265
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
Diversity and homogeneity among
the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
Eylem Özdoğan
Istanbul University, Istanbul, TR
eyozdogan@yahoo.com
Introduction
The origin of Neolithic societies in Europe, which
solidified connections between the Near East and
the Aegean, has been discussed for over a hundred
years. However, through time, not only what is im-
plied by the term Neolithic but also the conceptual
framework for approaching the problem has been
considerably modified; as more data became avail-
able, not only our vision of the Neolithic, but more
significantly, the questions being asked had to be
reformulated.
The emergence and dispersal of the Neolithic way
of life from the core area of its origin to the borders
of Central Europe and the western coastal areas of
the Mediterranean has been seen as a long multifa-
rious process covering the period between the 10th
and 6th millennium BC; evidently, depending on
the questions being asked or the modalities of our
approach, there would be different ways to look
into this vast territory, particularly in defining spa-
tial boundaries. This paper will be concerned main-
ly with two distinct entities; the first area encom-
passes the geographical region where the Neolithic
way of life first appeared and developed its main
features. Different terms have been used to describe
this region, such as ‘the origin of civilisation’, ‘the
Fertile Crescent’, ‘the primary zone of Neolithisation’,
‘the core area’ or ‘the formative zone’ etc. (see Bai-
ley, Whittle 2005; Özdogan 2008; 2011; Asouti 2006;
Zeder 2011). There are remarkable differences be-
tween these terms, not only in their meaning, but
in the geographic and chronological boundaries of
the region. In this paper, the main area where the
basic features of the Neolithic way of life were form-
ABSTRACT – Our knowledge of the Neolithisation of Western Anatolia has increased considerably in
recent years. Being located beyond, but on the border of the formative zone of Neolithisation, the
region has acted as a buffer in the dispersal of the Neolithic way of life farther to the west. Recent
research in Western Anatolia has shown that Neolithic sites appeared in the second quarter of the
7th millennium BC and had become widespread by the second half of the same millennium. There
is now adequate data available on both the distribution of sites and the material culture in some sub-
regions. In this context, this article will focus not on the Neolithisation process, but on the charac-
teristic features of the sub-regions and the interaction between them.
IZVLE∞EK – Na∏e vedenje o neolitizaciji zahodne Anatolije se je v zadnjih letih znatno pove≠alo.
Glede na svoj polo∫aj onstran, a vseeno na meji formativne cone neolitizacije, je ta regija delovala
kot lo≠itveno obmo≠je pri ∏irjenju neolitskega na≠ina ∫ivljenja proti zahodu. Nedavne raziskave na
zahodnem delu Anatolije so pokazale, da so se tam neolitska naselja pojavila v drugi ≠etrtini 7. ti-
so≠letja pr. n. ∏t., raz∏irila pa so se v drugi polovici istega tiso≠letja. Trenutno imamo ∫e dovolj do-
stopnih podatkov o ∏iritvi najdi∏≠ in materialne kulture v nekaterih podregijah. V ≠lanku se tako ne
osredoto≠amo na proces neolitizacije, temve≠ na zna≠ilnosti v teh podregijah in na njihovi medse-
bojni interakciji.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Western Anatolia; Secondary Neolithisation
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.13 
Eylem Özdoğan
266
ed will be referred to as the ‘Formative Neolithisa-
tion Zone’. This is the main area where the first Neo-
lithic communities appeared by the 10th millenni-
um BC and where cultural and technological devel-
opments occurred gradually in a dynamic process.
This wide geographical area includes sub-regions
such as the Levant, northern Mesopotamia/the Tig-
ris and Euphrates Basin, the Zagros Mountains (?),
Central Anatolia and Cyprus; even further distinc-
tions can be made on the local level.
The second area is where the components consti-
tuting the Neolithic way of life appeared without
precedent, although these same elements, sometimes
contemporarily but generally earlier, emerge in the
formative zone. The beginning of Neolithisation in
these secondary areas, including western Anatolia,
the Aegean, Greece, the Balkans, the Adriatic, Central
Europe, the western Mediterranean, North Africa,
and even the Caucasus, extends from the beginning
of the 7th to the end of the 6th millennium BC. Here
it is worth noting that the areas of secondary Neoli-
thisation cannot be considered as a uniform entity;
on the contrary, it comprises several distinct enti-
ties, each having its particular modalities. Direct or
indirect connections to the formative zone, and the
continuity of that relationship, the distribution of
Neolithic components, the contribution of local ele-
ments to the Neolithic way of life, and/or the adap-
tation of Neolithic elements to a new natural/cult-
ral environment all played a role in this process; due
to the cultural and environmental variables and dif-
ferences in Neolithisation processes, designating this
area as a whole with a categorical name is rather dif-
ficult. In this respect, based on the presence of ad-
vanced Neolithic elements that evidently derived
from the formative zone after being fully developed
there, it seems proper to address them as the ‘Se-
condary Neolithisation Zone’. Even if grouping all
of the regions noted above under this term is ques-
tionable, it seems proper to use it at least for west-
ern Anatolia, Greece, and the Balkans, regions that
not only constitute the borderlands of the formative
zone, but had sustained interaction with it.
The Neolithisation process in these secondary areas
has been discussed since the first half of the 20th
century (Childe 1929; 1939; Miloj≠i≤ 1949; Gara∏a-
nin 1954; Renfrew 1987; Price 2000; Lichter, Meriç
2005; Gatsov, Schwarzberg 2006; Krauß 2011).
Many of the debates surrounding their emergence
have arisen out of the conflict between diffusional
and anti-diffusional approaches; nevertheless, trends
have been changing since the 1990s, developing a
multi-dimensional holistic approach to looking at
the problem (see Harris 2003), and considering both
cultural and demic movements in the westward ex-
pansion of the Neolithic way of life (van Andel, Run-
nels 1995; Zilhão 1997; Zvelebil, Lillie 2000; Zvele-
bil 2001; Bogucki 2003; Perlès 2003; Özdogan
2011; Budja 2009; 2013). As will be elaborated be-
low, recent work in western Anatolia not only re-
veals apparent similarities between the formative
and secondary zones, but also presents direct evi-
dence of interregional connections.
Research in western Anatolia in the last two decades
has demonstrated that the Neolithic way of life
emerged almost simultaneously in Western Anatolia
and Greece, expanding to the Balkans just a short
time later. Although this was a rapid process in sec-
ondary areas, Neolithic settlements in the initial
phase of dispersion seem to have been sparse. In
the second half of 7th millennium BC, this dispersal
gained momentum, but the massive expansion of
the Neolithic way of life took place at the end of the
same millennium or the beginning of the next. Thus
the apparent leap of dispersal from Central to West-
ern Anatolia is part of a more complex picture, which
must be examined in accordance with the dynamics
behind Neolithic dispersal from the formative zone
(Brami 2015).
In the course of recent decades, with the onset of
new excavations, our knowledge of the material as-
semblages of Western Anatolia has increased consi-
derably; it now is possible to detect several compo-
nents that indicate a close relationship with the for-
mative zone. It seems that demic diffusion played an
imported role in the Neolithisation of Western Ana-
tolia, Greece, and the Balkans. In this respect, signi-
ficant contributions have been made by archaeoge-
netic studies, gradually providing ample new data
to answer questions relating to the Neolithisation
process. At the present point of research, although
there has been a number research projects, some
still ongoing, based on genome studies to under-
stand the interaction between the sub-regions of the
Formative Zone and the area of Secondary Neolithi-
sation, mainly due to the geographic and as well
chronologically uneven distribution of samples, some
considerable controversies still need more time to be
resolved. On the other hand, evidence of the contri-
bution of early Near Eastern farmers to the European
gene pool is gradually increasing (Pinhasi et al.
2005; Thomas et al. 2013; Fort 2015; Mathieson et
al. 2015; Lazaridis et al. 2016; Hofmanová et al.
2016).
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
267
A recent DNA project which compares the genes of
contemporary populations in Northwestern Anato-
lia with samples from the Neolithic layers of Barcın
and Neolithic sites in Greece has revealed certain ge-
netic connections between these two regions (Hof-
manová et al. 2016). However, genetic studies, espe-
cially from Anatolian sites, are still extremely few.
Barcın is the only Neolithic site in Western Anatolia
to compare to the whole of Europe. As well as que-
stions about the genetic composition of Western
Anatolia, there are many more questions about the
differences between the Neolithic societies of West-
ern and Central Anatolia and the unknown Mesoli-
thic populations. The genetic connection between
Anatolia and the Near East has also not been ascer-
tained thoroughly. Therefore, given the present
state of genomic research, it is difficult to define
clear routes for Neolithic expansion; moreover, the
results of genetic analysis have to be correlated with
the archaeological evidence. In this respect, there
is a significant discrepancy between the archaeolo-
gical evidence and the genome studies noted above;
a recent assessment of the archaeological evidence
of Northwest Anatolian Neolithic sites clearly reveals
a difference between sites in eastern and western
parts of Thrace, indicating that the Barcın-related as-
Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text.
semblages stopped in the area of Istanbul without
expanding into Thrace (Özdogan 2014a). Thus, the
archaeological and genomic results have somehow
to be considered together before making conclusive
remarks. Contrary to the differences between the
Neolithic assemblages on the eastern and western
sides of the Sea of Marmara, similarities with main-
land Greece are evident, which could be interpreted
either as evidence of a direct connection between the
two regions or an indication of their common origin.
