Fisher In 1987 Dr.

Jacob Roodenberg initiated the first of two series of excavations at Ilpnar in Northwest Anatoliabecause the site seemed to have an obvious importance: Firstly, Ilpnar remains the only larger occupation sequence for the Eastern Marmara

hinterland (Buitenhuis 1995: 151). Secondly, in being located on the border of the two vast cultural zones of Anatolia and the Balkans, the site should be useful for interpreting the interaction between these zones; archeologists predict that findings should corroborate the now-accepted theory that permanent, agricultural settlements first entered Europe by way of Anatolia (Bottema 1995: 9). Ilpnar is unique for its rapid transformation over a relatively brief period (5300-4500 BC). It went from a semi-settled, tenuous society to a farming, full-fledged permanent community. These changes come hand-in-hand with the narrative in which Ilpnar meets, interacts, and incorporates aspects of central Anatolian culture, especially in the realms of building construction and settlement layout. Ilpnar is primarily useful to archaeologists for understanding the spread of permanent, agricultural settlements, and as well, secondarily and curiously, in understanding the laws, or lack of laws, in how different cultural zones mingle. As mentioned, Ilpnars greater location at the crossroads of Central Anatolia and the Balkans is an important corridor in the spread of culture and lifestyle; likewise, its specific location and environment play an important role in the shaping of the early settlement. Ilpnar lies 15 km East of the Sea of Marmara, in the Lake Iznik basin. It is located on the low-lying Orhangazi plain (see fig. 1). This area has three main appeals to early settlers: There are large, rich clay deposits; the area is almost entirely farmable; and a spring is located directly south of the settlement. The site is on an alluvial plain and exists in a very rainy environment; water is an important theme (Kayan 1995: 30). In the late

Fisher Neolithic phases, space was left between the many wooden buildings of the settlement to serve as a gully to drain water. The buildings were also constructed on land with a slight incline so that water would easily drain; the clayey nature of the settlement could have a

destabilizing effect on the buildings. The surrounding bodies of water afford fishing. While part of the story of Early Northwest Anatolia is that of newly-arrived herdsmen adapting to fishing, there were few fish bones found at Ilpnar and fishing did not play a central role for the settlement. Nevertheless the rainy, clayey environment of the region influenced aspects of the early architecture and settlement life. While Ilpnar spans the vast time period from the Late Neolithic to the Middle Byzantine period, archeologists are concerned primarily from the time of the founding of the settlement at the tail end of the Late Neolithic to the Early Chalcolithiccorresponding with Phases X V. A series of 43 drills and two excavations in 1987 and 1995 revealed a modest sized settlement: The settlement grew over time from Phase X at approximately 4000 m2 to Phase VI at 10,000 m2, and the population, while impossible to determine exactly, never exceeded more than a couple hundred people; Ilpnar can be termed a village (Roodenberg 2001: 240). The settlement did not develop linearly: A crucial and fascinating break developed and is seen in Phase VI where the layout and architecture of the settlement dramatically changes. The two excavations centered, respectively, around either side of the break. The first focused mainly on the architecture and settlement prior to the break: It excavated the Big Squarea central section of the settlementwhich revealed the Late Neolithic Phases X VII. The second dig centered on Phases VI and V. An explanation for why this change in architecture occurred with Phase VI onwards is

Fisher

difficult to procure, but explaining the settlement life before the break in Phases X V also presents a serious challenge. The Early phases of Ilpnar are highly unique for Anatolian settlements in that wood serves as the primary construction material. The impermanence of wood means two things for archeologists: The villagers are rapidly rebuilding structures, making it difficult for analysts to date remains and to interpret the maniac flurry of post holes; secondly, the material simply does not preserve. Archaeologists would be lost if it was not for the watery nature of Ilpnar: Not only do wet conditions help preserve wood, but the site has rich deposits of Calcium in its groundwater which preserved wood in the lowest levels of the settlement (Roodenberg 1995: 37). And so a plethora of post holes and wood preserves have allowed archeologists to reconstruct these early Phases (see fig. 2). As observed primarily in the Big Square, the architecture found in Phases X XII is simple. The houses are made of wood and clay. To their credit, they have special roofs that give extra resistance to rain. The configuration of post holes infers that the buildings have only one room each (Roodenberg 1995: 38). The buildings are rectangular, single-storied, and homogenous in shape and size; the only exception is a few smaller buildings thought to be sheds. There is ample room between buildings, and between some are the above-mentioned gullies used for water evacuation. The floors were no more than trampled clay, and because the wooden structures were constantly rebuilt, the floors were not preserved; the hearths were not preserved either. One unique feature is a form of a plot system (Gerard 2001: 199). The Big Square is named as such because it contains four smaller squares which act as a division between four different, large plots where the same buildings were continually rebuilt (see fig. 2).

Fisher While there are many excavated sections in the site which display the settlements new layout and architecture following the transformation, the Southwest Flank best exhibits the new style of Phases VI V (see fig. 3). There is a shift from post-wall architecture to mud-brick architecture, and the settlement becomes far more complex. The more sturdy building material affords second story houses. The buildings now have contiguous walls and are built in rows (see fig. 4). While the new building constructions

and building relationships are reminiscent of Catalhoyuk, the buildings being set in distinct rows, significantly, is unique (Roodenberg 2001: 241). The buildings have two or three distinct spaces inside them, and evidence of bins, fireplaces, hearths, pots and mud-brick tables that are plastered to the floor all suggest that each building had at least a functional kitchen, storage area, and living spacea major break from the earlier phases. Also unique to the site: Each house has its own courtyard, or open space attached to the back of it. Here in the courtyards were a fireplace, basket-bins, and grinding stones, suggesting cooking. Unlike the Big Square phases, these phases contain luxury floors, or grillage floors raised up from the ground to offer relief from the damp soil (Gerard 2001:198). The fixity of each building, or its rebuilding in the same place, in these phases parallel the earlier Phases; almost the same type of parcel-plot system except that the buildings have changed their alignment towards one another. In this same time period X V we can also observe change in the pottery. A total of 9, 646 shards and four intact vessels were found from the combined excavations. In general, the motifs on the shards are basic, with much of the depictions and decorations made by simply impressing fingernails in the clay. The pottery motifs generally stay the same in the 800 year period, but a decrease in attention to detail occurs over time. The

Fisher overall quality of the pottery fluctuates. At Phase X, the pottery can be likened to the ornate, high-quality pottery of Anatolias Haclar, at least in concept (van As 1995: 96).

The pottery was organically tempered, or chaff tempered, which makes the pottery more light; the bowls, jars, and pots are also generally smaller and have only basic handles, which suggests that they were transported by clasped hands (Ibid. 99). Despite its dimensions, more elaborate S-shaped pots with more detailed designs are found in these lower levels, and the pottery is also burnished. The pottery, however gradually changes, and by Phase V and VI the change has been instated. Interestingly, the change in pottery coincides with the above-mentioned change in building construction. The change in pottery is accounted for by a change in tools (Ibid. 96); the external influence which exported the new type of building construction may have also brought new tools which were responsible for directly affecting the pottery. In the later phases archeologists found plain-rimmed bowls, basic, collared jars, and a general lack of burnished pots. The pottery is no longer organically tempered, but uses plastics instead. The vessels become larger. Overall, the assemblages are in general more straightforward (Ibid. 100), and the pottery has become more homogenous in shape, with more formulaic and repetitive motifs. This suggests that less attention was spent on manufacturing pottery. Significantly, the types of handles change in the later phases: Now horn-shaped handles and handles with multiple perforations appear on the pots (see fig. 5); the reason for this handle development is related to new creation and transportation technologies (Ibid. 96). The Obsidian and flint implements of scrappers, blades, bladelets, flakes, and retouched tools compose Ilpnars chipped stone industry. The bone industry flourished

Fisher over the flint and obsidian industry, but nonetheless, only 3% of these implements were

obsidian. More than half of all obsidian was located in Phase X. Its presence quickly faded afterwards. Neutron analysis has placed the origin of this obsidian in the far away Ciftlik area of Central Anatolia (Bigazzi 1995: 148). Flint material overshadows obsidian materials, but, interestingly, flint cores or core fragments only make up 2% of the analyzed material (Gastsov 2001: 281). Despite the paucity in flint cores, there are many large flint flakes and tools in the site, which suggests that there must be cores somewhere, perhaps located outside the site; also likely, the occurrence of flint tools without the flint cores means that the flint raw material must have been procured in the site, and that the flint cores were processed or decorticated within the site (Ibid. 280-282). The 815 bone artifacts are preserved bone implements with a high level of craftsmanship. One category of bone artifacts includes awls, chisels, spatulas, spoons, and unfinished tools. 96% of these bones come from domesticated animals, especially cattle and pigs. There is another category of bone artifacts, special bones, which includes ornaments such as perforated teeth, tubes, hooks possibly used as belt fasteners, figurines, toys, knuckle-bone dice, and pendants (see fig. 6). Interestingly, the bones of this category derive predominantly from wild animals. The bones of beavers and turtles are not present in the un-worked faunal remains, which are the animal bones not put to use; instead, all beaver and turtle bones are used for the production of special bone objects (Marinelli 1995: 129). There were also figurines of a hypothesized Bird Mother Goddess; this type of figurine is also found in the Greek-Balkans at this time (Ibid. 132).

Fisher Attempting to infer the social and economic realities of Ilpnar proves a challenge due to the sites rapid material transformation; nonetheless, we can draw conclusions from

the evidence regarding the shifting economy and growth of industry, and, more tentatively, the social relations among villagers and their spiritual life. The main theme in the narrative of Ilpnars economy is adaptation. It is probable that the first settlers were herdsmen who came from the highlands of Anatolia (Buitenhuis 1995: 153). Here sheep and goat were more important than cattle (Ibid. 153), and, to be predicted, Ilpnars early-phase economy was based primarily on sheep and goats. The spread-out nature of the wooden houses created natural pens for the animals and offered them security. By Phase VI cattle and pigs had replaced sheep and goats. This practice of favoring pigs and cattle is indigenous to the region as well as the Balkans (Ibid.152). The domestication practices had adapted. The herdsmen likewise brought obsidian with them from the Anatolian heights. A certain amount of obsidian trade must have remained in place, but gradually obsidian was replaced with flint, which existed locally on site; the chipped stone industry adapted. While the early pottery borrowed its concept from inland Anatolia, the clay and the organic additives used to temper the pottery all were found locally. In the early phases, the pottery, while more ornate, was smaller and organically tempered, making it lighter. According to the pottery specialist A. van As, organically tempered pottery is common in societies that are transitory in nature and in need of an expedient technology. Thus, housing and material aspects of the early phases at Ilpnar suggest a people in need of a quick, useful technology for daily use and storage. As the economy developed and as the domestication of cereals, pulses, lentil, and flax went underway, the pottery would soon

Fisher have a less temporary character and would now use a heavier, plastic additive. The pottery then adjusted to the new demands of an increased economy. Likewise, the plot system which had existed in the early Big Square phases carried over to the new type of building construction at Phase VI. As discussed, a plot

system retained itself despite the resulting new settlement layout. Thus they had adapted to the environment. A great economic stimulus came to the site around Phase VI from Central Anatolia. We have already mentioned the new building materials and layoutwhich took after the Anatolian sites of Catalhoyuk (IV-1), Can Hasan (IIB), Asikli Hoyuk, and Haclar (I) (Roodenberg 2001: 241). An expansion of trade and contact must have preceded this development. At this same time there was an increase in efficiency and productivity regarding pottery. Pots, bowls, and jars, while becoming smoother, were also less unique than preceding phases, more homogenized, bulkier, and, with their handles, made compatible with new technology related to both the firing and transportation of the pottery. However, Ilpnars pottery, with its unique fingernail-indent motifs, does not seem to have expanded on a larger regional basis. Similarly, there does not seem to be a deep level of craft specialization regarding pottery; no such pottery shops were found as in the contemporary Halaf and Ubaid. Thus the pottery may give us clues as to the extent of the economy. Using as evidence a lack of ownership seals common to contemporary settlements in the Near East, a lack of any special, larger houses for the privileged, a lack of neighborhoods or special areas yet to be discovered, and the settlements humble size of no more than a few hundred peopleit is safe to infer that the site does not have the

Fisher specialization or organization of wide-scale industry. The economy of Ilpnar, while successful for the region, remained modest. The social/spiritual life of the village is harder to infer. As archaeologist M. Marinelli has claimed, shifts in the climate around 7000 BP made possible the framework of a common cultural zone, roughly stemming from the Marmara region to the south and

eastern Balkans (Marinelli 1995: 132). The early wooden phases of the site are found in the Balkan region. The bird Mother goddess figurines have their counterpart in the present day region of Greece. It is obvious Ilpnar maintained contact with central Anatolia, as evidenced in great transformation in buildings; even from the start, Ilpnars pottery had likeness to that of Haclar in Anatolia. Thus, at the heart of the social and cultural experience of Ilpnar is the question, To what extent was Ilpnar influenced by the East and West? While Phase VI and beyond building constructions came from the East, the spiritual and social dynamics of Ilpnar seem to be part of either the Marmara region or uniquely of the settlement area of Ilpnar. The 77 spoons discovered at Ilpnar mirror those spoons found in Pendik and Fikirtepe; the spatulas of nearby Haclartepe (not Haclar) resemble these spoons (Marinelli 1995: 132). These spoons as well as other aspects of the bone assemblage suggest a common cultural connection with these settlements of the Eastern Marmaraespecially since each of these settlements places a special emphasis on the bone industry. Even while Ilpnar borrowed its building plans from central Anatolia, they still adopted the plans to their own traditions: Large courtyards were left behind each new mud-brick house (see fig. ?) for cooking and other activities, but the previous settlement layout had also allowed for large spaces surrounding each house, also for cooking as well

