottery starts being used, in massive quantities immediately, in the 61st century calBC at the earliest (Thissen 2009), at a time that
in SW Anatolia painted pottery began to appear in stage in SE Europe thus postdates the SW Anatolian some quantity (Hacilar V-IIA/B, Kuruçay 12-8, Hö- 'monochrome' stage by a few centuries. Additionally, yücek Sanctuary Phase). This so-called Monochrome the painted decoration motifs in Bulgarian contexts
Lab. no. Date BP	calBC (10) Material		Level		Provenance (ref.)
Bademagaci (1. Duru 2002.588< 2	Duru 2004.558)				
Hd-22340 7949+31	7030-6760	C	Early Neolithic	I/8	Deep sounding C5/III.5, limestone plaster floor (2)
Hd-22279 7465+27	6400-6260	C	Early Neolithic	II/4A	nd (2)
Hd-21015 7481+40	6420-6260	C	Early Neolithic	II/4	nd (1)
Hd-21016 7424+37	6370-6240	C	Early Neolithic	II/4	nd (1)
Hd-22339 7553+31	6450-6400	C	Early Neolithic	II/4-3A	nd (2)
Hd-20910 7546+41	6450-6390	C	Early Neolithic	II/3	nd (1)
Hd-21058 7459+51	6400-6250	C	Early Neolithic	II/3	nd (1)
Hd-21046 7307+41	6230-6100	C	Early Neolithic	II/1	nd (1)
Hacilar (1. Barker and Mackey 1960.29-30^ 2. Ralph and Stuckenrath i962.i4$-6< 3. Barker and Mackey 1963.107-8^ 4. Mellaart 1970.92-5)					
P-314 7340+94	6350-6070	C	IX		Area E, hearth throwout (2, 4)
BM-125 7770+180	7010-6440	C	VII		Area P, corner post of a room (3, 4)
BM-48 7550+180	6600-6230	C	VI		Area P, burnt post or beam (1, 4)
P-313A 7350+85	6350-6080	C	VI		Area E, ashes from hearth (additional NaOH pretreatment) (2, 4)
P-313 7150+98	6210-5900	C	VI		Area E, ashes from hearth (acid pretreatment) (2, 4)
P-313 and P-313A from same sam	ple. R_Combine:	7266+64 BP (6220-6060 calBC at 10)			
P-316 7170+134	6220-5910	C	IIA		Area N, room 4, roof beam (2, 4)
P-315A 7047+221	6210-5710	C	IA		Roof beam, room 5 (additional NaOH pretreatment) (2, 4)
P-315 6926+95	5960-5720	C	IA		Roof beam, room 5 (acid pretreatment) (2, 4)
P-315A and P-315 from same sam	ple. R_Combine:	6945+87 BP (5970-5730 calBC at 10)			
Hacilar. Decadal samples from a	jingle tree sequence (sam		e as BM-48) (Maryanne		Newton/Peter Kuniholm, p.c. 12
November 2001)					
AA-41602 7468+51	6410-6250 C (	uniper)	VI		Area P (C-TU-HAC-1A)
AA-41603 7452+51	6390-6250 C (j	uniper)	VI		Area P (C-TU-HAC-1B)
AA-41604 7398+63	6380-6220C (j	uniper)	VI		Area P (C-TU-HAC-2)
Höyücek (Duru and Umurtak 2005.226< p.c. Gülsün		Umurtak, April 2010)			
Utc-3793 7393+38	6360-6220	AB	Early Settlement Phase		2 nd
HD-14219/14007 7556+45	6460-6390	C	Shrine Phase		Post (1990 season) Room 4
HD-14218/14002 7551+46	6460-6390	C	Shrine Phase		Post (1990 season) Room 3
HD-14217/13822 7349+38	6260-6100	C	Shrine Phase		Post (1990 season) Room 2, Square J/5
Karain (Albrecht et al. 1992.131)					
HD-10819/10748 7710+115	6660-6440	C	AH 13		Cave B
HD-10818/10747 7420+70	6380-6230	C	AH 12		Cave B
HD-10817/10746 7100+70	6050-5900	C	AH 11		Cave B
Kuruçay Höyük (1. Duru 19&3.47<< 2. Duru 1994.89)					
HD-12915/12673 7310+70	6240-6080	AB	13		Test trench A, B or C (2)
HD-12916/12674 7140+35	6050-5990	AB	12		nd (2)
HD-12917/12830 7045+95	6020-5830	AB	11		nd (2)
Hacettepe-I 7214+38	6200-6010	C	7		nd (1)
Tab. 6. Radiocarbon dates used in the text, sites in alphabetic order. Abbreviations used: C = charcoal, AB = animal bone; nd = no information available.
Fig. 13. Absolute chronological chart based on median estimators (black demarcators) of phase boundaries (see text). Transparant shades and fading represent absence of dates. NOTE: Höyücek ShP and SP are probably contemporary with final Hacilar VI/V-IIA and Kuruçay 12-10(9-8?) rather than the earlier range as provided by the boundary model (cf. Höyücek discussion).
that are supposedly a matter of 'imports', or indeed a sign of demic diffusion, are likewise incompatible
in date with their Anatolian counterparts, where the Balkan examples date to the 59th/58th centuries calBC at the earliest. Kovacevo's handful of sherds with motif similarities to painted bowls from Hacilar V-IIA (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2006.87, 94, Pl. 2) are labelled as 'rare' and deviating from the rest of the painted ceramics (Lichardus-Itten 2009.17; following the 'import' idea also Chohadzhiev 2007.96). Similar motifs occur on a few sherds from Rakitovo (Macanova 2000.Pl. III.5). All sites clearly postdate the 7th/6th millennium calBC transition, and the sherds discussed are embedded in pottery assemblages very different from those of the Lakes Region. The idea of imports is tenable, and perhaps it is better to see such vessels as having played a role in exchange systems involving status products. Many other items of an elusive (truly a "liste à la Prévert" - Perlès 2005.277; cf. Çilingiroglu 2005) 'Neolithic package' (cf. the subsumed objects in Özdogan 2008.Figs. 1-9) by their very exclusivity do fit a Balkan-Aegean-Anatolian exchange system better than migration models.
I believe that the Lakes Region and West Turkey developed along lines largely independent from Central and SE Anatolia. From what was at first a conceptually coherent material culture based on shared know-how and categorisation patterns, as exemplified by attitudes to pottery, trajectories vis-à-vis vessel manipulation diverged towards the end of the 7th millennium calBC - as more regionally determined patterns of pottery use testify; I believe this divergence reflected changing patterns in cooking and food processing. These changes were both dynamic and structural in the Anatolian Southwest, but can be hardly observed in contemporary West Turkish site contexts.
REFERENCES
ALBRECHT G., ALBRECHT B., BERKE H. et al. 1992. Late Pleistocene and early Holocene finds from Öküzini: a contribution to the settlement history of the Bay of Antalya, Turkey. Paléorient 18/2:123-141.
BARKER H. and MACKEY C. i960. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements II. Radiocarbon 2:26-30.
BARKER H. and MACKEY C. 1963. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements IV. Radiocarbon 5:104-108.
BRONK RAMSEY C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337-360.
CHOHADZHIEV S. 2007. Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in the Struma River basin. Veliko Tarnovo.
ÇILINGIROGLU Ç. 2005. The concept of "Neolithic package": considering its meaning and applicability. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehi-storica 32: 1-13.
2009. Central-West Anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th millennium BCE in the light of pottery from Ulucak (Izmir). PhD dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen.
ÇILINGIROGLU A. and ÇILINGIROGLU Ç. 2007. Ulucak. In M. Özdogan and N. Basgelen (eds.), Turkiye'de Neolitik dönem: yeni kazilar, yeni bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul: 361-372.
CLARE L., ROHLING E J., WENINGER B. HILPERT J. 2008. Warfare in Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Pisidia, southwestern Turkey. Climate induced social unrest in the late 7th millennium calBC. In M. Budja (ed.), 15th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 65-92.
DERIN Z. 2007. Ye§ilova Höyügü. In M. Özdogan and N. Basgelen (eds.), Turkiye'de Neolitik dönem: yeni kazi-lar, yeni bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul: 377-384.
DURU R. 1982. Excavations at Kuruçay Höyük, 1980. Ana-dolu Arastirmalari 8:18-38.
1983. Excavations at Kuruçay Höyük, 1981. Anadolu Arastirmalari 9:13-50.
1994.	Kuruçay Höyük I. 1978-1988 kazilarin sonu-çlari. Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çag yerlesmeleri. Results of the excavations 1978-1988. The Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods. Türk Tarih Kurumu. Ankara.
1995.	Höyücek kazilari - 1991/1992. Belleten 59:447490.
1997. Bademagaci kazilari. 1995 ve 1996 yillari çalissma raporu. Belleten 61: 709-730.
2000. Bademagaci kazilari 1999 yili çali§ma raporu. Belleten 64: 583-598.
2002. Bademagaci kazilari 2000 ve 2001 yillari çalissma raporu. Belleten 65: 549-594.
2004. Excavations at Bademagaci. Preliminary report, 2002 and 2003. Belleten 68: 540-560.
DURU R. and UMURTAK G. 2005. Höyucek, 1989-1992 yillari arasinda yapilan kazilarin sonuçlari. Turk Tarih Kurumu. Ankara.
ELENSKI N. 2004. Cultural contacts of North-Central Bulgaria with Thrace and the Marmara area in the Early Neolithic. In V. Nikolov, K. Bačvarov and P. Kalchev (eds.), Prehistoric Thrace. Sofia-Stara Zagora: 71-79.
HERLING L., KASPER K., LICHTER C., MERIÇ R. 2008. Im Westen nichts Neues? Ergebnisse der Grabungen 2003 und 2004 in Dedecik-Heybelitepe. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58: 13-65.
HOREJS B. 2008. Çukuriçi Höyuk. A new excavation project in the Eastern Aegean. 4 Feb. 2008. Aegeo-Balkan Pre-
history. http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article. php?id_art=9 (1 May 2010).
LAZAROVICI C. M. and LAZAROVICI G. 2006. Arhitectu-ra Neoliticului si Epocii Cuprului din România -1 Neo-liticul. Editura Trinitas. Ia§i.
LAZAROVICI G. 1998. About the neolithisation process of the second migration of the early Neolithic. In F. Dra§o-vean (ed.), The Late Neolithic of the Middle Danube region. Editura Eurobit, Timi§oara: 7-37.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M. 2009. La néolithisation des Balkans méridionaux vue à travers la céramique de Kovačevo. In L. Astruc, A. Gaulon and L. Salanova (eds.), Méthodes d'approche des premières productions céramiques: étude de cas dans les Balkans et au Levant. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden: 13-20.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M. and LICHARDUS J. 2003. Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungs-prozesse in Südost- und Mitteleuropa. In E. Jerem and P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nändor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Ar-chaeolingua, Budapest: 61-81.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M., DEMOULE J.-P., PERNICHEVA L., GREBSKA-KULOVA M., KULOV I. 2006. Kovačevo, an Early Neolithic site in South-West Bulgaria and its importance for European neolithisation. In I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea: The present state of research on the Early Neolithic. Beier & Beran. Langenweissbach: 83-94.
LICHTER C. 2005. Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of research. In C. Lichter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul: 59-74.
2006. Zum Forschungsstand des Neolithikums und frühen Chalkolithikums in Westanatolien. In I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: the present state of research on the Early Neolithic. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach: 29-46.
MACANOVA V. 2000. Neolithische Siedlung bei Rakitovo. Stratigraphie und Chronologie. In S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds.), Karanovo III, Band III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos Verlag. Vienna: 59-73.
MELLAART J. 1958. Excavations at Hacilar. First preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 8:127-156.
1961. Excavations at Hacilar. Fourth preliminary report, 1960. Anatolian Studies 11:39-75.
1970. Excavations at Hacilar. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh.
1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and Hudson. London.
1998. Hacilar: 1957-1960 excavations. In R. Matthews (ed.), Ancient Anatolia. Fifty years' work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London: 53-60.
NEAGU M. 2000. Comunitatile Dude§ti-Cernica din Central §i Sud-Estul Câmpiei Române. Istro-Pontica: 53-66.
ÖZDOGAN M. 2007. Amidst Mesopotamia-centric and Eurocentric approaches: the changing role of the Anatolian peninsula between the East and the West. Anatolian Studies 57: 17-34.
2008. An alternative approach in tracing changes in demographic composition: The westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences. Springer, Dordrecht: 139-178.
NIKOLOV V. 1989. Das Flußtal der Struma als Teil der Straße von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa. In S. Bökönyi and P. Raczky (eds.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. International conference 1987, Szolnok-Szeged, Budapest: 191-199.
PERLÈS C. 2005. From the Near East to Greece: Let's reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn't transfer. In C. Lichter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC. Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul: 275-290.
RALPH E. and STUCKENRATH R. 1962. University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates V. Radiocarbon 4: 144159.
REIMER P. J., BAILLIE M. G. L., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BECK J. W., BLACKWELL P. G., BRONK RAMSEY C., BUCK C. E., BURR G. S., EDWARDS R. L., FRIEDRICH M., GROOTES P. M., GUILDERSON T. P., HAJDAS I., HEATON T. J., HOGG A. G., HUGHEN K. A., KAISER K. F., KROMER B., MCCORMAC F. G., MANNING S. W., REIMER R. W., RICHARDS D. A., SOUTHON J. R., TALAMO S., TURNEY C. S. M., VAN DER PLICHT J., WEYHENMEYER C. E. 2009. IntCal09 and Ma-rine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4): 1111-1150.
REINGRUBER A. 2008. Die Argissa-Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte tran-sägäischer Beziehungen. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn.
REINGRUBER A. and THISSEN L. 2008. Depending on 14C data: chronological frameworks in the Neolithic and Chal-colithic of Southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 52(2): 751-770.
RENFREW C. 1987. Archaeology and language. Thepuz-zle of Indo-European origins. Jonathan Cape. London [1989 Penguin ed. used].
RODDEN R. 1965. An early neolithic village in Greece. Scientific American 212/4: 82-92.
SAGLAMTIMUR H. 2007. Ege Gübre Neolitik yerle§imi. In M. Özdogan and N. Basgelen (eds.), Türkiye'de Neolitik dönem: Yeni kazilar, yeni bulgular. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul: 373-376.
SCHOOP U.-D. 2005. Das anatolische Chalcolithikum. Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner. Remshalden.
SEEHER J. 1989. Antalya yakinlarinda Karain magarasin-daki kalkolitik çag buluntulari. Araçtirma Sonuçlari To-plantisi 5: 221-238.
TAKAOGLU T. 2005. Co§kuntepe: an Early Neolithic quern production site in NW Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology 30(4): 419-433.
THISSEN L. 2000a. Early village communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500-5500 cal BC. Studies in chronology and culture contact. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
2000b. Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: clues for the neolithisation of Greece? In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 27:141154.
2001. The pottery of Ilipinar, phases X to VA. In J. Roodenberg and L. Thissen (eds.), The Ilipinar excavations II. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden: 3-154.
2009. First ceramic assemblages in the Danube catchment, SE Europe - a synthesis of the radiocarbon evidence. Buletinul Muzeului Judefean Teleorman 1: 9-30.
WENINGER B., ALRAM-STERN E., BAUER E., CLARE L., DANZEGLOCKE U., JÖRIS O., KUBATZKI C., ROLLEFSON G., TODOROVA H. 2005. Die Neolithisierung von Südosteuropa als Folge des abrupten Klimawandels um 8200 cal BP. In D. Gronenborn (ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas, 6700-2200 v. Chr. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Tagungen 1. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz: 75-117.