Although there are similarities, cultural differences
can be discerned between large cultural areas and at
the local level. Thus, it is difficult to envisage an
identical process of Neolithisation for the whole area
or to confirm the same mechanism for the process.
Detailed studies of micro-regions, as well as enabling
the summarising of local developments, more signi-
ficantly provide the means to develop supra-regional
perspectives; otherwise, as exemplified above, what
seems similar in an overview, either in a cultural or
genetic analysis, may give way to new controversies.
Research in Western Anatolia has shown that there
are cultural differences within the region itself. This
paper aims to present the differences and similari-
Eylem Özdoğan
268
ties between the adaptations of Neolithic elements
in various areas of this region, although some areas
still remain undocumented.
Studies of the Neolithic in Western Anatolia
Western Anatolia has three areas with distinct Neo-
lithic features: the Lakes District/Southwest Anato-
lia, Central-west Anatolia and Northwest Anatolia
(Fig. 1). The Lakes District was a priority for archa-
eological investigations from the very beginning of
Neolithic research in Anatolia. The first studies be-
gan in the 1950s with James Mellaart’s work at Ha-
cılar, and continued in the years immediately after
from 1957 to 1960 (Mellaart 1970). Hacılar and Ça-
talhöyük in Central Anatolia were again excavated
by Mellaart between 1961 and 1965, both revealing
the first evidence of Neolithic communities on the
Anatolian plateau, the existence of which had been
ruled out (Mellaart 1967). The Hacılar excavations
in the 1950s were a turning point not only for know-
ledge of the region’s western areas, but also in the
history of archaeological research in Anatolia. With
the excavations at Hacılar, the Near Eastern chrono-
logical denominations were transferred to Anatolia,
mainly deriving from Tarsus Gözlükule; the stage
at which painted vessels intensified at Hacılar was
seen to be contemporary with Halaf culture, so it
was termed the Early Chalcolithic. Later, with the ex-
cavations at Çatalhöyük, this chronology was also
adapted to the interior regions of Anatolia (Schoop
2011.151–152). Thus, these first studies were instru-
mental in defining the chronology and terminology
still used for Anatolian prehistory.
After Hacılar and Çatalhöyük, excavations at Erbaba
(1964–1965) and Suberde (1969–1978) on the out-
skirts of the Beysehir and Sugla lakes were conduct-
ed by Jacques Bordaz (Bordaz 1973). For a long
time, however, the definition of the Neolithic cul-
tures of Anatolia was based mainly on the evidence
from Hacılar and Çatalhöyük, and usually disregard-
ed results from other sites. In this respect, with the
excitement triggered by the finds at Çatalhöyük and
Hacılar, the quest to look for the origins of the Euro-
pean Neolithic in the Near East until 1980s were
mainly confined to comparisons based on the mater-
ial evidence from these two sites. Research in the
Lakes District resumed in the 1980s, beginning with
some soundings on the periphery of the Hacılar
mound between 1985 and 1986 by Refik Duru
(1989), who also excavated Kuruçay from 1978 to
1988 (Duru 1994) and Höyücek from 1989 to 1992
(Duru, Umurtak 2005). Between 1993 and 2010,
Duru also worked at Bademagacı with Gülsün Umur-
tak (Duru 2008). In addition to these excavations,
surveys were conducted by Mehmet Özsait (1993),
illustrating the intensity of settlement during the
Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic.
Neolithic research in the northwest began at the
same time as the research in the Lakes District. Lo-
cated on the eastern side of the Bosphorus, Fikirte-
pe was excavated by Kurt Bittel and Halet Çambel
between 1952 and 1954 (Bittel 1969). Researching
a site contemporary with Fikirtepe, Sevket Aziz Kan-
su took some soundings at Pendik in 1961 (Kansu
1963). Edibe Uzunoglu began a salvage excavation
at Pendik in 1981 (Harmankaya 1983), which was
continued by Alpay Pasinli in 1992 (Pasinli et al.
1994) and Zeynep Kızıltan between 2012 and 2013
(Kızıltan 2013). The assemblage revealed there was
similar to Fikirtepe in terms of pottery, architecture,
and burial customs (Özdogan 1983). Due to the con-
ventional assumption that Neolithic settlements did
not exist in this region, the dating of these sites long
remained controversial. In 1979, Mehmet Özdogan
dated materials from the Fikirtepe excavations in
his PhD thesis (Özdogan 1979) and concluded that
the Neolithic societies in and around the Bosporus
were part of a single cultural group, the ‘Fikirtepe
Culture’, due to the distinctive features observed at
Pendik and Fikirtepe (Özdogan 1983). After the be-
ginning of excavations at Ilıpınar at the end of the
1980s, the Fikirtepe material could finally be radio-
carbon dated. Despite differences in architecture and
subsistence pattern, the pottery of layers X-IX at Ilı-
pınar is similar to assemblages of other sites labell-
ed as ‘Fikirtepe Culture’, so the date of the sites
could be securely established to the beginning of 6th
millennium BC (Özdogan 1999).
The architectural remains and material culture at
Fikirtepe and Pendik are quite different from those
at contemporary settlements in the Lakes District
and Central Anatolia. The architecture of these sites
consists of simple huts, and the faunal evidence
points to intensive fishing and mollusc gathering;
likewise, finds such as grindstones and flat axes,
which are usually the markers of agricultural commu-
nities, are few in number (Özdogan 1979). In addi-
tion to these features, the presence of microliths and
relatively small bullet cores led Özdogan to define
the costal settlements like Fikirtepe and Pendik as
descendants of local Mesolithic communities known
from surface surveys (Özdogan 1999). The architec-
ture, subsistence patterns, and chipped stone tech-
nology reminiscent of Mesolithic traditions suggest
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
269
continuity between Mesolithic communities and Fi-
kirtepe-related sites. The pottery assemblages also
support this assertion, given the predominance of
simple cooking pots for domestic use and mostly
dark and matt surfaced wares, which are unlike the
red-slipped ware known from Neolithic sites in west-
ern Anatolia.
Following the excavations of Ilıpınar from 1987 to
2002, the same team under the direction of Jacob J.
Roodenberg, continued their work at Mentese from
2000–2005 (Roodenberg, Alpaslan-Roodenberg
2013; Roodenberg et al. 2003). With the excavation
of Aktopraklık (Karul, Avcı 2013) and Barcın in
2004 (Gerritsen et al. 2013a), knowledge of the Neo-
lithic communities of the southern and eastern parts
of the Sea of Marmara considerably increased. The
basal layers of Barcın, Aktopraklık, and Mentese are
dated to the second half of the 7th millennium BC,
revealing pottery assemblages similar to, or slightly
different from, that of the ‘archaic phase’ of Fikir-
tepe; it thus seems evident that the initial stages of
‘Fikirtepe Culture’ began in those regions at a much
earlier date.
There are significant differences among the excavat-
ed sites in Northwest Anatolia, demonstrating the
effect of local environments and traditions. Coastal
settlements like Fikirtepe and Pendik and moun-
tain threshold sites like Aktopraklık show features
reminiscent of their local Mesolithic communities,
whereas Ilıpınar, Mentese and Barcın predominant-
ly feature elements typical of agricultural villages
(Karul 2011). Yenikapı, excavated between 2008 to
2013 on the western side of the Bosphorus, and Ya-
rımburgaz Cave at the northern end of Küçükçekme-
ce Lagoon also have significant localised differences
(Kızıltan, Polat 2013; Özdogan 2013).
Due to apparent changes in the topography of the
coastal areas of Western Anatolia and the heavy al-
luvial fill that has accumulated in the valleys and
plains, the Aegean littoral is an area where localis-
ing Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic settlements is
rather difficult. Therefore, the area has long remain-
ed in obscurity. An initial reconnaissance of the area,
although not intensive, was conducted by David
French (1965) in the 1960s and by Recep Meriç
(1993) in the 1980s. Despite some small-scale re-
search following these studies, until recently it was
still an area where no Neolithic excavations had
taken place. Knowledge of the Neolithic in this re-
gion began to emerge with the excavation of Ulucak
beginning in 1995 (Çilingiroglu et al. 2004; 2012).
