Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:07:20.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

C. A. Burney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pottery described in this article was collected during a survey of ancient sites in eastern Turkey carried out in the summer of 1956. More than 150 Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age sites were recorded: only the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery is discussed here, the later periods being reserved for a future article. A considerable quantity of potsherds was collected, so that only a selection of the more significant examples has been illustrated. The zone covered by this survey is best described as eastern Anatolia within the mountains, excluding both the Pontic region and the south-eastern provinces of Turkey, bordering on Syria and Iraq: it is the narrowest part of the great natural bridge between Asia and Europe that has given Anatolia its long and varied history. The survey covered the greater part of the provinces of Sivas, Malatya, Elazığ, Muş, Bitlis and Van. Sites near Adıyaman, also visited, are not dealt with here. The plain of Iğdır, north of Mount Ararat, was partially explored in 1957, and yielded important material, but the plain of Karaköse proved to have few sites, and those with little surface pottery. The sherds here described are supplemented by intact vessels from Ernis, on the north-eastern shore of Lake Van, now in Van Museum.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 8 , December 1958 , pp. 157 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1958

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

1 AS. IV (1954), pp. 175–240Google Scholar. Çukurkent has Neolithic pottery showing similarities to that of Mersin (ibid. pp. 180–6). Much new material has been found at Hacılar, near Burdur (see AS. VIII).

2 i.e. latest Ubaid. But chevrons are not common in Mersin XIIB, whereas they are the predominant motif in the Hassuna levels (XXIII–XX).

3 Information kindly supplied by J. Mellaart.

4 Jenny, W., PZ. XIX (1928), p. 284 ff.Google Scholar, and Reilly, E. B., TT. IV (1940), pp. 156–165Google Scholar.

5 Burton-Brown, T., Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948 (London, 1951), p. 16 and p. 22Google Scholar (no. 674). Very little of this level was excavated.

6 ibid. pp. 20–5 and p. 37 (nos. 1 and 97); pls. I, II, III (nos. 43 and 97).

7 Ghirshman, R., Fouilles de Sialk I (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar, pls. XII (1 and 5), XIII (1), XIV (1–4), XVII (1, 3, 5) and XVIII (4).

8 ibid. pl. XX (3) and pl. XXI (4).

9 Schmidt, E. F., “Tepe Hissar Excavations, 1931,” in The Museum Journal (Philadelphia), Vol. XXIII, no. 4 (1933)Google Scholar, pls. LXXXVI A (H815 and H1127) and LXXXVII (H1562).

10 SirWoolley, Leonard, Iraq I (1934), pls. XVIII–XIXGoogle Scholar.

11 Goldman, H., The Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus Vol. II (Princeton, 1956), p. 82Google Scholar. For connections with Amuq F and general correlations, see ibid. p. 87. For Amuq F, see Braidwood, R., in Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago, 1954) pp. 37–8 and fig. 1Google Scholar.

12 “Handmade wheel-finished” vessels occur at Tarsus in the Ubaid phase (Tarsus Vol. II, p. 77Google Scholar), but also in the Late Chalcolithic (p. 82).

13 For Ninevite 5 incised ware in general, see LAAA. XX (1933), pls. LXII–LXIIIGoogle Scholar. Though there is no exact parallel to the pattern on this sherd from Hasirci IV, its fine texture supports the comparison with Ninevite 5 ware.

14 Plain sherds collected from deep levels seem likely to be of this period.

15 For a general discussion of this pottery, as then known, see Lamb, W., AS. IV (1954), pp. 21–32Google Scholar, especially fig. 2.

16 Koşay, H. Z., Türk Tarih Kongresi 1943, pp. 164–177Google Scholar and figs. 1–21 and plan.

17 Kökten, K., Belleten VIII (1944), p. 675 and pl. XCVGoogle Scholar.

18 Kuftin, B. A., Archaeological Excavations in Trialeti I (Academy of Sciences of the Georgian S.S.R., Tiflis, 1941), pp. 101–118 and pls. CXII, CXIV, CXX, CXXII–CXXV, LXXXV (top)Google Scholar; figs. 116–8, 120–4, 126 (mainly from Beshtasheni). See also Kuftin, B. A., Archaeological Excavations in Tsalka District, 1947 (Tiflis, 1948), figs. 14–15 and pls. XXIV–XXV, XXX–XXXII, XXXIV–XXXV, XXXIX–XL, XLIV (mainly from Osni)Google Scholar.

19 For sites near Kars and Ardahan, see DTCFD. XI (1953), pp. 189–206Google Scholar; pls. X–XV. For a general description in English of Trans-Caucasian material, and particularly of sites near Erivan and Nahcevan, see Field, H., Contributions to the Anthropology of the Soviet Union (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Vol. 118, no. 13 [1948], pp. 75–85)Google Scholar.

20 Excavations in Azerbaijan 1948, pp. 36–47 and p. 55 (no. 326)Google Scholar; pls. III–VII.

21 (a)Hood, S., AS. I (1951), pp. 116–8Google Scholar. (b) Amiran, Ruth, “Connections Between Anatolia and Palestine in the E.B.A.” (IEJ. 2 [1952], pp. 89–103)Google Scholar. (c) A Forgotten Kingdom, pp. 31–7. (d) Lamb, W., AS. IV (1954), pp. 30–1Google Scholar.

22 This term denotes a definite cultural province: otherwise it would be indefensible. Perhaps it ought strictly to be called “East Anatolian—Trans-Caucasian E.B.A.”

23 e.g. it does not occur in the Kuban valley. A little East Anatolian E.B.A. ware occurs in Colchis (Kuftin, B. A., Materials for the Archaeology of Colchis Vol. II [Tiflis, 1950], fig. 35Google Scholar), but this seems to lie on the periphery of the East Anatolian—Trans-Caucasian cultural zone.

24 The E.B. I relief-decorated sherd from Hasanlu (SirStein, Aurel, Old Routes in Western Iran [London, 1940] pl. XXIV, no. 1Google Scholar) is so far unique at that site, and may have been imported from the north.

25 Information kindly supplied by J. Mellaart.

26 Özgüç, T., Belleten XI (1947), pp. 641–655Google Scholar.

27 From the results of a survey of Tokat vilayet carried out by the writer in 1955. There is one important E.B. site near Suşehri, but no major site to the west before the plain of Erbaa.

28 See footnote 17.

29 Goetze, A., JCS. 7 (1953), p. 62Google Scholar, where reference is made to the “Samarra Tablet” (RAss. 9, 1 ff.)Google Scholar and to a Hurrian foundation inscription (RAss. 42, 1 ff.Google Scholar), both probably from the site of Urkish.

30 Lamb, W., AS. IV (1954), p. 30Google Scholar.

31 The affinities of the M period suggest that it ended c. 3000 B.C. or very little later. Geoy Tepe K was near the edge of the East Anatolian zone, and is thus unlikely to be the earliest site with pottery of its kind. The evidence of Trialeti can hardly be used to date material from Tepe, Geoy (as in Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, p. 34)Google Scholar.

32 Arseven, C. E., Les Arts Décoratifs Turcs (Istanbul) p. 15Google Scholar. This sherd with spiral in relief is in the Ankara Museum.

33 The D period marks such a break (Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, p. 69Google Scholar) that it seems probable that newcomers made their appearance. For reasons to be discussed in a future article a date of c. 1950–1900 B.C. seems likely for the beginning of Geoy Tepe D. With the G period to be accounted for, the very latest date for the end of the K period would be c. 2000 B.C.

34 The K3 period at Geoy Tepe must have ended before the E.B. III pottery in the Van region went out of use (see chronological table).

35 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, pls. III and IV (no. 45), and p. 38Google Scholar.

36 (a) For sites near Nahcevan and Erivan, see note 19, also AS. IV, pp. 26–8 and fig. 2Google Scholar. (b) For Trialeti, see Tsalka, 1947, figs. 14–15 (from Osni), and pls. XXV and XXXV; see also Trialeti I, pl. CXX, top right (from Beshtasheni).

37 Koşay, H. Z., Türk Tarih Kongresi 1943, Karaz figs. 8–12, 14, 15, 17Google Scholar. See also Les Arts Décoratifs Turcs p. 17 (fig. 26).

38 AS. IV, pl. I (I), and unpublished examples, also from Karaz.

39 Perhaps cf. Belleten XI (1947), pl. XCIIIGoogle Scholar, from Arslantepe. The antecedents of this pottery remain obscure.

40 For a brief discussion, see Lamb, W., AS. IV (1954), pp. 28–9Google Scholar.

41 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, p. 41 (no. 320)Google Scholar.

42 (a) Kökten, K., DTCFD. XI (1953), pl. XIII (4) and p. 203Google Scholar. (b) Trialeti I, fig. 8. (c) Bulletin du Musée de Géorgie XIIIB, figs. 37–8 and pl. XV; also fig. 62 (p. 107) for Shengavit.

43 Trialeti I, pls. CXXIII–CXXV and fig. 117, and Tsalka, 1947, pls. XXIV, XXXII, XXXIV (?) and XLIV. Here (Tsalka pl. XXIV) there is a Nahcevan lug on an incised lid.

44 Trialeti I, pl. CXX (top right: spiral in relief, with incision above; middle right: grooved spiral).

45 This would not affect the theory that throughout eastern Anatolia, and in the Urmia region, relief decoration does not occur after the E.B. I period, because Trialeti was remote, possibly with a time-lag in development out of E.B. I styles.

46 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, p. 39 (no. 1064)Google Scholar.

47 The Cilician E.B. II incised ware from Malatya cannot be later than c. 2400 B.C. See footnote 110.

48 Delaporte, L., RHA. II, 16 (1934)Google Scholar, pls. 21 (15), 22 (5, 8–14), 24 (9, 10, 12), 25 (1), 26 (9), 29 (4); RHA. V, 34 (1939)Google Scholar, pls. 10, 11 and 12 are entirely E.B. III, also pls. 13 (1–2), 14 (1–3, 7, 8). Alışar IV ware includes: RHA. II, 16Google Scholar, pls. 27 (5–6), 28 (1–3), 29 (3), 31 (12), 32 (6–9, 11).

49 See footnote 26.

50 Prehistoric Mersin p. 193 (fig. 20) and p. 199 (fig. 123, no. 4); Tarsus Vol. II, pl. 355 (no. 390).

51 (a) Beycesultan, , AS. VI (1956), p. 127Google Scholar (fig. I, no. 23). (b) Kusura, , Archaeologia LXXXVI (1936) p. 20 (fig. 7, no. 6)Google Scholar. (c) Troy: Blegen, , Troy Vol. II, p. 241 and fig. 257 (nos. 11–12)Google Scholar, shape A 19 (wheelmade).

52 cf. Tarsus Vol. II, pl. 354 (no. 436 a–g), which are of “light clay” ware. This form of bowl, in red wash ware, similar to fig. 214 from Hankendi, is widespread in the late E.B.A. in the Cilician-West Anatolian cultural zone, including Beycesultan, but it does not seem to be common in the Elazığ-Malatya region.

53 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, p. 47Google Scholar; pl. III (no. 300), p. 55 (no. 326), p. 46 and pl. VII (no. 538).

54 Koşay, H. Z., Türk Tarih Kongresi 1943, fig. 7Google Scholar, and unpublished examples from Karaz and Tepecik, near Hasankale.

55 Trialeti I, pls. CXX (top right) and CXXII; fig. 116.

56 Eilar, Shresh-Blur, Fragnots (?) and elsewhere: (a) Bulletin du Musée de Géorgie XIIIB, p. 141, fig. 61 and pls. XXVIII–XXIXGoogle Scholar. (b) Soviet Archaeology III, p. 212Google Scholar. (c) AJSL. (1938) p. 109Google Scholar.

57 This is made certain by the occurrence of a degenerate Nahcevan lug of the E.B. III type (DTCFD. XI (1953), pl. XIII, no. 3Google Scholar).

58 Zakharov, A., RHA. I, 4 (1931), pl. 4, p. 115Google Scholar; also AfO. XIV, fig. 12.

59 e.g. at Tepe, Geoy (Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, p. 53 and pl. III, no. 35)Google Scholar.

60 See footnote 34.

61 Gimbutas, M., The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), p. 62Google Scholar.

62 Oriental Silver: Compilation of Ancient Oriental Vessels of Silver and Gold (The Imperial Archaeological Commission, 1909) pl. CXXX, no. 330 (in Russian)Google Scholar.

63 Schaeffer's date of c. 2200–2000 B.C. for the great tomb at Maikop, (Stratigraphie Comparée [Oxford, 1948] p. 521)Google Scholar is supported by the Anatolian material, since the Alaca tombs can be dated to c. 2400–2200 B.C., and because the centre of this culture, with its rich burials, now seems to lie in the Tokat-Amasy a region, making contact with the Kuban valley by sea more probable. See Özgüç, T. and Akok, M., “Objects from Horoztepe” (Belleten XXI [1957] pp. 211–9)Google Scholar. See also Koşay, H. Z. and Akok, M., Belleten XIV (1950), pp. 481–5Google Scholar.

64 See footnote 21.

65 Cf. examples from Tabarat-al-Akrad (Hood, S., AS. I [1951]Google Scholar, Types 13 and 13a, fig. 7 (p. 131), and pl. XII, B3). Similar grooving occurs on potstands at Beth-Shan.

66 (a) AS. I, Type 19a, fig. 8 (p. 136) and pl. XII, A3. (b) An unpublished sherd from Tell Judeideh, in the Antioch Museum, (c) Fitzgerald, G. M., “The Earliest Pottery From Beth-Shan” (Museum Journal, Philadelphia, XXIV (1935), pl. VII, nos. 1, 3, 4, 8)Google Scholar. Though relief ornament continues in Level XI, the spiral (no. 3) comes from Level XII.

67 “The Earliest Pottery From Beth-Shan,” pl. VIII, no. 6. On present evidence this suggests contact, however tenuous, with north-eastern Anatolia.

68 For discussion, see AS. I, p. 119Google Scholar. Khirbet Kerak ware is roughly contemporary with the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties in Egypt.

