A Roman Eagle

 

Eagle was the symbol for Roman Empire because of its power (Photo taken in Museum of Anatolian Civilisations)

© Berkay Dinçer

A bird symbol from Sultanhani hieroglyph

 

A bird symbol from Sultanhani hieroglyph. Hittite Empire period (Poto taken in Anatolian Civilisations Museum)

© Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Urmia pottery with bird figure

 

Urmia pottery with bird figure painted on it. Photo taken in Museum of Anatolian Civilisations.

© Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Bird shaped pottery from Kultepe

Bird shaped pottery from Kultepe. Photo taken in Museum of Anatolian Civilisations (Ankara).

Photo: © Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Ottoman bird houses

A bird house on the corner of an Ottoman building.

Photo: © Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Bird from Gordion (Phyrigia)

 

 Detail of a bird shaped vase from Gordion (Phyrigia).

Photo taken in Museum of Anatolian Civilisations (Ankara)
© Berkay Dinçer

Photos: Bird shaped pottery

Bird shaped pottery from Beycesultan. Photo taken in Museum of Anatolian Civilisations (Ankara)
© Berkay Dinçer

Map of Hassuna Culture

Image taken from Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Mesopotamia_Per%C3%ADodo_6.svg

Bibliography for Statistical Methods in Paleolithic Archaeology

This is bibliography for Statistical Methods in Paleolithic Archaeology.

ARSEBÜK, G., 1987
“İki Milyon Yıl Öncesinin Taş Aletleri”, Tarih ve Toplum 45: 37-41.

ARSEBÜK, G., 1999
"İnsanın Evrim Süreci ve En Eski Kültürleri", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 2: 31-49.

BAYKARA, İ., B. DİNÇER, 2007
"İnsanın Evriminde Taş Aletler", Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası Bülteni 2007/2: 82-86.

BAYRAM., N., 2004
Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Ezgi Kitabevi, Bursa.

BISSON, M. S., 2000
"Nineteenth Century Tool for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Mİddle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced", Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7/1: 1-48.

BOËDA, E., J.-M. GENESTE, L. MEIGNEN, 1990
“Identification de chaines operatoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen”, Paléo 2: 43-80.

BORDES, F., 1988
Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen, CNRS, Paris.

BRAIDWOOD, R., J., 1995
Tarihöncesi İnsan, B. Altınok (Çev.), Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul.

CERUTTI, S., 2007
Les industries sur galets du Languedoc oriéntal dans leur contexte géologique, Mémoire de master 1, Archaeologie Méditerranèenne, Université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier III (yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi).

DARWIN, C., 1995
İnsanın Türeyişi, Ö. Ünalan (Çev), Onur Yayınları, Ankara.

DEBÉNATH, A., H. L. DIBBLE, 1994
Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, Cypher Press, Philadeplphia.

DİNÇER, B., 2001
"İnsanın Biyokültürel Evrimi", Çapa-Mala 4: 4-9.

DİNÇER, B., 2007
"İnsanın İlk Zamanları; Kaletepe", Atlas 169: 62-70.

GÜLEÇ, E., S. L. KUHN, M. C. STINER, 2002
"The Early Upper Palaeolithic of Üçağızlı Cave, Turkey", Antiquity 76: 615-616.

INIZAN, M.-L., M. REDURON-BALLINGER, H. ROCHE, J. TIXIER, 1999
Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone, CREP, Nanterre.

KUHN, S. L., 2004
“Upper Paleolithic Raw Material Economies at Üçağızlı Cave, Turkey”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 431-448.

NOLL, M. P., M. D. PTRAGLIA, 2003
"Acheulean Bifaces and Early Human Behavioral Patterns in East Africa and South India", M. Soressi, H. L. Dibble (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia: 45-54

ÖZDOĞAN, M., 2002
"İlk Adımlar; Paleolitik Çağ”, ArkeoAtlas 1: 46-57.

SCHICK, K. D., N. TOTH, 1994
Making Silent Stones Speak, Simon and Schuster, New York.

SLIMAK, L., B. DİNÇER, 2007
"Kaletepe Deresi 3. Orta Anadolu'da Tabakalanma Veren Bir İlk Paleolitik Çağ Yerleşmesi", Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi (TÜBA-Ar) X: 33-47.

SLIMAK, L., B. DİNÇER, N. BALKAN-ATLI, 2005
"Anadolu'da En Eski İnsan İzleri", Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik 978: 6-7.

SLIMAK, L., S. L. KUHN, N. BALKAN-ATLI, D. BINDER, B. DİNÇER, 2006
"KD3, recherches sur les premiers peuplements d’Anatolie, la campagne 2005", Anatolia Antiqua XIV: 179-187.

SLIMAK, L., S. L. KUHN, N. BALKAN-ATLI, D. BINDER, M. GRENET, B. DİNÇER, 2007
"Kaletepe Deresi 3: de l'Acheulleen au Mousterien en Anatolie centrale", Anatolia Antiqua XV: 257-273.

TANINDI, O., 1991
“Kazı Buluntularının Değerlendirilmesinde Bilgisayarın Rolü ve Bir Uygulama: Yarımburgaz”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi XXIX: 261-267.

TANINDI, O., 1995
“‘Computer aided Archaeology’: An Automation Model for Archaeological Excavation Projects-1: Planning and Development Before Excavation”, Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları, Graphis Yayınları, İstanbul: 255-265.

Photos: Polyedric pieces

 

Polyedric pieces from Kaletepe Deresi 3.

Photo: © Berkay Dinçer

Birds of the Halafian Culture

Bird symbols from Halafian pottery. This image shows that there can be a variety of different bird symbols. 

Image: © Berkay Dinçer

Map showing Paleolithic excavation areas of Kaletepe Deresi 3

 

Map of Komurcu/Kaletepe Paleolithic-Neolithic site. Dark rectangulars are Paleolithic excavation areas.

Bibliography for Kaletepe Deresi 3

BIGAZZI, G., Z. YEĞİNGİL, T. ERCAN, M. ODDONE, M. ÖZDOĞAN, 1993
“Fission Track Dating Obsidians in Central and Northern Anatolia”, Bulletin of Volcanology 55: 588-595.

BIGAZZI, G., Z. YEĞINGIL, G. POUPEAU, L. BELLOT-GURLET, 1998
“Provenance Studies of Obsidian Artefacts in Anatolia Using the Fission-Track Dating Method: An Overview”, L’obsidienne au Proche- et Moyen-Orient: Du volcan à l’outil, M. C. CAUVIN, A. GOURGAUD, B. GRATUZE, N. ARNAUD, G. POUPEAU, J. L. POIDEVIN, C. CHATAIGNER (Eds.), Oxford, BAR International Series: 69-89.

BLACKWELL, B., H. SCHWARTZ, N. PORAT, F. C. HOWELL, G. ARSEBÜK, 1990
“Electron-Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating of Ursus Teeth from Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey”, Geological Society of America 22A: 120-121.

BOEDA, E., 1993
“Le débitage discoïde et le débitage Levallois récurrent centripète”, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 90 (6): 392-404.

CARBONELL, E., M. MOSQUERA, X. P. RODRIGUEZ, R. SALA, J. VAN DER MADE, 1999
“Out of Africa: The Dispersal of the Earliest Technical Systems Reconsidered”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 119-136.

EISENMANN, V., D. HELMER, M. SANIA SEGUI, 2002
“The Big Equus from the Geometric Kebaran of Umm el Tlel, Syria”, Equus valeriani, Equus capensis or Equus caballus, H. BUITENHUIS, A. M. CHOYKE, M. MASHKOUR, A. H. AL-SHİYAB (Eds.), Groningen, Archaeozoology of the Near East V, ARC Publication: 62-73.

GÜLEÇ, E., F. C. HOWELL, T. WHITE, 1999
“Dursunlu, A New Lower Pleistocene Artifact-Bearing Locality in Southern Anatolia”, Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Survival Strategies, H. ULLRICH (ed.), Berlin, Archaea: 349-364.

KUHN, S. L., G. ARSEBÜK, F. C. HOWELL, 1996
“The Middle Pleistocene Lithic Assemblage from Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey”, Paléorient 22/1:31-49.

KUZUCUOĞLU, C., J.-F. PASTRE, S. BLACK, T. ERCAN, M. FONTUGNE, H. GUILLOU, C. HATTE, M. KARABIYIKOĞLU, P. ORTH, A. TÜRKECAN, 1998
“Identification and Dating of Tephra Layers from Quaternary Sedimentary Sequences of Inner Anatolia, Turkey”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 85: 153-172.

MOURALIS, D., 2003
Les complexes volcaniques quaternaires sur les paysages de Cappadoce (Göllüdağ at Acıgöl-Turquie): évolutions morphodinamiques et implications environnementales, Doktora tezi, Université Paris 12.

MOURALIS, D., C. KUZUCUOĞLU, J.-F. PASTRE, A. TÜRKECAN, 2001
“Le volcanisme récent de Cappadoce: manifestationsvolcaniques du Pléistocène supérieur et de l’Holocène enregistrées dans le maar d’Eski Acıgöl –Résultats préliminaires”, 8e Congrés français de sédimentologie, 12-14 Novembre 2001, Orléans, Association des sédimentologistes français, Livre des résumés: 251-252.

MOURALIS, D., J.-F. PASTRE, C. KUZUCUOĞLU, A. TÜRKECAN, Y. ATICI, M. FONTUGNE, H. GUILLOU, S. KUNESCH, N. BALKAN-ATLI, D. BINDER, L. SLIMAK, H. ROCHE, 2002
“Les complexes volcaniques rhyolithiques quaternaires d’Anatolie centrale (Göllü Dağ et Acıgöl, Turquie): genèse, instabilité contraintes environnementales”, Quaternaire 13/3-4: 219-228.

OLANCA, K., 1994
Géochemie des laves quaternaires de Cappadoce (Turquie). Les Appareils monogéniques, Tez, Université Blaise-Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand 2.

OTTE, M., I. YALÇINKAYA, J. KOZLOWSKI, O. BAR-YOSEF, I. LOPEZ BAYON, H. TAŞKIRAN, 1998
“Long-term Technical Evolution and Human Remains in the Anatolian Palaeolithic”, Journal of Human Evolution 34: 413-431.

SLIMAK, L., 1998-1999
“La variabilité des débitages discoïdes au Paléolithiques moyen, diversité des méthodes et unité d’un concept – L’exemple des gisements de la Baume Néron (Soyons, Ardèche) et du Champ Grand (Saint-Maurice-sur-Loire, Loire)”, Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 7-8: 75-88.

SLIMAK, L., 2003
“Les débitages discoïdes moustériens, évaluation d’un concept de débitage”, Discoïd Lithic Technology, M. PESERANI (ed.), Oxford, BAR International Series: 33-65.

SLIMAK, L., 2004
Les dernières expressions du Moustérien entre Loire et Rhône, Yayınlanmamış Doktora tezi (865 sayfa), Université de Provence.

SLIMAK,  L., N. BALKAN-ATLI, D. BINDER, B. DİNÇER, 2005
“Installations Paléolithiques en Cappadoce. Etat des connaissances de cinq années de recherche sur les premiers peuplements humains en Anatolie centrale”, Anatolia Antiqua XIII: 287-294.

STINER, M. C., G. ARSEBÜK, F. C. HOWELL, 1996
“Cave Bears and Paleolithic Artifacts in Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey: Dissecting a Palimpsest”, Geoarchaeology 11/4: 279-327.

YALÇINKAYA, I., M. OTTE, O. BAR-YOSEF, J. KOZLOWSKI, J. M. LEOTARD, H. TAŞKIRAN, 1992
“Karain 1991, Recherches paleolithique en Turquie du Sud”, Paléorient 18: 109-122.

Statistical methods in Paleolithic archaeology

English abstract of this article is not ready yet. Try automatic translation by Google.

The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results

This article is published in Turkish Academy of Sciences Archaeology Journal (TUBA-Ar) vol. X (2007).

To cite this work, please use the following information:
Dinçer, B., L. Slimak,
2007, "The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results", Turkish Academy of Sciences Archaeology Journal (TÜBA-Ar) X: 49-61.

1. Introduction
2. The Lower Paleolithic of the Bosphorus
3. The Paleolithic of Tekirdağ Province
4. Yatak
5. Kuştepe
6. Balıtepe
7. The age of the industries
8. Conclusions
   References
   

Figures

1. Map showing the locations of the sites.
2. Map showing the locations of Yatak and Kuştepe in Karansıllı village.
3. View of Yatak from southwest.
4. Stone cluster of collected stones from Yatak, in 2001.
5. View of Kuştepe from northwest.
6. View of Balıtepe from southwest.
7. Stone tools from Yatak; chopper (top right), bifacial artifact (top left), chopping tools bottom right, left and middle).
8. Stone tools from Kuştepe; chopping tool (top left), choppers (top right and bottom left) and a chopper on anvil (bottom right).
9. A sleeping anvil from Kuştepe, showing pronounced stigmata of edge-batterings resulting from heavy percussions.
10. Stone tools from Balıtepe; chopper (top) and two “micro” choppers (bottom).

All images related to the Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace

Abstracts related to this article:

• English: Yatak; a Lower Paleolithic in Turkish Thrace (2001)
• Français: Résumé: Le Paléolithique de la Thrace turque (2007)
• Türkçe: Özet: Trakya'nın Paleolitik Çağ Kültürleri (2007)
  

Publications about Yatak in Turkish:

• Dinçer, B., 2001,
  "Tekirdağ'da Yeni Bir Paleolitik Çağ Buluntu Yeri: Yatak", Çapa-Mala 3: 14-17.
• Dinçer, B., 2001,
  "Trakya'da Yeni Bulunan Paleolitik Çağ Buluntu Yeri: Yatak", Bilim ve Ütopya 81: 72-77.
• Dinçer, B., 2002,
  "Yatak (Karansıllı) Paleolitik Çağ Buluntuları", Toplumsal Tarih 101: 68-69.
• Dinçer, B., L. Slimak, 2007,
  "Trakya'nın Paleolitik Çağ Kültürleri", Arkeoloji ve Sanat 124: 1-12.
  

Le Paléolithique de la Thrace turque

L'Anatolie a toujoutrs été considérée come une aire de circulation incontournable pour les populations humaines pléistocènes se déplaçant depuis l'Afrique vers l'Eurasie. Face à ces questionnements concernant ce qui souvent considéré par les chercheurs comme un véritable "out of Africa", la Thrace a un rôle particulier à jouer eu égard à sa position géographique, véritable passage naturel entre l'europe d'une part, et l'Asie. Si quelques gisements Pléistocènes ont été découverts dans la région du Bosphore ces dix dernières années, aucun gisement paléolithique n'était connu en Thrace turque jusqu'àlors. Les industries nouvellement reconnues se caractérisent par la forte représentation d’oùtils sur galets de type chopper ou chopping-tool. Ces séries semblent présentent certains liens techniques avec l'industrie de la Grotte de Yarımburgaz et peuvent être, selon toute vraisemblance, replacées dans un Pléistocène moyen.

The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: PART 1- Introduction

This is a part from "The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results".

Thrace lies at the interface between Asia and Europe, as well as between the basins of the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. As a consequence of its position Thrace has great importance to understanding cultural histories and relations among these regions, and there should be many important settlements in Thrace dating to all periods of human history (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1982). Many scientists consider Thrace the most likely route for the human species to have reached the Balkans and Europe (K. D. SCHICK-N. TOTH 1994, A. DARLAS 1995), and nearly all maps showing early human migrations out of Africa have routes to Europe via Thrace (eg., O. BAR-YOSEF-A. BELFER-COHEN 2001). However, because its archaeological cultures differed substantially from those of Anatolia and the Near East, archaeologists have had difficulties integrating Thrace into regional research programs. For that reason, Thrace probably is one of the least researched regions of Turkey, archaeologically speaking (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1999, B. DİNÇER 2000). Given the lack of research it is not surprising that the region has not been considered important for human evolutionary studies (see M. ÖZDOĞAN 1983).

Until some decades ago large parts of Thrace were closed to archaeological research due to military restrictions. But surveys begun by M. Özdoğan, in the 1980s have proven the archaeological importance of this region. In these surveys some Paleolithic artifacts were found on both sides of the Bosphorus, but until the year 2000, no Paleolithic artifacts were found west of Terkos-Selimpaşa “boundary” (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1996 and C. RUNNELS-M. ÖZDOĞAN 2001). It had been assumed that the Bosphorus region and western Turkish Thrace did not present the same geological structure and all the Paleolithic sites had been destroyed by recent hydrological and geological activities caused by the changes in the sea-level during the Quaternary (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1989). In our point of view, the absence of Paleolithic sites was mainly the result of the lack of research in Turkish Thrace. Our discoveries in the province of Tekirdağ show that Paleolithic sites are still preserved and accessible in the region.

Turkey had probably been populated since the earliest Paleolithic (G. ARSEBÜK 1999). The site of Dmanisi in Georgia, dating to nearly 1.8 million years ago (V. P. LJUBIN-G. BOSINSKI 1995), shows that hominids must at least have passed through Anatolia as they dispersed from Africa to southern Georgia (B. DİNÇER 2001a and S. KUHN 2002). However, the few Paleolithic sites yet known in Turkey do not as yet provide evidence for a hominid presence at such an early date. Concentrations of Paleolithic sites in Turkey (see: S. HARMANKAYA-O. TANINDI 1997) reflect areas of intensive archaeological research, not the actual concentrations of Paleolithic populations (G. ARSEBÜK 1993). Most of Turkey has not yet been subject to modern and systematic research for Paleolithic sites (G. ARSEBÜK 1995 and 1998a) and Turkish Thrace is the least researched region of Turkey.

In order to understand the Paleolithic prehistory of Turkish Thrace, it is crucial to understand the tectonic evolution of the region. The Anatolian peninsula and Thrace uplifted in the Pleistocene as a result of global tectonic movements (U. ESİN 1994). As results of sea-level changes during the glacial and interglacial periods, the Marmara, the Aegean and the Black seas were connected or isolated from each other at different times. The sea-level changes had a very important role in the cultural history of Turkish Thrace (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1982). Recent researches in the strait of Dardanelles showed that prior to oxygen isotope stage 8, the Marmara Sea had never been isolated from the Aegean Sea because the sea floor of the strait was too deep (C. YALTIRAK et al. 2002). After the Marmara Sea was disconnected from the Aegean however the land area of Thrace was greatly enlarged, particularly in the south (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1983).

The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: PART 2- The Lower Paleolithic of the Bosphorus

This is a part from "The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results".

The Lower Paleolithic of the Bosphorus
Important Lower Paleolithic sites, all dating to the Middle Pleistocene, in Thrace and the Balkans include Yarımburgaz (Turkey), Petralona (Greece), Gajtan (Albania) and Sandalja (Croatia) (A. DARLAS 1995). All Lower Paleolithic sites in the Balkans belong to a relatively late part of the period (C. RUNNELS 2003). Until our recent discoveries in the Tekirdağ area, the only Lower Paleolithic remains from western Turkish Thrace were some “suspicious” Paleolithic finds from the vicinities of Kırklareli and Edirne provinces (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1996). The lack of research in the region is the main explanation for the lack of Paleolithic sites west of the Terkos-Selimpaşa “boundary”. Even though the surveys done under the direction of M. Özdoğan were very intensive, some areas in Thrace were not covered (M. ÖZDOĞAN 2003 and C. RUNNELS-M. ÖZDOĞAN 2001).

The main periods of the Paleolithic are all represented on both sides of the Bosphorus (only the Later Upper Paleolithic is missing) (C. RUNNELS-M. ÖZDOĞAN 2001). The massive flake and chopper/chopping-tool industry of the Clatonian type found at Eskice Sırtı, probably represents the oldest occupation of the region, at least based on artifact typology. A few core tools found at Gümüşdere, on a high terrace of the Black Sea (M. ÖZDOĞAN 1985) and sites like Karababa and Davutpaşa (U. ESİN 1994) constituted our base of knowledge about Lower Paleolithic in the region before the excavation of Yarımburgaz Cave.

Excavations at Yarımburgaz Cave added specific data to surface finds. The Yarımburgaz industry is more closely related to assemblages from the Middle Pleistocene of Eastern and Central Europe than to lower Paleolithic assemblages from Anatolia or the Near East (G. ARSEBÜK 2003). The tools from Yarımburgaz seem primitive or expedient in their production, in that only what is needed is made (G. ARSEBÜK-M. ÖZBAŞARAN 1995). The industry is characterized mainly by retouched flake tools: core tools are very few in number (S. KUHN et al. 1996 and 1998). Specific raw materials were selected for specific types of tools and technological procedures (G. ARSEBÜK-M. ÖZBAŞARAN 2000). There are no bifacial tools (handaxes) or evidence of Levallois debitage in Yarımburgaz (G. ARSEBÜK 1998b).

The distribution of bifacial (handaxe) Lower Paleolithic assemblages in northwestern Turkey is problematic but important. Bifacial industries are very well represented in the Near East, the Levant and southeastern Anatolia (I. YALÇINKAYA et al. 1997) as well as in western Europe (H. TAŞKIRAN 1998). Recent excavations at Kaletepe in central Anatolia have also brought to light a Lower Paleolithic industry with bifaces and cleavers (L. SLIMAK et al. 2005). In northwestern Anatolia and the Balkans, however, bifacial artifacts are very rare (A. DARLAS 1995 and C. RUNNELS 2003). Some bifaces were found on the east side of the Bosphorus (A. J. JELINEK 1980 and M. ÖZDOĞAN 1986). But the Bosphorus did not constitute a permanent boundary to movement of human groups during the Pleistocene (B. DİNÇER 2001b).

The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: PART 3- The Paleolithic of Tekirdağ Province

This is a part from "The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results".

The Paleolithic of Tekirdağ Province
In 2000, one of the authors (BD) discovered the Paleolithic site called Yatak by coincidence. Since that time the author has visited this site many times, and collected some surface material. The existence of this site showed that, contrary to prior ideas about destruction of Paleolithic sites in western Turkish Thrace, some Paleolithic sites might still be preserved and accessible in the region (B. DİNÇER 2001c). In 2004, during one of the author’s visits to Yatak, we located a second site with Paleolithic artifacts. The local name of that area is Kuştepe. In 2005, the third Paleolithic site, called Balıtepe, was located, again by chance, by the author. The fact that the sites were found during by chance and not through systematic survey demonstrates the potential richness of the region for the Paleolithic. A systematic survey would certainly result in the discovery of many more sites and a better understanding of their distribution.

All three of the sites are located on a high plateau on northern slopes of Ganos mountain, which extends over nearly 75 km from the west of Tekirdağ city to the east of Keşan. The area is characterized by higher elevations and different drainage patterns from the rest of Turkish Thrace, which could explain the preservation of Paleolithic sites in the region. Raw material, in the form of rounded river cobbles from ancient drainages, is plentiful in the province of Tekirdağ. Our interviews with the local people also point to the availability of raw materials in the Malkara district and the vicinity of Yatak and Kuştepe.

The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: PART 4- Yatak

This is a part from "The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results".

Yatak
Yatak is situated in the Karansıllı village, nearly 30 kilometers west of the city of Tekirdağ. The site is located nearly 350 meters southeast of the village, just 100 meters northeast of the road that goes to the village cemetery. The GPS coordinates of Yatak are 40.58N and 27.11E. The site is nearly 230 meters above sea-level (asl). Both unworked raw materials and artifacts are widespread in the area southeast of the village, but artifacts were concentrated in a field called Yatak by villagers, forming a cluster roughly nearly 60x75 meters in size.

A pile of stones collected from that field by farmers provided the first evidence of Paleolithic artifacts (B. DİNÇER 2001b). That stone pile grew each time we visited the Yatak site, and after five years the density of artifacts at the site is much lower than when it was first discovered. The stone pile which included some Paleolithic artifacts, was moved and used for construction in the village. This is a sad story of how Paleolithic sites are rapidly destroyed by agricultural activities.

There are clear differences in the exploitation of different raw materials at Yatak. Chopping tools are exclusively made on quarzite whereas the assemblage of artifacts on quartz is essentially composed of choppers. Flakes were produced from quartz using discoid debitage and bipolar (hammer-on-anvil) technique: there is just a single core of quartzite. The bipolar cores are large, around 10 cm in maximum dimension, and could have been used to produce relatively large flakes. One of these cores also shows clear signs of percussion and was certainly used as a hammer. We note there are differences in the cutting edges of quartz choppers and quartzite chopping tools. The flaking of choppers from quartz generally produces abrupt or obtuse cutting edges. Quartzite pebble tools show more investment and sharper flaked edges that would be more useful in cutting activities. Some of the quartz choppers should probably be considered cores rather than tools: certainly, the distinction between cores and tools is less clear on this material. It is also possible that differences in edge morphology result from differences in the shapes of clasts of the different raw materials. The clearest tools on quartzite are made on flat pebbles, a morphology which is not represented in quartz. However, we do not know if the differences between quartz and quartzite are attributable to the morphological properties of raw materials or if they reflect choices in the selection of the pebbles for the production of tools.

Locally available flints are of poor quality. The scarce artifacts of flint resemble those in quartzite, in both the kinds of pebble tools manufactured and in the morphology of pebbles used. At the same time flint exploitation could present some similarities with quartz exploitation with respect to the presence of simple cores exploited by a variant of the discoïd method (L. SLIMAK 1998-1999 and 2003). There is no preparation of the striking platform in these flint discoïd cores. In this raw materials, the smooth, alluvial cortex probably presented a more homogeneous structure and so was more suitable for flaking activity (V. MOURRE 1994). The single modified flint tool discovered is a roughly-shaped bifacial artifact preserving large areas of its natural surfaces. This tool was produced using direct, hard-hammer percussion and cannot be considered a true handaxe. In 2000, one of us (BD) found another possible bifacial artifact that has unfortunately been lost (B. DİNÇER 2001b and 2001c). One flint flake from Yatak shows some alteration of its edge that could be the result of use.