Following this initial work on Neolithic communities
in the eastern Aegean, excavations were conducted
at Dedecik in 2003, Ege Gübre and Yesilova in 2004,
and Çukuriçi in 2007 (Lichter, Meriç 2012; Saglam-
timur 2012; Derin 2012; Horejs 2012). All of these
sites, being located by the alluvial valleys of the Ge-
diz and Menderes rivers, were buried under thick
alluvial deposits. In the southernmost area of these
sites, rock shelters in the Besparmak/Latmos moun-
tains have revealed rock paintings dating back to the
Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic (Peschlow-Bindo-
kat, Gerber 2012). Although there are some difficul-
ties regarding the dating of these paintings, they
have some features reminiscent of similarly dated
painted pottery and figurines from the Lakes District.
Far fewer studies have been made in the northeast-
ern part of the Aegean. The site of Coskuntepe disco-
vered by Jurgen Seeher in 1990 on the southwestern
edge of Biga peninsula, and Ugurlu located close to
the coast on the western side of Gökçeada/Imroz,
shows that this region has been inhabited since the
Early Neolithic period (Seeher 1990; Erdogu 2013).
It is also possible to assess Hoca Çesme as a north-
ern Aegean site due to its location on the Maritza
River (Özdogan 2013). Having been inhabited since
the second half of 7th millennium BC, the early phase
of this settlement was closely connected with deve-
lopments in the Aegean, but from the 6th millennium
onwards it shows closer similarities with the central
parts of Thrace, mainly with those known as the Ka-
ranovo assemblages.
Neolithic chronology and pottery assemblages
The earliest dates on the appearance of Neolithic
elements outside of its formative zone are not ear-
lier than the second quarter of 7th millennium BC,
according to newly calibrated dates (see Reingruber
2015 and Weninger et al. 2014) from sites includ-
ing Ulucak, Çukuriçi, Knossos, and Franchthi Cave,
located respectively on the western and eastern side
of the Aegean. These data demonstrate that the first
leap of the Neolithic to the ‘west’ did not take place
along a frontier line, but occurred dynamically across
a wide area (Fig. 2). In this respect, it is of interest
to note that the excavators of these sites, based on
certain analogies, have pointed to the different re-
gions of the formative zone. In this regard, Ulucak,
for example, located along the eastern end of the
Gediz valley, which provides a natural route con-
necting the Aegean littoral with inner Anatolian pla-
teau, has revealed red-coated floors and the subse-
quent pottery tradition (Çilingiroglu, Çakırlar 2013).
Eylem Özdoğan
270
On the other hand, the newly exposed early layers
in Çukuriçi, located in the same area as Ulucak, have
been associated with the Neolithic assemblages of
the Levant and northern Mesopotamia, due to the
presence of lithic tools and some other stone imple-
ments that bear the characteristic features of the
PPN tradition (Horejs et al. 2015). It is also often
noted that Knossos and Franchthi had connections
with the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant (Per-
lès 2001; Efstratiou 2013). Likewise, the Neolithic
assemblage of Ege Gübre, which dates to a slightly
later period, has been compared to the contempo-
rary sites in the Eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus,
mainly concerning the presence of impresso deco-
ration and to features of the architectural remains
at the site (Saglamtimur 2012). The relationships
between different areas of the formative zone show
that the expansion of the Neolithic was more com-
plex than previously assumed.
In recent years, in characterising the period in the
newly Neolithised regions outside the formative
zones, a number of different suggestions have been
made (see Reingruber 2015). Pottery, seen as one
of the most characteristic elements of the westward
expansion of the Neolithic, and has been at the cen-
tre of these debates. However, the present data sug-
gest that in the earliest stages of expansion, pottery
Fig. 2. Chronological table of sites in Western Anatolia.
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
271
was not among the ‘unavoidable’ components of
the Neolithic way of life. Pottery emerged on the
Anatolian Plateau at the end of the 8th millennium
BC, and was rarely used until approx. 6700–6600
BC. It then existed mostly as coarse, plant-tempered,
thick-walled and simple ware (Özdogan 2009). Pot-
tery from this period in Central Anatolia is defined
as ‘Early Tradition’ by Serap Özdöl, and defined in
detail by Suberde and Çatalhöyük (Özdöl 2012).
Therefore, the existence of little pottery or none at
the earliest Neolithic settlements in the Aegean or in
Western Anatolia is consistent with the central and
eastern parts of the peninsula. Layer VI in Ulucak,
where no pottery has been encountered, is also con-
sistent with this picture (Çilingiroglu et al. 2012).
Recently discovered layers at Çukuriçi present a si-
milar situation; although no detailed published des-
cription of the pottery vessels is available yet, the
excavators note that pottery is insignificant in the
material assemblage of layers XI-XIII of the mound
(Horejs et al. 2015.305). Aceramic Hacılar and Bade-
magacı ENI 9-8 present a coherent picture, although
the dates of both sites and the presence of pottery
in Aceramic Hacılar are quite controversial (see Bra-
mi, Heyd 2011; Özdogan E. 2015).
While pottery from layer VIe at Barcın in Northwest
Anatolia is slightly later than the earliest pottery in
Central Anatolia, dating to 6600 BC, the presence
of fewer coarse and simple wares is remarkable. At
Barcın, the pottery assemblage includes simple plant-
tempered thick-walled spherical vessels, baked at low
temperatures (Gerritsen et al. 2013b.Fig. 11–14).
Based on this, pottery production in Northwest Ana-
tolia is therefore reminiscent of the ‘Early Tradition’
in Central Anatolia, although with later dates.
The scarcity of early Neolithic settlements, the diver-
sity displayed in the quality and quantity of pottery
types recovered is remarkable; thus we termed this
stage as the ‘initial phase’ (Özdogan E. 2015.51). As
far as can be understood, there is evidence of village
life at all the settlements, as well as full adaptation
to agriculture, animal husbandry, and their associat-
ed technologies. Thus, the presence or absence of
pottery relates to the process of adapting to the
newly emerging technology of pottery production
rather than to the expansion of the Neolithic. In
terms of the first pottery with these coarse and sim-
ple features, no trace has yet been encountered in
the Lakes District or Central-west Anatolia. It seems
that pottery appeared in these areas when it was
more developed or, alternatively, it represents a pro-
cess independent from the Central Anatolian early
pottery tradition.
From the mid-7th millennium BC, consistent with the
increase in the number of new settlements, pottery
became a common commodity. Defined as the DFBW
(dark-faced burnished wares) group or the ‘Middle
Tradition’ by Özdöl (2012), the pottery from this pe-
riod shows some differences from region to region.
The early pottery in Central-west Anatolia includes
simple thin-walled spherical vessels in brown, cream
and red tones known from Ulucak Vf, which is remi-
niscent of the DFBW tradition. The published assem-
blage from Ulucak Vf-b, Yesilova III8-6, and Çukuri-
çi X-IX indicates that S-profiled bowls and the use
of a red slip increases over time (Çilingiroglu et al.
2012; Derin 2012; Horejs 2012) Although rather
rare, vertical lugs and small horizontal handles with
flat- or disc-shaped bases are distinctly characteris-
tic of these assemblages. The pottery assemblages of
the Lakes District present a similar picture; cream,
brown and red tones dominate the pottery of Bade-
magacı ENI-II, Höyücek ESP-ShP1, and Hacılar IX-VIII
(Duru 2008; Duru, Umurtak 2005; Mellaart 1970).
In this area, bowls and open forms with thin walls
and flat bases have been found over a wider area.
The number of vertical lugs and the use of red slip
also increase over time.
Although there seem to be some stylistic difference
between the Ugurlu and Hoca Çesme assemblages,
both dating to the latter half of the 7th millennium
BC in the northeast Aegean, it is possible to see high-
ly burnished, thin-walled, high quality ware in vi-
brant tones of red and black, especially in Hoca Çes-
me (Erdogu 2013; Karul, Bertram 2005). The ves-
sels are generally small and have sharply cut S-pro-
files. Contemporary with the aforementioned Hoca
Çesme ware, in other parts of Northwestern Anato-
lia what has been termed ‘Archaic Fikirtepe’ ware
predominates, mainly at sites including Barcın VId-c,
Aktopraklık C, and in the basal layers of Mentese,
Fikirtepe, and Pendik; this material features small
and simple closed shapes, mainly bowls and hole-
mouth jars (Gerritsen et al. 2013a-b; Karul, Avcı
2011; Roodenberg et al. 2003; Özdogan 2013).
These are in cream, light tones of red, dark brown
and different shades of grey. Vertical tubular or ho-
rizontal lugs, and flat bases are common; the quality
of craftsmanship improves through time, with the
walls of the vessels becoming thinner. Disproportio-
1 ESP is the Early Settlement Phase, ShP is the ‘Shrine Phase’ and SP is the ‘Sanctuaries Phase’.
Eylem Özdoğan
272
nately large horizontal lugs are
among the most characteristic fea-
tures of ‘Fikirtepe Culture’, mainly
at Pendik and at Fikirtepe (Fig. 3),
although they are dated to a slightly
later period than other sites in the
southern part of the Sea of Marmara.
In the last quarter of the 7th and the
beginning of the 6th millennium BC,
pottery groups show remarkable dif-
ferences and more variety in form. Certainly, the
distinctive feature of this period is the style of dec-
oration; the different noteworthy pottery traditions
include vessels decorated with light on dark paint in
the Lakes District (Duru 2008; Mellaart 1970), mono-
chrome red slipped wares in Central-west Anatolia
and vessels with a dark, matt surface without deco-
ration or, rarely, with narrow incised decoration in
Northwest Anatolia (Çilingiroglu et al. 2012; Derin
2012; Saglamtimur 2012; Horejs 2012; Özdogan
2013).
The percentage of painted pottery revealed in Ha-
cılar V (Fig. 4) increases after Layer VI in the Lakes
District (Mellaart 1970). Together with the painted
wares’ sharper S profiles, the emergence of carinat-
ed bowls is observable. The painted pottery of Cen-
tral Anatolia had been associated with Halaf paint-
ed pottery by Mellaart, mainly due to the presence
in both regions of open bowls and necked jars with
painted decoration. In Central-west and Northwest
Anatolia, painted decoration (Fig. 5) is seen very ra-
rely. However, red-slipped vessels are
quite frequent and S-profiled vessels
tend to increase over time. One of
the changes in this area is the ap-
pearance of impresso decoration in
the late 7th millennium BC (Çilingi-
roglu 2016). This type of decoration
is frequently seen at all the settle-
ments in the area, especially at Ege
Gübre (Saglamtimur 2012). While
impresso decoration appears almost
simultaneously in the Lakes District,
where the percentage of impresso is
relatively quite low, its appearance
being almost as infrequent as the
painted ware in Central-west Anato-
lia (Duru 2008). Impresso decora-
tion emerges in the early 6th millen-
nium BC in Northwest Anatolia, at
Aktopraklık B (Slope), Ilıpınar VIII,
and Yarımburgaz 5 (Karul, Avcı
2013; Thissen 2001; Özdogan 2013). In all three re-
gions, the pottery tradition continues by retaining
its former features during the 6th millennium BC,
but a range of new forms are added, in particular
necked jars and large storage vessels. There is an in-
crease in the number of incision-decorated vessels,
particularly among the ‘Classical Fikirtepe’ stage in
Northwest Anatolia, and painted ware in the Lakes
District. In general, with the exception of the ware
with sophisticated decoration of the Lakes District,
pottery of the 6th millennium BC in most other re-
gions is coarser compared with pottery in the earlier
stage.
Similarities and differences in the material as-
semblage
Subsistence strategies
Animal husbandry and agriculture had been fully
adopted by the initial stages of the Neolithic in West-
ern Anatolia. Recent studies have demonstrated that
domestic sheep and goat were present in the central
Fig. 3. Globular jars from Fikirtepe (after Özdogan 2013.Fig. 7).
Fig. 4. Painted vessels from Hacılar V (after Mellaart 1970.Tabs.
277, 279).
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
273
and western parts of the Anatolian Plateau from the
early phases of the Neolithic, but cattle and especial-
ly pig were domesticated through different process-
es (Arbuckle 2013; Ottoni et al. 2013). Intensive
wild cattle hunting seen from the Aceramic phase
onward in Central Anatolia and the presence of bull
symbolism in the area is known from Çatalhöyük;
however, the appearance of domesticated cattle is
dated to the middle of the 7th millennium BC. This
is a thousand years later than the domestication of
sheep and goats, which took place in the 8th millen-
nium BC. Domestic cattle remained uncommon in
the region, and auroch hunting continued until the
5th millennium BC (Arbuckle 2013.1808). More strik-
ing data are available for pigs; Central Anatolian
Neolithic societies hunted pig very infrequently, and
the emergence of domestic pigs in the region dates
to after the Neolithic. Domestic pigs existed in the
northern part of the region in the middle of the 5th
millennium BC, while in southern parts, evidence
of domestic pig is only found in the Bronze Age
(Arbuckle 2013.1809). In the periphery of Central
Anatolia, however, domestic cattle are present from
the early stages. Likewise, it is understood that do-
mestic pigs are encountered at the first Neolithic set-
tlements in the Lakes District and Central-west Ana-
tolia and that local pigs were also domesticated. It
has also been suggested that the existence of dome-
sticated pig dates to the early 6th millennium BC in
Northwest Anatolia, and the method and impetus for
the domestication of pig then passed through Cen-
tral-west Anatolia (Ottoni et al. 2013; Arbuckle et
al. 2014). The appearance of domesticated pig is not
the only novelty in Northwest Anatolia in the early
6th millennium BC. At the same time, impresso deco-
ration and mud brick architecture has been encoun-
tered at Aktopraklık B (Slope) (Karul, Avcı 2013);
shortly after Aktopraklık B, both impresso pottery
and mud brick architecture seem to have dispersed
to the regions north of Bursa, as evidenced at Ilıpı-
nar (Roodenberg, Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013). Al-
though both the presence of domesticated pig and
impresso decoration shows ties with Central-west
Anatolia, the tradition of mud brick walls with but-
tresses indicates sustained interaction with the
southern parts of Central Anatolia and the Lakes Di-
strict. Another important feature of Northwest Ana-
tolia in terms of subsistence patterns is the diversity
of data on fishing and mollusc gathering. Although
there is some evidence of the use of marine or lacu-
strine sources at sites within the Central-west Anato-
lia and Lakes District, the consumption of marine
fauna is remarkably high in Northwest Anatolia, es-
pecially at coastal settlements. Here, mollusc gathe-
ring and open-sea fishing were important activities
in the food economy, together with the hunting of
game animals (Boessneck, von den Driesch 1979).
Dairy products are also characteristic of the region;
residue analyses from different sites in Northwest
Anatolia show that the use of dairy products dates
from the late 7th millennium BC (Evershed et al.
2008; Thissen et al. 2010).
Architecture and village patterns
Different traditions regarding building materials and
plan-types, as well as settlement patterns are to be
seen in Western Anatolia during the Neolithic peri-
od. From the earliest stage, some structures with ter-
razzo-like and red-coated floors have been recovered,
mainly at sites such as Ulucak VI, Bademagacı EN 8,
and the so-called Aceramic Hacılar (Çilingiroglu et
al. 2012; Duru 2008; Mellaart 1970). Despite our
limited knowledge of the settlement layout, the pre-
sence of wattle and daub structures has been attested
at Ulucak, while structures with mud brick walls exist
at Hacılar. In the Lakes District, mud brick architec-
ture is a characteristic feature of the Neolithic and
Early Chalcolithic periods and, as known from Kuru-
çay and Bademagacı, stone foundations are also to
be seen in some layers. The use of wattle and daub
architecture seems to have continued from the ear-
liest layer up to the end of Layer V at Ulucak (Çilin-
giroglu et al. 2004; 2012). On the other hand, as re-
vealed at Çukuriçi, buildings with stone foundations
were also built in the region (Horejs 2012). However,
later mud brick architecture with stone foundations
replaced the use of wattle and daub, as indicated at
Ulucak IV, Ege Gübre and Yesilova (Çilingiroglu et
al. 2012; Saglamtimur 2012; Derin 2012).
Different traditions were also in present at the same
time in Northwest Anatolia. While there are simple
Fig. 5. Painted pottery from Aktopraklık B, Akto-
praklık project archive.
Eylem Özdoğan
274
wattle and daub huts in coastal settlements and Ak-
topraklık, which is located in a mountain threshold
area, settlements like Barcın, Mentese and the early
layers of Ilıpınar (X-VIII) have a well-organised rec-
tangular village pattern with wattle and daub or mud-
slab structures (Özdogan 2013; Karul, Avcı 2013;
Gerritsen et al. 2013a; Roodenberg et al. 2003). But
the most important difference between these two
groups lies not in the structural plans, but in the
functions of these structures. In settlements with rec-
tangular plans, the organisation of the interior of the
structures shows that these buildings bore the cha-
racteristic features of ‘Neolithic dwellings’ in terms
of installations, storage facilities, the distribution of
finds and the multi-functional purpose of the house
as shelter, storage space, and living space, whereas
structures in coastal settlements remain relatively
simple huts. The huts at coastal sites appear as sim-
ple shelters compared to the concept of the house
that existed during the Neolithic in Anatolia. With
the 6th millennium BC, architecture and settlement
plans were subject to strict rules in Northwest Ana-
tolia (Karul, Avcı 2013). In Aktopraklık B and Ilıpı-
nar VI-VA, buttressed buildings with mud brick walls
are organised adjacent to one another in a curvili-
near or circular pattern. Built according to the same
dimensions, structures are organised around a large
central courtyard. This architectural pattern, specific
to this region, developed with time, its earliest exam-
ples being the wattle and daub structures built adja-
cent to one another at Barcın in level VId (Gerritsen
et al. 2013a.95). Here, open spaces in front of the
houses are used as open courtyards where the acti-
vities of everyday life took place. A more or less si-
milar pattern consisting of structures in lines around
a large courtyard (Fig. 6) is also characteristic of the
Lakes District. Structures in two clusters in Hacılar VI
are referred to by Mellaart as part of a settlement
pattern with a circular plan similar to the rectangu-
lar layout of Hacılar II and the round layout in Ha-
cılar I (Mellaart 1970.10–11, 28–29, 77). Mud brick
walls with buttresses also appeared in the early 6th
millennium in the Lakes District; the structures in
Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 (with stone foundations) are
buttressed (Mellaart 1970.Fig. 35; Duru 1994. Fig.
