From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace

by Necmi KARUL & Jan-K. BERTRAM

Turkish Thrace, as a part of Southeastern Europe, forms an advantageous geographical con-text for observing the mobility patterns of prehistoric cultures and their developments overthe time. The Meriç river, which borders Eastern Thrace from the west as it flows to theAegean, is geographical important within this context. The cultural history of the region hasbeen continually connected to the development processes occurring along the Meriç River aswell as to the geographical setting. Situated in the Lower Meriç Basin, approximately 10 kmaway from the Enez district of the city of Edirne, the archaeological site of Hoca Çeflme hasbenefited from the natural environment as determined by the river (Özdo¤an 1999, Fig. 2).

Located on one of the Miocene limestone slopes of the volcano Hisarl›da¤, the site is closeenough to the Aegean to be directly affected by changes of the sea level.

Indeed, as the result of core drilling (Göçmen 1976, 150) at the Meriç delta, we see that alarge bay was formed around 6000-5500 BC, expanding in the north to the midst of Edirne,and to the east to Keflan. Because Hoca Çeflme was situated near the bay’s shore, the pres-ence of the mound turned out to be even more interesting.

Stratigraphy and Architecture

The settlement is one of few sites in Southeastern Europe revealing a continuous stratigra-phy for the Early Neolithic period. The site was excavated in 1990-1993 under the directionof Mehmet Özdo¤an. An area of 700 square meters was opened. The evaluation of the pot-tery finds1, which constitutes the main object of this paper, can be better understood byexamining the stratigraphy over an extensive period of time.

C. Lichter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? BYZAS 2 (2005) 117–129

1 In this place we are grateful to M. Özdo¤an (‹stanbul) for working with this material as well as to ‹. Ar› (‹stanbul)and D. Kerns (Tübingen) for their support. A detailed publication of the pottery is in preparation.

The mound sequence differs on its upper cone and slopes, since the upper deposits were dis-turbed by agricultural activities and by natural erosion. Only the pits from the upper levelswere preserved. Below this mixed layer, the levels have remained in the proper order downto the bedrock. However, on the slope we find remains of the upper level fully stratified.From the modern surface down to the bedrock we observe seven settlement layers. Theselayers are divided in four cultural phases (IV, III, II and I), defined according to the architec-ture, small finds, pottery and the 14C-dates. Accordingly, the oldest layer (7) represents phaseIV, layers 5 and 6 represent phase III and the layers 4-2 phase II. Layer 1 consists of five sub-phases, named “a-e” and defined as phase I. There seems to be continuous settlement fromphase IV until phase II.

Phase IV belongs to the first settlers of the mound and lies direct on the bedrock. We find inthis layer, covering 180 square meters of excavation area, hut-like structures with a woodenconstruction and with bases cut into the bedrock. These first settlers also enclosed the settle-ment with a massive stone-wall. Three structures with a diameter of approximately 5 m wereidentified. Two of them could completely uncovered in the excavation area, while the thirdexpands outside of it. The hut-structures were built close to each other, never more than2 m apart. Postholes occur around the huts, some extend 30 cm below the ground, andstones resting on the ground surround others. Two of the buildings contain storage pits intheir centre. These pits are carved down 1 m below the bedrock surface and have a diame-ter of 1.5 m. One of these pits was filled in with rubble up to the level of the house (Özdo¤an1999, fig. 11-12).

The fortification wall, which encloses the settlement, was built on the ascending bedrock inthe north. The wall was preserved up to a height of 1 m and with a thickness of 1.20 m(Özdo¤an 1998, 439). The fill at the inner side revealed that the fortification was construct-ed during the oldest phase of the settlement and used until the end of phase II (Özdo¤an1999, fig. 9; 12; 15-16).

Circular-shaped buildings are again present in phase III of the settlement (Özdo¤an 1999,fig. 13-14). In this phase the floors of the houses were plastered with a greenish mud. Post-holes occur around the structures, stone piles encircle them. A large construction of about10 m in diameter was uncovered. Big stones were placed around the perimeter of it, whilethe floor was made of small stones and clay. On this stone and clay base, a mixture of limeand clay was used as a plaster. The findings show that the floor was refurbished twice: First itwas painted yellow and later red. It is possible – after considering the features mentionedabove – to surmise that this structure differs from the others and shows a unique construc-tion technique. In phase III the houses were made by the wattle and daub method, and thefortification wall was still in use.

Phase II is significant due to the occurrence of architectural changes. During this periodcircular-shaped buildings were replaced by rectangular ones (Özdo¤an 1999, fig. 17). Thewalls were constructed again with the wattle and daub technique and plastered with a thindaub of lime. Elevated hearths, working areas and platforms were found within houses.

