Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:43:59.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ceramics of centralisation and dissolution: a case study from Rough Cilicia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J.N. Postgate
J.N. Postgate
Affiliation:
Trinity College, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting from Kilise Tepe in the Göksu valley north of Silifke two phenomena in pre-Classical Anatolian ceramics are examined. One is the appearance at the end of the Bronze Age, or beginning of the Iron Age, of hand-made, often crude, wares decorated with red painted patterns. This is also attested in different forms at Boğazköy, and as far east as Tille on the Euphrates. In both cases it has been suggested that it may reflect the re-assertion of earlier traditions, and other instances of re-emergent ceramic styles are found at the end of the Bronze Age, both elsewhere in Anatolia and in Thessaly. The other phenomenon is the occurrence of ceramic repertoires which seem to coincide precisely with the frontiers of a polity. In Anatolia this is best recognised in the case of the later Hittite Empire. The salient characteristics of ‘Hittite’ shapes are standardised, from Boğazköy at the centre to Gordion in the west and Korucu Tepe in the east. This is often tacitly associated with Hittite political control, but how and why some kind of standardisation prevails has not often been addressed explicitly. Yet this is a recurring phenomenon, and in first millennium Anatolia similar standardised wares have been associated with both the Phrygian and the Urartian kingdoms. This paper suggests that we should associate it directly with the administrative practices of the regimes in question.

Özet

Silifke'nin kuzeyinde, Göksu vadisinde bulunan Klasik dönem öncesi Anadolu keramiklerinde görülen iki fenomen Kilise Tepe'den başlayarak incelenecektir. Bu fenomenlerden biri Bronz Çağı sonunda veya Demir Çağı başında el yapımı, çoğu kez kaba, kırmızi boyalı desenleri olan kapların ortaya çıkışıdır. Bu durum Boğazköy'de ve daha doğuda Fırat üzerinde yer alan Tille'de de farklı formlarda tespit edilmiştir. Her iki örnekte de, bu fenomen eski geleneklerin tekrar gündeme gelmesinin bir yansıması olarak görülmüştür. Bronz Çağı sonlarında eski keramik üsluplarının geri dönüşü, hem Anadolu'nun başka bölgelerinde, hem de Teselya'da belgelenmiştir. Diğer fenomen ise devlet sınırları ile tam bir uyum içerisinde görünen keramik repertuarlarının varlığıdır. Anadolu'da bu durumun en iyi bilinen örneği Geç Hitit İmparatorluğudur. ‘Hitit’ formlarının en belirgin özellikleri, merkezdeki Boğazköy'den, batıdaki Gordion'a ve doğudaki Korucu Tepe'ye kadar standart hale getirilmiştir. Bu durum çoğu kez Hitit siyasi kontrolü ile bağdaştırılsa da, nasıl ve neden bu tip bir standartlaşmaya gidildiğine bir açıklık getirilemez. Dahası bu tekrarlanan bir fenomendir, öyle ki 1. bin Anadolu'sunda görülen benzer standart malların varlığı hem Frig hem de Urartu krallıklarına bağlanmaktadır. Bu makalede bu fenomeni doğrudan söz konusu rejimlerdeki idari uygulamalara bağlamamız gerektiği savunulacaktır.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 57 , December 2007 , pp. 141 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bahar, H., Koçak, Ö. 2003: ‘Konya-Hatunsaray yerleşmesinde Erken Demir Çaği çanak çömleği’ in Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, É., Köroğlu, K. (eds), Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions (Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, November 8–9, 2002). Istanbul: 193–98Google Scholar
Bahar, H., Koçak, Ö 2004: Eskiçağ Konya Araştırmaları 2. KonyaGoogle Scholar
Blaylock, S.R. 1999. ‘Iron Age pottery from Tille Höyük, southeastern Turkey’ in Hausleiter, A., Reiche, A. (eds), Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the International ‘Table Ronde’ at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborów (1997) (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients Band 10). Münster: 263–86Google Scholar
Dakoronia, P. 1987. Marmara: ta ypomykenaika nekrotafeia ton tymbon. AthensGoogle Scholar
DeVries, K., Kuniholm, P.I., Sams, G.K., Voigt, M.M. 2003: ‘New dates for Iron Age Gordion’ Antiquity 77/296 (http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/devries/devries.html)Google Scholar
Engstrom, C.M.A. 2004: ‘The Neo-Assyrians at Tell el-Hesi: a petrographic study of imitation Assyrian Palace Ware’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333: 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, M.-H. 2000: ‘1998 excavations at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol, Hatay)’ Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 21/1: 193–208Google Scholar