24). Almost contemporaneously, mud brick architec-
ture also appears in Ulucak, but here the layout of
the settlement is different, as the buildings were se-
parated from each other by narrow streets; still,
closed courtyards are present, not as shared spaces,
but as parts of specific structural units (Çilingiroglu
et al. 2012.Fig. 3). This settlement pattern is cur-
rently attested only in this region, and specifically in
Ulucak IV. Layer III at Ege Gübre in the same region
presents a different picture; here, structures were
placed around a wide open space, seemingly an open
courtyard (Saglamtimur 2012.Fig. 2).
Burial customs
During the Neolithic, one of the differences between
the sub-regions in western Anatolia is the burial cus-
toms. In the formative zone of the Neolithic, early in
the period, intramural burial was the common prac-
tice. Along with simple inhumations in pits, there
was a diversity of burial practices, such as skull re-
moval and, occasionally, treatment of skulls, collec-
tive burials, and secondary burials, or post-burial
practices etc., but all taking place within the settle-
ment (Erdal 2015). One of the most significant chan-
Fig. 6. Ulucak IV (after Çilingiroglu et al. 2012.Fig. 4); Ege Gübre IV-III (after Saglamtimur 2012.Fig. 3);
Aktopraklık B (after Karul, Avcı 2013.Fig. 14); Ilıpınar VI-VA (after Roodenberg, Alpaslan-Roodenberg
2013.Fig. 2); Hacılar II and I (after Mellaart 1970.71, 89).
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
275
ges that took place with the onset of the Pottery
Neolithic, still within the Formative Zone, was the
custom of extramural burials. Although known ex-
tramural cemeteries are extremely rare, it is possible
to surmise their presence from the almost total ab-
sence of burials within the settlement areas (Camp-
bell 1995). On the other hand, Central Anatolian, is
one of the few places where intramural burial cus-
toms continue up until the end of the 7th millenni-
um BC, as extensively documented at sites such as
Çatalhöyük, Tepecik-Çiftlik and Kösk Höyük (Boz,
Hager 2014; Bıçakçı et al. 2012; Öztan 2012). Ad-
ditionally, at Kösk Höyük, skull practices continue
into the 6th millennium BC (Özbek 2009).
In Northwest Anatolia, burial customs show parallels
with Central Anatolia. Intramural burials or burials
under house floors are common at sites during the
7th millennium BC (Özdogan 2013; Lillie et al. 2012;
Alpaslan et al. 2013; Roodenberg, Alpaslan-Rooden-
berg 2013). Most burials are in the hocker position
and buried with grave goods such as bone spoons,
whole pots, or polypod vessels. However, by the 6th
millennium BC, burials had moved out of the settle-
ment to graveyards (Fig. 7), as seen at Aktopraklık
(Karul, Avcı 2013).
The cemetery of the Early Chalcolithic settlement
(Area B) is about 200m north of the site in Area A
which contains the remains of a Late Neolithic set-
tlement. However, in spite of the development of
special cemeteries by the first half of the 6th millen-
nium BC, the practice of intramural burial continued,
as evidenced at Aktopraklık and Ilıpınar. Examples
from Aktopraklık include single or double burials in
extraordinary positions excavated beneath the cen-
tral courtyard of the settlement (Karul, Avcı 2013.
50). Some human bones have also been found mixed
with stones. At Ilıpınar, burials are also found in va-
rious positions, sometimes found lying on a wooden
plate; however, most of the intramural burials at this
site are small children and newborn babies (Rooden-
berg, Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013).
Intramural burials and their associated customs are
phenomena also found in the Lakes District, although
not as frequently as in Northwest Anatolia. A num-
ber of human skulls were discovered in structures
at Aceramic Hacılar, which is considered to be the
earliest settlement in the region (Mellaart 1970.6).
Remains in a hocker position were found in pits at
Bademagacı EN I and II, Hacılar IV, III, and Kuruçay
11, although there are few in number (Duru 2008.
51; Mellaart 1970.Fig. 43; Duru 1994.18). At Höyü-
cek, a single child’s grave was found in an area dat-
ing to the ShP or SP phase (Duru, Umurtak 2005.
26). Unlike in the other two regions, there are no
burials at sites in Central-west Anatolia or the north-
ern Aegean, with the exception of Ege Gübre, where
one individual was found buried in a hocker posi-
tion (Saglamtimur 2012.32).
Material culture and symbolism
The early stages of the Neolithic, particularly in the
northern parts of the formative zone, are exempli-
fied by the extensive presence of symbolic elements,
monumental communal buildings, and the use of
special crafts that require sophisticated technologies
and elaborate workmanship; however, with the
transitional stage to the Pottery Neolithic, there is
a clear decline in almost all of these (Rollefson, Köh-
ler-Rollefson 1989; Özdogan 2014b). The Aceramic
Neolithic in Central Anatolia shows parallels with
the Pre-Pottery Period in the east in terms of fea-
tures like public buildings, painted floors, and intra-
mural burial customs, etc. (Özbasaran 2011). How-
ever, contrary to the decline in east, symbolic ele-
Fig. 7. Early Chalcolithic burial with grave goods
from Aktopraklık graveyard in Area C (after Ka-
rul, Avcı 2013.Fig. 6).
Eylem Özdoğan
276
ments in Central Anatolia increase
during the Pottery Neolithic, as best
known at Çatalhöyük, Tepecik-Çift-
lik and Kösk Höyük (Hodder 2012;
Bıçakçı et al. 2012; Öztan 2012). Al-
though symbolic expressions are far
more limited in Western Anatolia,
some need to be described neverthe-
less.
The distribution of symbolic elements
in Western Anatolia is not uniform; some elements
are found in some districts, while other elements
exist in other regions. For example, in Central-west
Anatolia and the Lakes District, anthropomorphic
(Fig. 8) or zoomorphic vessels occur, while in North-
west Anatolia they are absent. Bull symbolism is no-
tably present in Central Anatolia, and is found on
vessels in the form of relief decoration, mainly in
the Lakes District and Central-west Anatolia (and
sometimes in the form of painted decoration, see Ku-
ruçay (Duru 1994.Fig. 56)), but in Northwest Anato-
lia, it seems to appear only as a variation of horizon-
tal lugs, and very rarely (Karul, Avcı 2011). Additi-
onally, polypod vessels known from Central Anato-
lia exist both in the Lakes District and Northwest
Anatolia, but these are not present in Central-west
Anatolia (Schwarzberg 2005). Polypod vessels are
far more common in Northwest Anatolia (Fig. 9) and
are considered a characteristic feature of the ‘Fikir-
tepe Culture’.
Human figures, mostly depicting females, are quite
common both in the Lakes District and in Central
Anatolia (Duru 2008.Fig. 152, 157–162, 164–168).
On the other hand, in Central-west and Northwest
Anatolia these are less common than in the Lakes Di-
strict (Gerritsen et al. 2013b.Fig. 17). Some anthro-
pomorphic figures in Central-west Anatolia can be
found on vessels in the form of appliqués, which
strongly resemble the three-dimensional examples
found in the same region (Çilingiroglu et al. 2012.
Fig. 8; Saglamtimur 2012.Fig. 17).
Northwest Anatolia is particularly different from the
other two regions with regard to the distribution of
symbolic elements. In addition to the scarcity of figu-
rines, objects such as pintaderas, stone vessels, and
high-quality stone finds such as amulets or pendants
etc., did not exist – especially not in the 7th millen-
nium BC – in this region, as they did in the Lakes
District and Central-west Anatolia. Although sling
missiles are common throughout Western Anatolia,
arrowheads are non-existent in Northwest Anatolia
in contrast to other regions (Özdogan 2002). On the
other hand, finds such as bone spoons (Fig. 10),
hooks or fine bone tools are present in all three re-
gions, but bone tool technology; bone spoons and
spatulas are notably more common at Northwest
Anatolian sites (Özdogan 2013; Gerritsen et al.
2013a; Karul, Avcı 2013).
Conclusion
One of the most typical features of the Western Ana-
tolian Neolithic is the continuity of settlements. After
the establishment of settlements in the region, most
survived until the Early Chalcolithic period, but only
a few until the end of the Neolithic (Fig. 2). However,
in Northwest Anatolia, some coastal settlements last-
ed for a relatively shorter period, such as Fikirtepe
and Pendik. It might also be appropriate to add Hö-
yücek, Kuruçay and Ege Gübre to the list of settle-
ments that lasted for a more limited time. The con-
tinuity of the settlements is a reflection of overall re-
gional continuity, and thus it is seen not only in the
stratigraphy but also in the material culture. The fea-
tures that characterise each region seem to have
emerged immediately after this initial phase, shaped
by local dynamics.
Intensive interactions can be traced between diffe-
rent areas of the formative zones and other sub-re-
Fig. 8. Anthropomorphic vessel from Hacılar I (after Mellaart 1970.
Fig. 525).
Fig. 9. Polypod vessel from Fikirtepe (after Özdo-
gan 2013.Fig. 9).
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
277
gions in Western Anatolia. Painted pottery being
common in the Lakes District, in the southern parts
of Central Anatolia and as well along the Mediter-
ranean coastline and in northern Mesopotamia it is
extremely rare in the western and northern parts of
the Anatolian Plateau. Instead, there seems to be a
tradition of red-slipped pottery in the Central-west,
while, in northwestern parts it is supplanted by dark
monochrome ware. Impresso decoration appears in
the last quarter of the 7th millennium BC in Central-
west Anatolia, and at the beginning of the next mil-
lennium in Northwest Anatolia, probably the result
of interaction with Mediterranean and Aegean sites.
Western Anatolia has some connections with the for-
mative zones, as well as with networks emerging in
the Aegean and Mediterranean; in addition to pot-
tery traditions, the presence of Aegean and Central
Anatolian obsidian is among the main evidence for
these connections (Mili≤ 2016). Likewise, female fi-
gurines, red-slipped ware, bull representations, mud
brick architecture, intramural burial customs etc.,
are all indicators of strong parallels with Central Ana-
tolia.
The continuity of cultural elements in Western Ana-
tolia, the Aegean, and Greece suggest that the ex-
pansion of the Neolithic did not extend along a de-
fined frontier line, but must have been a massive
phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is more evident that
the expansion of the Neolithic way of life was a mul-
tifarious event that cannot be explained by a single
model. Accordingly, it has to be taken case by case,
each having its own particular modalities defined
by local conditions and relationships with different
parts of the formative zone. Furthermore, all three
sub-regions in Western Anatolia sustained interac-
tions with Central Anatolia. They had their own dis-
tinct interrelations; thus, the features that the Lakes
District had in common with Central-west Anatolia
and Northwest Anatolia are greater than the simila-
rities between the latter regions.
It is possible to categorise the cultural changes that
took place in Western Anatolia in distinct time fra-
mes (Özdogan 2008; 2011). The earliest Neolithic
settlements outside of the formative zone had begun
to appear by the second quarter of the 7th millenni-
um BC, and their number seems to have increased
in the middle of the same millennium. Following the
formation of the first few early settlements, there
must have been a massive movement, subsequently
leading to the establishment of new settlement sites.
In the next stage, approximately at 6200–6000 BC,
with the spread of painted pottery and impressed
decoration, significant changes take place in the cul-
tural setting. During this stage, newly Neolithised
areas beyond the formative zone began taking on a
role as new or secondary cores. Thus, by this stage,
the Mediterranean, the Aegean, and/or Western Ana-
tolia can be regarded as new cores.
In this respect, the expansion of the Neolithic way
of life into the Balkans must have been through dif-
ferent routes and networks of interaction, as ele-
ments were carried on from different regions through
Anatolia, the Aegean and Greece. A substantial in-
crease in the number of settlements in the Balkans
took place between 6000 and 5900 BC. This expan-
sion, as the settlements appeared over a wide area,
must have been associated with some global fluctu-
ations rather than the internal dynamics of sub-re-
gions. On the other hand, these dates fit the climat-
ic events suggested recently by Bernhard Weninger
and his colleagues (Weninger et al. 2015).
The beginning of the 6th millennium BC is conven-
tionally considered as marking the chronological
division between the Late Neolithic and Early Chal-
colithic periods; however, no significant changes
can be observed in the cultural assemblages of the
sites in the western and southern coasts of the pen-
Fig. 10. Bone spoons from Northwest Anatolia, a-e
from Fikirtepe and Pendik (after Özdogan 2013.
Fig. 14); f from Aktopraklık B (after Karul, Avcı
2013.Fig. 22).
Eylem Özdoğan
278
insula. On the other hand, in Central and Northwest
Anatolia, marked changes took place during that
time. In addition to the change observed in mater-
ial culture, the location of the Neolithic settlement at
Aktopraklık moved 200m south, the settlements at
Mentese and Barcın ended, and new settlements like
Ilıpınar emerged. New settlements such as Kanlıtas
and Orman Fidanlıgı located along the valley of the
Sakarya River connecting the Marmara region with
inner Anatolia, and Gelveri in Central Anatolia (Türk-
can 2015; Efe 2001; Özbudak 2012) define the for-
mation of the Chalcolithic as far back as the early
6th millennium BC. The changes taking place in this
period can especially be seen at Çatalhöyük West and
Canhasan in the southern part of Central Anatolia
(Biehl, Rogasch 2013; French 2005). During this
period, interaction between Central and Northwest
Anatolia seems to have accelerated. Appearing first
at Aktopraklık and then at Ilıpınar, the tradition of
building structures with buttresses and mud brick
walls reflects the same traditions as at Canhasan or
at Çatalhöyük. However, over time the mud brick
structures in Northwest Anatolia came to be built
with circular plans, continuing the layout of the pre-
vious period. These structures are arranged in adja-
cent lines at Barcın VId, an entirely different design
from the agglomerate settlement pattern of Central
Anatolia. The same phenomenon has also been evi-
denced in the Lakes District at Hacılar I and Kuruçay
7, where the structures have mud brick walls with
buttresses. Although construction techniques and
the other features show many similarities between
the areas and prove the existence of interaction be-
tween the regions, it is difficult to say that the fea-
tures in each region were transferred wholesale from
one to another. Local adaptation processes seem to
have played a major role in each sub-region in West-
ern Anatolia, while incorporating new elements.
Alpaslan-Roodenberg M. S., Gerritsen F. A. and Özbal R.
2013. Neolithic Burials from Barcın Höyük: The 2007–
2012 Excavation Seasons. Anatolica 39: 93–111.
Arbuckle B. S. 2013. The Late Adoption of Cattle and Pig
Husbandry in Neolithic Central Turkey. Journal of Ar-
chaeological Science 40: 1805–1815.
Arbuckle B. S. and 23 co-authors 2014. Data Sharing Re-
veals Complexity in the Westward Spread of Domestic
Animals across Neolithic Turkey. PLoS ONE 9(6): 1–11.
Asouti E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B In-
teraction Sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 1–40.
Bailey D., Whittle A. 2005. Unsettling the Neolithic:
breaking down concepts, boundaries and origins. In D.
Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.), (un)settling
the Neolithic. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 1–10.
Biehl P., Rogasch J. 2013. Excavations in Trench 5, West
Mound. Çatalhöyük Archive Report 2013: 94–110.
Bittel K. 1969. Bemerkungen über die prähistorische An-
siedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadıköy (İstanbul). Istan-
buler Mitteilungen 19/20:1–19.
Bıçakçı E., Godon M. and Çakan Y. G. 2012. Tepecik Çift-
lik. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.),
Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Re-
search. Central Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istan-
bul: 89–134.
Boessneck J., von den Drıesch A. 1979. Die Tierknochen-
funde aus der Neolithischen Siedlung auf dem Fikirtepe
bei Kadıköy am Marmarameer, Aus dem für Paleoana-
tomie. Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Tier-
medizin der Universität München. München.
Bordaz J. 1973. Current Reseach in the Neolithic of South
Central Anatolia: Suberde, Erbaba and Their Chronologi-
cal Implications. American Journal of Archaeology 77(3):
282–288.
Boz B., Hager L. D. 2014. Making Sense of Social Beha-
viour from Disturbed and Commingled Skeletons: A Case
Study from Çatalhöyük Turkey. In A. Osterholtz, K. M.
Baustian and D. Martin (eds.), Commingled and Disarti-
culated Human Remains. Working Toward Improved
Theory, Method, and Data. Springer. New York, Heidel-
berg, Dordrecht, London: 17–33.
Bogucki P. 2003. Neolithic dispersals in riverine interior
central Europe. In A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The
widening harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe:
looking back, looking forward. Archaeological Institute
of America. Boston: 249–272.
Brami M. N. 2014. A Graphical Simulation of the 2,000-
year Lag in Neolithic Occupation between Central Anato-
lia and the Aegean Basin. Archaeological and Anthro-
pological Sciences 7(3): 319–327.
Brami M., Heyd V. 2011. The origins of Europe’s first far-
mers: The role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, fifty years
on. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86(2): 165–206.
References
∴
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
279
Budja M. 2009. Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and de-
mic diffusion in Southeastern Europe. Documenta Prae-
historica 36: 117–137.
2013. Neolithic Pots and Potters in Europe: the end of
‘demic diffusion’ migratory Model. Documenta Praehi-
storica 40: 39–55.
Campbell S. 1995. Death for the Living in the Late Neoli-
thic in North Mesopotamia. In S. Campbell, A. Green (eds.),
Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxbow.
Oxford: 29–34.
Childe V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon
Press. Oxford.
1939. The Orient and Europe. American Journal of Ar-
chaeology 43(1): 10–26.
Çilingiroglu A., Derin Z., Ebay E., Saglamtimur H. and Ka-
yan I. 2004. Ulucak Höyük: Excavations Conducted be-
tween 1995–2002. Ancient Near Eastern Supplement 15.
Peeters. Louvain.
Çilingiroglu A., Çevik Ö. and Çilingiroglu Ç. 2012. Towards
Understanding the Early Farming Communities of Central-
Western Anatolia: Contribution of Ulucak. In M. Özdogan,
N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey:
New Excavations and New Research. Western Turkey.
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 139– 175.
Çilingiroglu Ç. 2016. Impressed Pottery as a Proxy for
Connectivity in the Neolithic Aegean and Eastern Mediter-
ranean. In B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddi-
ties, Scales and modes of interaction between prehisto-
ric Aegean societies and their neighbours. Oxbow. Ox-
ford, Philadelphia: 75–96.
Çilingiroglu Ç., Çakırlar C. 2013. Towards Configuring the
Neolithization of Aegean Turkey. Documenta Praehisto-
rica 40: 21–29.
Derin Z. 2012. Yesilova Höyük. In M. Özdogan, N. Basge-
len and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: New Ex-
cavations and New Research. Western Turkey. Arkeoloji
ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 177–195.
Duru R. 1989. Were the earliest cultures at Hacılar really
aceramic? In K. Emre, M. Mellink, B. Hronda and N. Öz-
güç (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies
in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basıme-
vi. Ankara: 99–105.
1994. Kuruçay Höyük I. 1978–1988 Kazılarının So-
nuçları, Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Çag Yerlesmeleri. Türk
Tarih Kurumu. Ankara.
2008. MÖ 8000’den MÖ 2000’e BurdurAntalya Böl-
gesi’nin Altıbin Yılı. Suna-İnan Kıraç Akdeni Medeni-
yetleri Arastırma Enstitüsü. Antalya.
Duru R., Umurtak G. 2005. Höyücek, 1989–1992 Yılları
Arasında Yapılan Kazıların Sonuçları. Türk Tarih Ku-
rumu. Ankara.
Efe T. 2001. The Salvage Excavations at Orman Fidan-
lıgı. A Chalcolithic Site in Inland Northwestern Anato-
lia. TASK Yayınları. Istanbul.
Efstratiou N. 2013 Knossos and the Beginning of the
Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean Islands. In N. Efstra-
tiou, A. Karetsou and M. Ntinou (eds.), The Neolithic Set-
tlement of Knossos in Crete New Evidence for the Early
Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands. INSTAP
Academic Press. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 201–214.
Erdal Y. S. 2015. Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-De-
positional Treatments at Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Ana-
tolia, PPNA Period). European Journal of Archaeology
18(1): 4–32.
Erdogu B. 2013. Ugurlu: A Neolithic Settlement on the
Aegean Island of Gökçeada. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen
and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: New Exca-
vations and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and
Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 1–33.
Evershed R. P. and 21 co-authors. 2008. Earliest Date for
Milk Use in the Near East and Southeastern Europe Link-
ed to Cattle Herding. Nature 455: 528–531.
French D. 1965. Early Pottery Sites from Western Anato-
lia. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology V: 15–24.
2005. Canhasan I: The Pottery. British Institute of Ar-
chaeology at Ankara No. 32. Ankara.
Fort J. 2015. Demic and cultural diffusion propagated the
Neolithic transition across different regions of Europe.
Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12: 1–8.
Gara∏anin M. 1954. Iz istorije mlageg neolita u Srbiji i
Bosni. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu IX: 5–39.
Gatsov I., Schwarzberg H. (eds.) 2006. Aegean-Marma-
ra-Black Sea Present state of the resarch of the Early
Neolithic. Proceedings of the Session held at the EAA 8th
Annual Meeting at Thessaloniki, 28th September 2002.
Beier and Beran. Langenweissbach.
Gerritsen F., Özbal R. and Thissen L. 2013a. Barcın Hö-
yük: The Beginnings of Farming in the Marmara Region.
In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neo-
lithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research.
Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları. Istanbul: 93–112.
Gerritsen F., Özbal R. and Thissen L. 2013b The Earliest
Neolithic Levels at Barcın Höyük, Northwestern Turkey.
Anatolica 39: 53–92.
Eylem Özdoğan
280
Harmankaya S. 1983. Pendik Kazısı 1981. IV. Kazı Sonu-
çları Toplantısı I: 25–30.
Harris D. R. 2003. Paradigms and Transitions: Reflections
on the Study of the Origins and Spread of Agriculture. In
A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest
The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Look-
ing Forward. Archaeological Institute of America. Boston-
MA: 43–58.
Hodder I. 2012. Renewed Work at Çatalhöyük. In M. Öz-
dogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in
Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Northwest-
ern Turkey and Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Is-
tanbul: 245–277.
Hofmanová and 38 co-authors. 2016. Early farmers from
across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
USA 113: 6886–6891.
Horejs B. 2012. Çukuriçi Höyük: A Neolithic and Bronze
Age Settlement in the Region of Ephesos. In M. Özdogan,
N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey:
New Excavations and New Research. Western Turkey.
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 117–131.
Horejs B., Mili≤ B., Ostmann F., Thanheiser U., Weninger
B. and Galik A. 2015. The Aegean in the Early 7th Millen-
nium BC: Maritime Networks and Colonization. Journal
of World Prehistory 28: 289–330.
Kansu S. A. 1963. Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehisto-
rik Iskan Tarihi Bakımından Arastırmalar (1959–1962).
Belleten 27: 657–705.
Karul N. 2011. The Emergence of Neolithic Life in South
and East Marmara Region. In R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings –
New research in the appearance of the Neolithic be-
tween Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin.
Papers of the international workshop. 8th–9th April 2009
Istanbul. VML Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 57–65.
Karul N., Bertram J. 2005. From Anatolia to Europe: The
Ceramic Sequence of Hoca Çesme in Turkish Thrace. In C.
Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anato-
lian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th
Though the First Half of the 6th Millennium Cal. BC. Pro-
ceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, 20–22
May 2004. BYZAS 2. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
Archaeologischen Instituts Istanbul. Ege Yayınları. Istan-
bul: 117–130.
Karul N., Avcı M. B. 2011. Neolithic Communities in the
Eastern Marmara Region: Aktopraklık C. Anatolica 37:
1–15.
2013. Aktopraklık. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P.
Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: New Excava-
tions and New Research. Northwestern Turkey and
Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 45–68.
Krauß R. (ed.) 2011. Beginnings – New research in the
appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anato-
lia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the internatio-
nal workshop. 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul. VML Verlag
Marie Leidorf. Rahden.
Kızıltan Z. 2013. Pendik Höyük Kazıları. Aktüel Arkeolo-
ji 34: 32–36.
Kızıltan Z., Polat M. A. 2013. The Neolithic at Yenikapı
Marmaray: Metro Project Rescue Excavations. In M. Özdo-
gan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Tur-
key: New Excavations and New Research. Northwestern
Turkey and Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istan-
bul: 113–165.
Lazaridis I. and 52 co-authors. 2016. Genomic insights into
the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature
536: 419–426.
Lichter C., Meriç R. 2005. (eds.) How Did Farming Reach
Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the Second
half of the 7th though the first half of the 6th millennium
cal. BC. Proceedings of the International Workshop Is-
tanbul, 20–22 May 2004. BYZAS 2. Veröffentlichungen
des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Istanbul. Ege
Yayınları. Istanbul.
Lichter C., Meriç R. 2012. Dedecik-Heybetlitepe: Excava-
tions at a Neolithic Settlement in the Torbalı Plain. In M.
Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic
in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research. Western
Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 133–175.
Lillie M., Budd C., Alpaslan-Roodenberg S., Karul N. and
Pinhasi R. 2012. Musings on Early Farming Communities
in Northwest Anatolia; and other Flights of Fancy. IANSA-
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica Natural Sciences in
Archaeology III/II: 11–22.