Since there are no well preserved architectural remains or buildings in phase I, this layer(s)can only be recognized by the pits cut into the lower layers.

Necmi Karul & Jan-K. Bertram118

From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace 119

Fig. 1 Selected pottery of the phases IV-III (after Karul 1994, fig. 23.33.36.38).

0 5 cm

1

2

3

Pottery from the phases IV and III

The pottery of the site developed parallel to the architecture described above. The ceramicsof the oldest phases III and IV can be briefly described as follows: Fine sand and small micatempered, well fired, thin rimmed, lustrously burnished and, along with examples of brightblack, the assemblage is dominated by sherds coloured in tones of red. The coarse wares,especially in phase IV, are very rare. They begin to increase in number in phase III. The prob-lem of differentiation between the wares of phases III and IV indicates that the same claybeds were used. Since the tempering is similar, wares are classified by their surface treatment.

Necmi Karul & Jan-K. Bertram120

Fig. 2 Selected pottery of the phases IV-III (after Karul 1994, fig. 23.33.36.38).

0 5 cm

1

2

3

When we look at all the surface colours of the phases III and IV, we can recognize three dif-ferent main groups: A red/reddish-coloured ware, a brown-coloured and a lustrous black/blackish-coloured ware. In both phases there is a high proportion of bright red-colouredpottery.

The ceramics are generally finely made, with quite thin rims, having a thickness of 3 mm onaverage. The surface is well smoothed and in most cases slipped. Untreated and unburnishedsherds are absent in phases III and IV. Vessels with a matt surface are present with an approxi-mate ratio of 15-20%. The quality of the pottery firing is high. Generally it took place in areducing atmosphere and at high temperatures. Surfaces with a mottled colour due to thefiring process are only present in phases IV-III and belong to one ware group. The fact that themottling has an orderly spotted pattern and is almost limited to this ware group, suggests thatthe mottling was made deliberately, bringing to mind a particular ware group of the Neolithicfrom Southern Greece, the so-called “variegated” or “rainbow ware” (Theocharis 1973, 40).

From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace 121

Fig. 3 Selected pottery of the phases IV-III (after Karul 1994, fig. 23.33.36.38).

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 cm

The forms of phases IV and III are very limited. The vessels can be defined as “mediumsized”. Three types of curved rim constitute the basic pottery forms: First we find the wideopen, plate-like vessels with flat or simply curved rims; second, the cup-like vessels and pots(?) usually with strangulated bodies and S-shaped rims and third, the vessels with a long bodyrespectively with narrow flat bodies toward the lips creating a sack-like form (Fig. 1-4). Apartfrom these, zoomorphic lids and vessels are present in a small number (Özdo¤an 1999, fig.37). Generally, many of the vessels – and especially all the vessels with S-curved rims – arefinely made and have very thin edges.

No noticeable differences in the pottery types and their dispersal emerge between the phas-es III and IV. Within phase IV, vessels without a neck and with strangulated bodies are numer-ous and thin-edged vessels are common, while in phase III the rims of vessels graduallybecome thicker. Independent of the edge thickness, the lips are usually thinned and mostlyextended. Flat and slightly thickened lips are also evident. The vessels are all finely made withround bodies. Oval-shaped vessels are extremely rare.

Although the pottery assemblage of the phases III and IV is diverse in form, vessels with wide-flattened bottoms are very common. The dispersal of the handles indicates a uniformity intheir number. They are often – in both phases – vertically holed, short tubular and lunar-formed (Fig. 1-3).

Necmi Karul & Jan-K. Bertram122

Fig. 4 Selected pottery of the phases IV-III (after Karul 1994, fig. 23.33.36.38).

0 10 cm

1 23

4

5 6

78

Pottery from the phases II and I

The ceramics from the levels 4-1 offer varying quantities respective of level for analysis. Sincethe settlement hill has been greatly disturbed in recent times, only a very limited number ofremains of vessels suitable for analysis are present from the younger, upper levels 2 and 1.The material from layers 4 and 3 (phase II), tied directly to phase III, proves extensive as wellas revealing (cf. Fig. 5-7, 1-2).

The ceramics from level 4 are characterized above all by a strangulated, curling back rim, anelement that defines a broad proportion of the forms, equally characteristic are the simpleopen bowls. More rare are the S-formed as well as biconical vessels (Fig. 5).

From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace 123

Fig. 5 Selected pottery of the phase II (layer 4).

10 cm

12

34

5 6

7 8

910

1112

0

A wide range of ware types exists, recognizable through colouration as a result of differingand/or irregular firing techniques, the spectrum stretches from red to black. Wares with apolished surface are the most prevalent from this level. They represent approximately 94 %of the identifiable ceramics.

Decorative colouring could only be found in a few cases. The remains of a white-colouredcoating, recognizable on three sherds, were found placed on a red as well as a dark (black)background. The first of these sherds reveals a chessboard pattern; this is of interest in thatsuch a motif rarely occurs in the Thrace-Marmara region. Two other sherds indicate the dif-fused remnants of a red coating on the inner side. Whether we are looking at applied paintis not at all certain. A motif is in any case no longer recognizable.

Necmi Karul & Jan-K. Bertram124

Fig. 6 Selected pottery of the phase II (layer 3).

0 10 cm

12

34

56 7

8 9

10

11

12

13

Other fragments with white paint on a red background have been uncovered and can beincluded in an Early Neolithic decorative repertoire from phase II (Özdo¤an 1999, fig. 39).Simple lines and zigzag patterns, and possibly a spiral motif as well, are found on thesepieces. However, we can conclude that decorative elements in level 4 – as well as in the entireexcavated material from Hoca Çeflme – rarely appear. The characteristic “Impresso” decora-tion is missing from level 4. Alternatively, decorating in the “Furchenstich”-technique hasbeen determined by means of the vertical zigzag lines found on some sherds.

Altogether, we find a continuation of forms from level 4 into level 3 (Fig. 6-7, 1-2). Weobserve within the spectrum of forms a continued dominance of the closed vessel-type. Thisincludes the vessels with strangulated or curling back mouths. Less dominant are the remainsof simple bowls, while very rare are the vessel forms that are S-curving in profile, that is, light-ly biconical.

Unlike layer 4, the ceramics appear coarsely fired and therefore of lower quality. The num-ber of smoothed wares increases noticeably, making up approximately 15 % of the total fromlevel 3 (as compared to level 4, with ca. 6 %). The number of red-coloured wares (polishedand smoothed) is reduced to 48 %. The wares that are black (polished or smoothed) domi-nate slightly at 52 %.

At the same time we observe an increase in decoration, although painting hardly appears atall. We emphasize here only the sherds from a vessel with brown-black painting on a brownbackground (Fig. 6.4). A few sherds have been uncovered from vessels that were paintedwhite on a red background. “Impresso” decoration appears here as something new. Due tothe painting and the ceramic forms, levels 3 and 4 most probably date to the Karanovo I/II-horizon in Thrace. The 14C-dates also indicate the same, presenting dates from the 6th mil-lennium BC (Reingruber/Thissen this volume). Despite this, the motifs are different fromthose found in Inner Thrace and the number of painted ceramics is very low.

It is difficult to account for the ceramics from the levels 2 and 1. The number of stratifiedceramics decreases dramatically starting with layer 2 (total ca. 810 sherds; layer 4: ca. 4350).

Basins and bowls indicate varying profiles, seen, for example, by the thickened inner rims,the throated rims, by the conical necks, or rather, simple basins/bowls. Vessels and pots withnarrow mouths appear here as well (Fig. 7,3-12). It is apparent that the wares from level 3carry over to levels 2 and 1, when the intensity of surface polishing and firing has lessened.The ratio of black to red wares stands at ca. 85 % black, 15 % red. In level 1, bowls with rolledrims appear for the first time. The so-called “Dornenhenkel” is found in levels 2 and 1. Thenumber of examples of incised decoration increases and remains practically unchanged forlevel 1. Also the number of ceramics with Impresso decoration is higher for levels 1 and 2 ascompared to level 3. The wares from level 2 appear without clear changes carrying over intolevel 1.

The surface area of the hill is, as mentioned above, greatly disturbed. The ceramics are inpart indicative of those found in the layers 7-1. But other forms and decoration appear hereas well, those not found among the seven levels. They are identified, as to be expected, withlater/younger settlement phases occurring on the site.

From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace 125

Among these re-worked finds we should emphasize at first the blackish brown polishedremains of vessels and those with smoothed surfaces in dark tones (brown, black, blackish-grey). Numerous handles make up a large portion of the finds, with the bulging, S-curvedbasins and bowls to a lesser degree, along with the pattern burnished bowls and decoratedceramics with incised lines. This unstratified material represents a settlement from the mid-dle to the second half of the 6th millennium BC, or rather the transition to the 5th millenni-um BC (Karanovo III; late Kumtepe A/Toptepe-horizon).

Looking at levels 2-1 we find a tendency for the ceramics from Hoca Çeflme. Painted sherdsare found less and less, while decorated, and especially impresso-decorated ceramics, as wellas pieces with incised ornaments begin to appear more and more.

Necmi Karul & Jan-K. Bertram126

Fig. 7 Selected pottery of the phase II (layer 3 [1-2] and from the layers 1-2 [3-12]).

0 10 cm

1 2

3

4

5

6

78

9 10

11

12

Summary

In order to find comparative examples of what has been uncovered at Hoca Çeflme, we turnfor obvious reasons to the Marmara region. In recent years, due to the increase in excava-tions and research taking place in this area, several chronologies have been reconstructed.

Pottery from the sites of Fikirtepe and Pendik is comparable to the ceramics from HocaÇeflme. Similarities among the assemblages appear with regard to the S-curved and wide-opened vessels. The sites also share similarities among small finds such as bone spoons anda spatula. At the same time, differences exist among the ceramics (Özdo¤an 1999). The 1991field season at the site of Pendik uncovered burnished red pottery from a layer within thecemetery, dated to immediately after the Fikirtepe phase (Pasinli et al. 1994, 152), identicalto that found among the wares at Hoca Çeflme.

Tubular handles – typical for the phases IV and III – are present in the late phases of theFikirtepe culture (Özdo¤an 1989; Özdo¤an 1999). Also the lunar-formed pintaderas fromthe cemetery layer at the Pendik site constitute another similarity (Pasinli et al. 1994, fig. 18).

Considering all of the available information, the oldest phases of the settlement of HocaÇeflme seem to be contemporary with the later phases of the Fikirtepe culture. The similari-ty between phase II and the Pendik cemetery layer also would support this view. In addition,the ceramics from the layer 5 in the Yar›mburgaz cave are almost identical to the burnishedware of Hoca Çeflme (Özdo¤an et al. 1991, 69). Therefore, we can surmise, that layer 5 ofYar›mburgaz is also contemporary with the early Hoca Çeflme.

At the moment, no other site in the Marmara region shows similarities with what we foundin the early layers of Hoca Çeflme. The closest possible similarity comes from the surface findsof Coflkuntepe (Seeher 1990).

When we compare the phases III and IV of Hoca Çeflme to the Central Anatolian cultures,the burnished red ware seems to be identical in both regions. But placing the assemblages ofphases III and IV from Hoca Çeflme directly within the Central Anatolian chronology is thusfar difficult. There are similarities between the early phases of Hoca Çeflme and Kuruçay.Good examples exist in layers 11-13 of Kuruçay. Without taking into consideration that theearly layers of Hoca Çeflme have no painted pottery, the sites share similar vessel forms (Duru1994, fig. 34-53). Besides, there is an astonishing similarity between the lunar- or horn-shapedtubular handles, edged in relief (Duru 1994, fig. 42,4-5). This profound similarity is evidentin the rest of the handle forms of Kuruçay, another one occurs with regard to the bull-headsfrom Hoca Çeflme. Such decorated vessels were found in Hac›lar VI (Mellaart 1970, fig.263,5-8) and in Kuruçay level 11 (Duru 1994, fig. 198,1-3). The remains of ritons are also evi-dent among the finds from Hac›lar VI (Mellaart 1970, fig. 265,2) and Kuruçay layer 11 (Duru1994, fig.194,1; 195,2). According to this, it might be possible that phase IV - III of HocaÇeflme is older than Hac›lar IX and almost contemporary with Kuruçay 11-13. Despite thescant number of samples, there seems to be an agreement between the 14C-dates fromKuruçay and from Hoca Çeflme (Thissen 2002).

From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace 127

The levels 4-1, as well as the disturbed surface (phases II and I), have produced material fromthe 6th millennium BC. After analysis of the finds, we discover an extensive time frame, fromKaranovo I/II to IV (i. e. late Kumtepe A/Toptepe horizon).

The absence of a sufficient number of stratified and undisturbed finds makes it difficult toevaluate in detail the younger settlement at the site (levels 2 and 1).

The levels 4-3 indicate altogether a homogenous degree of the ceramic material. Here wefind a representation of a ceramic complex from the Early Neolithic in accordance with theterminology/chronology of Inner Thrace/Southwest Bulgaria. This is mostly indicated bythe applied white paint upon a red polished background. The assumed chronological frame-work corresponds with the Karanovo I/II horizon in Bulgaria (Nikolov 1998). Several 14C-datessupport this claim. In contrast to this region, the rare occurrences of painting need to bestressed. Impresso-decoration appears in a greater number only at the beginning of level 3.