Gates, M.-H. 2001: ‘Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite ceramic industry’ in Jean, É.Dinçol, A.M., Durugönül, S. (eds), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. –4e siècle ap. J.-C). Istanbul: 137–57Google Scholar
Genz, H. 2000: ‘Die Eisenzeit in Zentralanatolien im Lichte der keramischen Funde vom Büyükkaya in Boğazköy/Hattuša’ Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 3: 35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genz, H. 2003: ‘Früheisenzeitliche Keramik von Büyükkale in Boğazköy/Hattuša’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53: 113–29Google Scholar
Genz, H. 2004: Büyükkaya I. Die Keramik der Eisenzeit. Funde aus den Grabungskampagnen 1993 bis 1998 (Boğazköy/Hattuša XXI). BerlinGoogle Scholar
Genz, H. 2005: ‘Thoughts on the origins of the Iron Age pottery traditions in central Anatolia’ in Çilingiroğlu, A., Darbyshire, G. (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 5 (British Institute at Ankara Monograph 31). London: 75–84Google Scholar
Henrickson, R.C. 1994: ‘Continuity and discontinuity in the ceramic tradition of Gordion during the Iron Age’ in Çilingiroğlu, A., French, D.H. (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 3 (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 16). London: 92–129Google Scholar
Henrickson, R.C. 2002: ‘Hittite pottery and potters: the view from Late Bronze Age Gordion’ in Hopkins, D.C. (ed.), Across the Anatolian Plateau. Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 57). Boston, MA: 123–32Google Scholar
Jakob, S. 2003: Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozial-struktur. LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., Kilikoglou, V., Steele, V., Stern, B. 2005: ‘The circulation and consumption of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: petrographic, chemical and residue analysis’ Anatolian Studies 55: 25–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, H. 1972: Les cèramiques archaïques et classiques de l'acropole lycienne (Fouilles de Xanthos, Tome IV). ParisGoogle Scholar
Müller, U. 2005: ‘Norşun Tepe and Lidar Höyük. Two examples for cultural change during the Early Iron Age’ in Çilingiroğlu, A., Darbyshire, G. (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 5 (British Institute at Ankara Monograph 31). London: 107–14Google Scholar
Müller-Karpe, A. 1988: Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattuša (Marburger Studien zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 10). Marburg/LahnGoogle Scholar
Pfälzner, P. 1995. Mittanische und Mittelassyrische Keramik. BerlinGoogle Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 2007: ‘The invisible hierarchy: Assyrian military and civilian administration in the eighth and seventh centuries BC’ in Postgate, J.N., The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur. Oxford: 331–60Google Scholar
Postgate, J.N., Thomas, D.C. (eds) 2007: Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–1998. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Schoop, U. 2006: ‘Dating the Hittites with statistics: ten pottery assemblages from Boğazköy-Hattuša’ in Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology (BYZAS 4). Istanbul: 215–39Google Scholar
Sevin, V., Köroğlu, K. 2004: ‘Late Bronze Age at Yumuktepe: new evidence from Step-Trench South’ in Caneva, I., Sevin, V. (eds), Mersin-Yumuktepe, A Reappraisal. Lecce: 71–83Google Scholar
Snodgrass, A.M., 2002: ‘The rejection of Mycenaean culture and the oriental connection’ in Braun-Holzinger, E.A., Matthäus, H. (eds), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion. Möhnesee: 1–9Google Scholar
Summers, G.D. 1993: Tille Höyük. 4: The Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Transition. LondonGoogle Scholar
Summers, G.D. 1994: ‘Grey Ware and the eastern limits of Phrygia’ in Çilingiroğlu, A., French, D.H. (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 3 (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 16). London: 241–52Google Scholar
Ünlü, E., 2005: ‘Locally produced and painted Late Bronze to Iron Age transitional period pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule’ in Özyar, A. (ed.), Field Seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project. Istanbul: 145–68Google Scholar
Zimansky, P. 1995: ‘Urartian material culture as state assemblage: an anomaly in the archaeology of empire’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 299/300: 103–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, T. 2006: ‘Fluchtpunkt Hellespont? Einige Bemerkungen zur Renaissance frühbronzezeitlicher Keramiktraditionen in der anatolischen Eisenzeit’ Altorientalische Forschungen 33: 94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar