Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:58:45.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lower and Middle Palaeolithic evidence from the North Aegean coastline of Çanakkale, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

Hande Bulut*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Literature, Department of Prehistory, Düzce University, Turkey
Harun Taşkıran*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Languages and History-Geography, Department of Prehistory, Ankara University, Turkey
Kadriye Özçelik
Affiliation:
Faculty of Languages and History-Geography, Department of Prehistory, Ankara University, Turkey
Göknur Karahan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Languages and History-Geography, Department of Prehistory, Ankara University, Turkey
*
*Authors for correspondence ✉ handebulut@duzce.edu.tr & htaskiran@ankara.edu.tr
*Authors for correspondence ✉ handebulut@duzce.edu.tr & htaskiran@ankara.edu.tr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Çanakkale-Balıkesir Coastline Palaeolithic Survey Project covers the Çanakkale and Balıkesir coastlines of the Aegean. It aims to reveal Palaeolithic assemblages and their connection to the surrounding islands—primarily Lesbos. In 2021, four important findspots were detected on the Çanakkale coastline, and more than 500 lithics were uncovered, exhibiting the characteristics of large cutting tools, as well as pebble and prepared core technologies. These tools attest to the presence of hominins along the Çanakkale coastline during the Lower Palaeolithic.

Type
Project Gallery
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

Introduction

Turkey and the Aegean region have often been highlighted as a major hominin dispersal route during the Pleistocene. The presence of Homo erectus within this region as early as 1.2–1.6 Ma is attested by a skull and supporting lithic artefacts from Denizli (Lebatard et al. Reference Lebatard2014; Maddy et al. Reference Maddy2015; Özçelik et al. Reference Özçelik, Kartal and Fındık2016, Reference Özçelik, Vialet and Bulut2017). The discovery of the open-air site of Sürmecik, which produced the largest Palaeolithic assemblage in Turkey, with 86 246 lithics, continues this line of evidence (Taşkıran et al. Reference Taşkıran, Aydın, Özçelik and Erbil2021). Most of these finds, however, are isolated and come from the interior of Central Aegean Turkey (Özbek & Erdoğu Reference Özbek and Erdoğu2014; Özer et al. Reference Özer2018; Erdoğu et al. Reference Erdoğu, Yücel and Demir2021). Finds from the coastline are limited (Çilingiroğlu et al. Reference Çilingiroğlu2018; Atakuman et al. Reference Atakuman2019) and the northern Aegean of Turkey, in particular, has not been adequately researched.

The aim of our project is to determine the Palaeolithic occupation of Çanakkale and Balıkesir province and establish their relation to Lesbos, with which they would have been connected during this period. It is generally accepted that the Aegean islands constituted important land bridges between Anatolia and mainland Greece (Carter et al. Reference Carter2019; Galanidou et al. Reference Galanidou2016). Palaeogeographical reconstruction of Aegean Sea levels over the last 500 000 years demonstrates that many islands in the Eastern Aegean would have been connected to Anatolia. In this context, the ‘North Aegean Bridge’ has been proposed as a route for hominin dispersal (Sakellariou & Galanidou Reference Sakellariou and Galanidou2016; Carter et al. Reference Carter2019). We believe, therefore, that there is a unique opportunity to study hominin dispersal along these routes. Evaluating the data from Lesbos, in combination with that from our research, will fill the gaps that exist in our understanding of the North Aegean Palaeolithic.

Methods

The project aims to investigate the coastline of Çanakkale, covering approximately 760km2. In 2021, research focused on one section of the coastline. The areas to be targeted were determined through consideration of site patterning and geographical features. The mountainous structure of Çanakkale's southern coast has created a thin coastline, and valleys with permanent and seasonal streams in the inner regions. Its previously volcanic nature has also led to the emergence of various lithic resources, such as chert, serpentinite, andesite and basalt. Cave formations have also been observed due to the karstic structure in the east of the study area.