The scanty painted assemblage from Hoca Çeflme presents an image similar to what we findin the Marmara region. It is not surprising that parallels exist, among others, with the ceram-ics from Il›p›nar X-VI (Thissen 2001). This is true especially for the biconical shaped pottery,the narrow-rimmed as well as S-curved vessels, and the decorative zigzag and incised sherds.The unified chronology of the younger levels 2 and 1 must be understood with a certainmeasure of caution. In view of the dating of the levels 4 and 3 to the Early Neolithic, we comeacross a terminus post quem. The youngest material from the site dates to the Toptepe and lateKumtepe A horizon, which encompasses a significantly long time span. What is clear is thattypical material of Karanovo III, as found on the surface, does not exist in levels 2 and 1.Considering the few finds represented here with all due care, we can surmise a rough datingof these two layers to the transition from Karanovo II to III.

Therefore, the early layers from Hoca Çeflme can be dated older than Karanovo I. A similarsituation applies to Greece. Accordingly, we could surmise that Hoca Çeflme phases IV andIII are older than the beginning of the classical Sesklo and contemporary with the Pre-/Proto-Sesklo period.

As a result, the earlier cultural phases from Hoca Çeflme help to close a chronological gapbetween Yar›mburgaz/layer 4 and the Fikirtepe culture in the Marmara region – an areadecisive in defining the relations between the Anatolian and the Southeast European pre-history.

The Hoca Çeflme sequence provides a new vantage point for discussions of how agriculturalcommunities spread throughout Europe. With its pottery, its architecture and especially withits chipped stone tools, Hoca Çeflme holds a unique position among the Early Neolithic sitesin this region.

Necmi Karul & Jan-K. Bertram128

From Anatolia to Europe: The ceramic sequence of Hoca Çeflme in Turkish Thrace 129

ReferencesDuru 1994 R. Duru, Kuruçay Höyük I (Ankara 1994).

Göçmen 1976 K. Göçmen, Afla¤› Meriç Vadisi Taflk›n Ovas› ve Deltan›n Alüviyal Jeomorfolojisi (‹stanbul1976).

Karul 1994 N. Karul, Hoca Çeflme En Alt Evresinin Tarihlenme Sorunlar› (4. ve 3. Evre Çanak Çömle¤iDe¤erlendirmesinin Tarihlenme Sorununun Çözümüne Katk›s›). Unpublished MA-Thesis(‹stanbul 1994).

Mellaart 1970 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hac›lar (Edinburgh 1970).

Nikolov 1998 B. Nikolov> Prouhvaniq v=rxu neolitnata keramika v Trakiq. Keramihnitekompleksi Karanovo øø-øøø> øøø U øøø-øÿ v konteksta na Severozapadna Anatoliq i[goiztohna Evropa (Sofiq 1998).

Özdo¤an 1989 M. Özdo¤an, Neolithic Cultures of Northwestern Turkey. In: fi. Bökönyi (ed.),Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Conference Szolnok-Szeged 1987 Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II (Budapest 1989) 201-215.

Özdo¤an 1998 M. Özdo¤an, Hoca Çeflme: An Early Neolithic anatolian colony in the Balkans? In:P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem, W. Meid (eds.), Man and the Animal World. Inmemoriam fiándor Bökönyi. Archaeolingua 8 (Budapest 1998) 435-451.

Özdo¤an 1999 M. Özdo¤an, Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in between the Balkans andAnatolia. In: M. Özdo¤an, N. Baflgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civiliza-tion. New discoveries (‹stanbul 1999) 203-224.

Özdo¤an et al. 1991 M. Özdo¤an, Y. Miyake, N. Özbaflaran-Dede, An interim report on the excavations atYar›mburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica XVII, 1991, 59-121.

Pasinli et al. 1994 A. Pasinli, E. Uzuno¤lu, N. Atakan, Ç. Girgin, M. Soysal, Pendik Kurtarma Kaz›s›. IV.Müze Kurtarma Kaz›lar› Semineri 1994, 147-163.

Seeher 1990 J. Seeher, Coflkuntepe – Anatolisches Neolithikum am Nordostufer der Agäis.Istanbuler Mitteilungen 40, 1990, 9-15.

Theocharis 1973 D. Theocharis, Neolithic Greece (Athens 1973).

Thissen 2001 L. Thissen, The pottery of Il›p›nar, phases X to VA. In: J. J. Roodenberg, L. C. Thissen(eds.), The Il›p›nar Excavations II (Leiden 2001) 3-154.

Thissen 2002 L. Thissen, CANeW 14C databases and 14C charts, Anatolia, 10.000-5000 cal BC. In:F. Gèrard, L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments andExternal Relations during the 9th-6th Millennia cal BC (‹stanbul 2002) 299-337.