Fisher 10 as for animals. Open spaces for either cooking or animal use has been a constant component at Ilpnar (Gerard 2001: 198), a locally preserved tradition. Among the artifacts, the pottery retained its uniqueness, despite its earlier connections to Anatolia. Importantly, it played a more industrial, economic role, as the pottery was made more briskly and bulky for the economic demands. Most idiosyncratic about Ilpnar is its use of wild beaver and turtle bones for nothing other than making special, culturally meaningful bone implements. Like the Leopards of Catahoyuk, it is possible that Ilpnar attached a higher spiritual importance to turtles and beaversand wild animals in generaland chose them for their most meaningful objects. However, there are no cultic buildings or burials yet discovered here that would corroborate a worship of a turtle or beaver entity. At any rate, from this broad analysis incorporating architecture and artifacts, it is possible to say that Ilpnaras far as its identity goesdid not adopt any external cultural milieu, except maybe the immediate surrounding Marama region. It retained many cultural symbols and traditions. The time period of 5300 to 4500 saw the flourishing of the Halaf culture in Eastern Syria and the beginning of the Ubaid in Southern Mesopotamia. The introduction of irrigation and the resulting increase in crop yield made Ubaid societys sophisticated level of organization and specialization possible. Ilpnar was far behind. It was vaguely reminiscent of societies from the Anatolian Pottery Neolithic, such as Catalhoyuk and others in central Anatolia. What is not so important from Ilpnar is its indigenous cultural contributions to prehistory or the unique nature of its cultural zone or Northwest Anatolia which may have influenced surrounding regions; rather, what is important is the very fact of the shift undertaken by Ilpnar. This shift was from an unstable, wooden settlement

Fisher 11 based on herding sheep and goats, to a settlement with a mud-brick, permanent character, based on cattle and agriculture. The shift was imported from central Anatolia. The comparing and contrast of the advanced, early urban Ubaid society to the East and the nascent permanent-agriculture settlement of Ilpnar drives home three immediate points: The shift to permanent, agricultural settlements will not likely happen without external contact; the development of a settlement to a more complex one is largely dependent on the nature and demands of the land, i.e. the Southern Mesopotamias climate that necessitated irrigation; and finally, that the spread of permanent, agricultural settlements had only just begun in Northwest Anatolia and had not even entered into the Eastern Europe region, gives us a clear sense of the path taken by the transformation of settlements. Finally and interestingly, while the rise and spread of permanent, agricultural settlements seems to follow a general directional path, the cultural aspects of regionsas evidenced in how Ilpnar retained its own cultureis in a stark contrast and does not seem to take such a logical path; Ilpnar, at the crossroads of cultures, embodies a resistance of sorts and a cultural self-contentment.

Bibliography*

Fisher 12 Bigazzi, G., M. Oddone, and Z. Yegingil. A Provenance Study of Obsidian Artifacts from Ilpnar. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 143-150. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1995. Bottema, S. and H. Woldring. The Prehistoric Environment of the Lake Iznik Area. A Palynological Study. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 8-16. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1995. Buitenhuis, H. The Faunal Remains. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 151-156. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1995. Gatsov, Ivan. Chipped Stone Assemblages of Ilpnar. In The Ilpnar Excavations II, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen, 279-296. Istanbul: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut, 2001. Gerard, Frederic. Stratigraphy and Architecture on the Southwest Flank of Ilpnar. In The Ilpnar Excavations II, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen, 177-222. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 2001. Kayan, Illhan. The Geomorphologic Environment of the Ilpnar Mound. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 17-34. Istanbul: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut, 1995. Marinelli, M. The Bone Artifacts of Ilpnar. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 121-142. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1995. Roodenberg, Jacob. Miscellaneous. In The Ilpnar Excavations II, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen, 223-256. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 2001. Roodenberg, Jacob. Stratigraphy and Architecture. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 34-76. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1995. Van As, A. and M.-H. Wijnen. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery from Ilpnars Phases X-V. A Technological Study. In The Ilpnar Excavations I, ed. Jacob J. Roodenberg, 78-108. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1995.

*I apologize, a formatting error occurred where I could not adjust the margins in order to correctly indent my sources.

Fisher 13

Figure 1.

Fisher 14

Figure 2.

Fisher 15

Figure 3. Southwest Flank located at bottom left.

Fisher 16

Figure 4.

Fisher 17

Figure 5.

Fisher 18

Figure 6.