Mathieson I. and 37 co-authors. 2015. Genome-wide pat-
terns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature 528:
499–503.
Mellaart J. 1967. Çatalhöyük: A Neolithic town in Anato-
lia. Thames and Hudson. London.
1970. Excavations at Hacılar. Edinburgh University
Press. Edinburgh.
Meriç R. 1993. Pre-Bronze Age Settlements of West-Cen-
tral Anatolia. Anatolica XIX: 143–150.
Mili≤ M. 2016. A Question of Scale? Connecting Commu-
nities through Obsidian Exchange in the Neolithic Aegean,
Anatolia and Balkans. In B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseys
Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia
281
and Oddities, Scales and modes of interaction between
prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours. Ox-
bow. Oxford, Philadelphia: 97–121.
Miloj≠i≤ V. 1949. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mit-
tel und Südosteuropas. Verlag Gebr. Mann. Berlin.
Ottoni C. and 36 co-authors. 2013. Pig domestication and
human-mediated dispersal in western Eurasia revealed
through ancient DNA and geometric morphometrics. Mo-
lecular Biology and Evolution 30: 824–832.
Özbasaran M. 2011. The Neolithic on the Plateau. In S. R.
Steadman, G. Mc Mahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Ancient Anatolia 10,000–323 B.C.E. Oxford: 99–124.
Özbek M. 2009. Remodeled human skulls in Kösk Höyük
(Neolithic Age, Anatolia): A new appraisal in view of re-
cent discoveries. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:
379–386.
Özbudak M. O. 2012. Kapadokya MÖ 6. Binyıl Kronoloji-
sinin Kayıp Halkası: Gelveri Çanak Çömlegi Üzerine En
Son Çalısmalar. Colloqium Anatolicum XI: 267–298.
Özdöl S. 2012. The Development and Traditions of Pot-
tery in the Neolithic of the Anatolian Plateau. British
Archaeological Reports IS 2439. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Özdogan E. 2015. Current Research and New Evidence for
the Neolithization Process in Western Turkey. European
Journal of Archaeology 18(1): 33–59.
Özdogan M. 1979. Fikirtepe. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Prehistory Department. Istanbul University. Istanbul.
1983. Pendik: A Neolithic Site of Fikirtepe Culture in
the Marmara Region. In R. M. Boehmer, H. Hauptmann
(eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleisasien, Fest-
schrift für Kurt Bittel. Verlag Phillip von Zabern in Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Mainz: 401–411.
1999. Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in Be-
tween the Balkans and Anatolia. In N. Basgelen, M. Öz-
dogan (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları. Istanbul: 204–224.
2002. On Arrows and Sling Missiles: What Happened to
the Arrows. In R. Aslan et al. (eds.), Mauerschau: Fest-
schrift für Manfred Korfmann. Verlag Bernhard Albert
Greiner. Remshalden- Grunbach: 437–444.
2008. An Alternative Approach in Tracing Changes in
Demographic Composition: The Westward Expansion
of the Neolithic Way of Life. In J. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-
Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition
and its Consequences. Springer. Heidelberg: 139–178.
2009. Earliest Use of Pottery in Anatolia. In D. Gheor-
ghiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic
Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near
East and Europe. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cam-
bridge: 22–43.
2011. Archaeological Evidence on the Westward Expan-
sion of Farming Communities from Eastern Anatolia to
the Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthropology
52(4): 415–430.
2013. Neolithic Sites in the Marmara Region, Fikirtepe,
Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Hoca Çesme and Asagı Pınar. In
M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neo-
lithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research.
Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları. İstanbul: 167–269.
2014a. A new look at the introduction of the Neolithic
way of life in Southeastern Europe. Changing paradigms
of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Documen-
ta Praehistorica 41: 33–49.
2014b. The Neolithic Collapse, or the Transition from
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the Pottery Neolithic. In. B.
Finlayson, C. Makarewicz (eds.), Settlement, Survey and
Stone. Essays on Near Eastern Prehistory in Honour
of Gary Rollefson. Ex oriente Berlin in collaboration
with the CounBritish Research in the Levant. London:
169–175.
Öztan A. 2012. Kösk Höyük: A Neolithic Settlement in Nig-
de-Bor Plateau. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuni-
holm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and
New Research. Central Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayın-
ları. Istanbul: 31–70.
Özsait M. 1993. Prospections archeologieques en Pisidie.
Anatolica XIX: 195–210.
Pasinli A., Uzunoglu E., Atakan N., Girgin Ç. and Soysal M.
1994. Pendik Kurtarma Kazısı IV. Müze Kurtarma Kazı-
ları Semineri: 147–163.
Perlès C. 2001. Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
2003. An Alternate and Old-Fashioned View of Neolithi-
zation of Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 99–113.
Peschlow-Bindokat A., Gerber C. 2012. The Latmos-Bes-
parmak Mountains Sites With Early Rock Paintings in
Western Anatolia. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Ku-
niholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations
and New Research. Western Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları. Istanbul: 67–115.
Eylem Özdoğan
282
Pinhasi R., Fort J. and Ammerman A. J. 2005. Tracing the
Origin and Spread of Agriculture in Europe. PLOS Biology
3(12): 2220–2228.
Price T. D. (ed.) 2000. Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
2015. Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The ra-
diocarbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the
Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 147–158.
Renfrew C.1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puz-
zle of Indo-European Origins. Jonathan Cape. London.
Roodenberg J., van As A., Jacobs L. and Wijnen M. H. 2003.
Early Settlement in the Plain of Yenisehir (NW Anatolia).
The Basal Occupation Layers at Mentese. Anatolica 29:
17–59.
Roodenberg J., Alpaslan-Roodenberg S. 2013. Ilıpınar and
Mentese. Early Farming Communities in the Eastern Mar-
mara, In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm, (eds.),
Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Re-
search. Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul. Arkeoloji ve
Sanat Yayınları. Istanbul: 69–91.
Schwarzberg H. 2005. Prismatic Polypod Vessels and Their
Way to Europe. In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming
Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the
Second Half of the 7th Though the First Half of the 6th
Millennium Cal. BC. Proceedings of the International
Workshop Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004. BYZAS 2. Veröffent-
lichungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Istan-
bul. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul: 255–273.
Saglamtimur H. 2012. The Neolithic Settlement of Ege Gü-
bre. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.),
Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Re-
search. Western Turkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Is-
tanbul: 197–225.
Rollefson G., Köhler-Rollefson I. 1989. The Collapse of
Early Neolithic Settlements in the Southern Levant. In I.
Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture Change. Proce-
edings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic,
Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the
Mediterranean Basin. British Archaeological Reports IS
508. Archaeopress. Oxford: 59–72.
Schoop U. D. 2011. The Chalcolithic on the Plateau. In S.
R. Steadman, G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 BCE). Oxford Univer-
sity Press. Oxford – New York: 150–173.
Seeher J. 1990. Coskuntepe, Anatolisches Neolithikum am
Nordostufer der Ägäis. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 40: 9–15.
Thissen L. 2001. The Pottery of Ilıpınar, Phase X to VA. In
J. J. Roodenberg, L. C. Thissen (eds.), The Ilıpınar Exca-
vations II. Nederlands Institut Voor Het Nabije Oosten.
Leiden: 3–154.
Thissen L., Özbal H., Türkekul-Bıyık A., Gerritsen F. and
Özbal R. 2010. The Land of Milk? Approaching Dietary
Preferences of Late Neolithic Communities in NW Ana-
tolia. Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 26: 157–172.
Thomas M. G., Kivisild T., Chikhi L. and Burger J. 2013.
Europe and Western Asia: Genetics and Population Hi-
story. In I. Ness, P. Bellwood (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of
Global Human Migration. Wiley-Blackwell. Malden, Ox-
ford: 146 – 156.
Türkcan A. U. 2015. 2014 Eskisehir Kanlıtas Höyük Ça-
lısmaları. 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II: 685–697.
van Andel T. H., Runnels C. N. 1995. The earliest farmers
in Europe. Antiquity 69: 481–500.
Weninger B., Clare L., Gerritsen F., Horejs B., Krauß R.,
Linstädter J., Özbal R. and Rohling E. J. 2014. Neolithisa-
tion of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the
6600–6000 cal BC period of Rapid Climate Change. Do-
cumenta Praehistorica 41: 1–31.
Zeder M. A. 2011. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near
East. Current Anthropology 52(4): 221–235.
Zilhão J. 1997. Maritime pioneer colonisation in the early
Neolithic of the west Mediterranean. Testing the model
against the evidence. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleoliti-
ka, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 34: 19–42.
Zvelebil M. 2001. The Agricultural Transition and the Ori-
gins of Neolithic Society in Europe. Documenta Praehi-
storica 28: 1–26.
Zvelebil M., Lillie M. 2000. Transition to Agriculture in
Eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Far-
mers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 57–92.