In order to determine the potential for Palaeolithic archaeology within the study area, we conducted an extensive fieldwalking survey. Survey consisted of team members (seven people) walking in parallel, spaced approximately 1–2m apart. Each area visited and showing common topographical properties was recorded as different ‘survey units’, along with information on the coordinates, topography, vegetation, soil type, geological features and surface visibility. Artefact density was determined for each survey unit, with low-density areas designated ‘scattered findspots’. Survey areas and routes were recorded using a handheld Garmin GPSMAP 60 CSX device and plotted using Google Earth. Artefacts were assessed typo-technologically with reference to previous studies (Bordes Reference Bordes1961; Debénath & Dibble Reference Debénath and Dibble1994; Shea Reference Shea2013).

New Palaeolithic finds from the coastline of Çanakkale

Systematic survey yielded three new open-air sites and one scattered find area (Figure 1). More than 500 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts produced from raw materials such as flint, chalcedony and quartz were obtained from these sites. Almost half (48 per cent) came from Yeşil Liman, a stony beach, with Palaeolithic materials detected among sea gravel and concentrated in a 1km2 area (Figure 2). The recovered artefacts were generally rolled by wind and tidal processes, and most displayed a white patina. The most notable items were large cutting tools (LCTs), along with trihedral picks (e.g. Figure 3), pebble core tools, flake cores (including Levallois) and various retouched tools.

Figure 1. Map of the research area: 1) Gemedere; 2) Kirsedere; 3) Yeşil Liman; 4) Tuzla (figure by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 2. Pedestrian survey of the beach at Yeşil Liman (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 3. Trihedral pick from the beach at Yeşil Liman (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Another dense findspot was found in the Kirsedere Valley, 1km north of Yeşil Liman. Covering an area of 3km2, it produced 30 per cent of the finds from the Çanakkale coastline, including a bifacial tool (Figure 4). This tool is a limande produced using greyish flint. Another tool from the Tuzla findspot (see below) is also made of greyish flint but is less rounded and can be classified as an amygdaloid (Figure 5). Both tools date typologically to the Middle Acheulean. A similar amygdaloid biface, produced from high-quality brown flint and dated to the Middle Acheulean, was found in the higher altitude area to the east, where agricultural activities currently take place.

Figure 4. Bifacial tool/handaxe from Kirsedere Valley (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 5. Bifacial tool/handaxe from Tuzla (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

An additional dense findspot was identified in Tuzla, in the west of the surveyed area (Figure 6). It covered 0.02km2 and produced 20 per cent of the total finds recorded. The site is an area that has thermal springs, and the surface is covered with a thin salt layer. A single bifacial tool was recorded (Figure 4). This is made of a yellowish volcanic rock and retains cortex across most of one surface, while the other is more intensively flaked; its rough, crude form suggests that it is Lower Acheulean. Several pebble core tools and Levallois cores were also recovered, along with denticulated and retouched tools that were mostly produced from large flake blanks.

Figure 6. Pedestrian survey of the Tuzla findspot (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

The scattered findspot at Gemedere Stream produced only one Levallois core, two chopping tools and a single tested core, together comprising 2 per cent of the surveyed finds. All the lithics were exposed via a steep section, which was formed by the removal of soil that was used in modern dam construction. Although no flaked pieces were found at the top of this section, raw materials of various sizes were observed.

Discussion and conclusion

Our results demonstrate hominin occupation along the Çanakkale coastline as early as the Lower Palaeolithic. Except for the few atypical examples from Tekirdağ (Dinçer & Slimak Reference Dinçer and Slimak2007), the bifacial tools recovered compare to the most typical and well-known examples from north-western Anatolia. These bifacial tools are accompanied by other large cutting tools, pebble core tools and evidence for the Levallois technique. Although Lower Palaeolithic artefacts dominate, Middle Palaeolithic finds were recovered in smaller quantities.

The lithic assemblages from the Çanakkale coastline echo others from the Aegean Palaeolithic (Özbek & Erdoğu Reference Özbek and Erdoğu2014; Özer et al. Reference Özer2018; Sampson et al. Reference Sampson, Kabouroglou, Kaczanowska and Kozlowski2018; Erdoğu et al. Reference Erdoğu, Yücel and Demir2021), although they are techno-typologically older. The most obvious similarity is to the assemblage from Rodafnidia on Lesbos, especially considering its geographical proximity. Here, the lithic assemblage is characterised by large cutting tools, including bifaces, and prepared core technology (Galanidou et al. Reference Galanidou2016). This assemblage dates to the Late Acheulean, between 476 and 164 ka BP. The investigations along the Çanakkale coastline provide further data emphasising the importance of Lesbos as a potential dispersal route between Anatolia and Greece. Given the rich concentrations of Palaeolithic artefacts, the survey area will undoubtedly provide more data in the coming years.

Acknowledgements

The Çanakkale-Balıkesir Coastline Palaeolithic Survey Project is conducted with the permission of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism and carried out in cooperation with Düzce University and Ankara University. We would like to thank all team members for their efforts. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Funding statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency or from commercial and not-for-profit sectors.

References

Atakuman, Ç. et al. 2019. Bozburun Prehistorik Yüzey Araştırması 2017. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 36: 379–92.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux: Delmas.Google Scholar
Carter, T. et al. 2019. Earliest occupation of the Central Aegean (Naxos), Greece: implications for hominin and Homo sapiens’ behavior and dispersals. Science Advances 5: eaax0997. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0997CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Çilingiroğlu, Ç. et al. 2018. Kömür Burnu: İzmir-Karaburun'da çok önemli bir prehistorik buluntu alanı. Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi 13: 6590.Google Scholar
Debénath, A. & Dibble, H.L.. 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic typology. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Dinçer, B. & Slimak, L.. 2007. Trakya'nın Paleolitik Çağ Kültürleri. Arkeoloji ve Sanat 124: 112.Google Scholar
Erdoğu, B., Yücel, N.E. & Demir, K.. 2021. The new evidence for the Palaeolithic on the island of Gökçeada (Imbros), north-eastern Aegean. Journal of Lithic Studies 8. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.5121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanidou, N. et al. 2016. The Acheulian site at Rodafnidia, Lisvori, on Lesbos, Greece: 2010–2012, in K. Harvati & M. Roksandic (ed.) Paleoanthropology of the Balkans and Anatolia: human evolution and its context: 119–38. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0874-4_8Google Scholar
Lebatard, A.-E. et al. 2014. Dating the Homo erectus bearing travertine from Kocabaş (Denizli, Turkey) at at least 1.1 Ma. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 390: 818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2013.12.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, D. et al. 2015. The earliest securely-dated hominin artefact in Anatolia? Quaternary Science Reviews 109: 6875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.11.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özbek, O. & Erdoğu, B.. 2014. Initial occupation of the Gelibolu Peninsula and the Gökçeada (Imbroz) Island in the pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic. Eurasian Prehistory 11: 97128.Google Scholar
Özçelik, K., Kartal, G. & Fındık, B.. 2016. Denizli İli Prehistorik Yüzey Araştırması (2014). Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 33: 377–96.Google Scholar
Özçelik, K., Vialet, A. & Bulut, H.. 2017. Denizli İli Prehistorik Yüzey Araştırması (2015). Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 34: 505–24.Google Scholar
Özer, İ. et al. 2018. Çanakkale İlinde Paleolitik Dönem İnsan İzleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 58: 99. https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2018.58.1.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakellariou, D. & Galanidou, N.. 2016. Pleistocene submerged landscapes and Palaeolithic archaeology in the tectonically active Aegean region. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 411: 145–78. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP411.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, A., Kabouroglou, E., Kaczanowska, M. & Kozlowski, J.K.. 2018. Presence of Neanderthals on the island of Agios Efstratios and probable networks of contacts in the north-eastern Aegean during the early Middle Palaeolithic. Annals of Archaeology 1: 3956.Google Scholar
Shea, J.J. 2013. Stone tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: a guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taşkıran, H., Aydın, Y., Özçelik, K. & Erbil, E.. 2021. A new discovery of Neanderthal settlements in Turkey: Sürmecik open-air campsite in Western Anatolia. L'Anthropologie 125: 102838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2021.102838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map of the research area: 1) Gemedere; 2) Kirsedere; 3) Yeşil Liman; 4) Tuzla (figure by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Pedestrian survey of the beach at Yeşil Liman (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Trihedral pick from the beach at Yeşil Liman (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Bifacial tool/handaxe from Kirsedere Valley (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Bifacial tool/handaxe from Tuzla (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Pedestrian survey of the Tuzla findspot (photograph by H. Bulut; © Çanakkale-Balıkesir Survey Archive).