69 Maxwell-Hyslop, R. et al. “An Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul, 1939” (PEQ. 1942, pp. 8 ff.)Google Scholar.

70 It is not mentioned in the reports on pottery from the excavations at Sakcegözü, nor from exploration of neighbouring sites: (a) Garstang, J., LAAA. XXIV (1937), pp. 119–140 and pls. XXIII–XXXVGoogle Scholar. (b) du Plat Taylor, J. et al. Iraq XII (1950), pp. 53–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 von Luschan, F., Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli V (Berlin, 1943)Google Scholar, pl. 15 (d–ad) and pl. 16 (b–d, n).

72 A survey of sites near Adıyaman and Besni, carried out by the writer, has made it clear that the affinities of the area lie entirely with the south.

73 Braidwood, R., Mounds in the Plain of Antioch (Chicago, 1937), Map XXII (p. 55)Google Scholar; also Maps V and VIII.

74 SirWoolley, L., Alalakh (London, 1955)Google Scholar pl. XCII (Levels XII and XI), pl. XCVIII, sherds c and o (unstratified) and pl. XCI.

75 RHA. II, 16 (1934)Google Scholar, pls. 21 (no. 15), 22 (no. 5), 29 (no. 4).

76 Tarsus Vol. II, figs. 287 (no. 783) and 291 (no. 909).

77 Minns, E. H., “Trialeti,” in Antiquity 67 (1943), pp. 129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Stratigraphie Comparée p. 512, where a date of c. 1550–1450 B.C. for Barrows I, V–IX, XV–XVIII, XXII, XXIII, XXV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXXIV and XXXVI is proposed.

79 Gimbutas, M., The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I, fig. 36 (p. 66) and fig. 38, no. 19Google Scholar.

80 Incised vessels from Arçadzor, Balluka, Sirhovend and Ahmah, sites in Russian Azerbaijan, seem derived from, rather than contemporary with, the pottery from the barrows in the Khram valley (see Soviet Archaeology XXVII [1957], pp. 140–150Google Scholar).

81 Trialeti I, fig. 109, comparable with D. B. Stronach's Types 4–4B and 5 for Anatolia (AS. VII [1957], pp. 113–4Google Scholar), which first appear c. 2300 B.C.

82 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I, p. 104 (fig. 57)Google Scholar.

83 Trialeti I, pl. LXXIV.

84 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I, pp. 78–9Google Scholar, where it is stated that the grave-goods accompanying the carts in the “Tri Brata” barrows suggest a date for them in the 18th or 17th century B.C.

85 Hançar, , AfO. XIVGoogle Scholar. For Kızılkale see footnote 58.

86 Chantre, E., Recherches Anthropologiques dans le Caucase (Paris, 1886), Tome II, pls. L–LIVGoogle Scholar. Republished in Stratigraphie Comparée, figs. 277 and 297.

87 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I, pp. 67–8Google Scholar.

88 ibid., p. 99 (based on the work of T. S. Passek). But Hawkes, C. F. C. (in Prehistoric Foundations of Europe (London, 1940) pp. 108–9Google Scholar, and Chronological Tables III, V and VI) proposes a lower dating.

89 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe I, p. 79Google Scholar.

90 For a discussion of the series of sites destroyed at this period, including Kültepe II, see Mellaart's, J. article “The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean” (AJA. 62, no. 1 [1958])CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, figs. 294 and 449 (K2 period); figs. 306, 385 and 538 (K3 period) and figs. 342–3.

92 For a brief notice of the Ernis pottery see Iraq XI (1949), p. 52Google Scholar (where it is erroneously stated that “all have been made with the wheel”) and pl. XXXI. Since the vessels from Ernis belong to three quite different periods (E.B. II, Middle Bronze Age (?) and Urartian), it is hardly likely that they all come from one cist-grave.

93 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, fig. 8 (p. 39), nos. 1066, 146, 147Google Scholar.

94 Trialeti I, fig. 122 and pl. CXXIII (from Beshtasheni). Cf. also Materials for the Archaeology of Colchis II, fig. 35 (p. 135)Google Scholar. These jars are deeper than those from Ernis, and may be of E.B. I date.

95 Oriental Silver, nos. 9–10 (pl. II ) and no. 330 (pl. CXXX).

96 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, figs. 10–12 (pp. 43–6)Google Scholar: here, however, there are dimples with grooves rather than vestigial ledge-handles.

97 ibid., fig. 8 (p. 39), no. 1090 (K1 period); pl. III, no. 30 (K2 period), and no. 958; fig. 12 (p. 46), no. 953 (K3 period).

98 Tsalka, 1947, pls. XXXI, XXXIX, XL (from Osni).

99 Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948, fig. 8 (p. 39), no. 1064Google Scholar.

100 For Geoy Tepe, see footnote 53.

101 Kökten, K., DTCFD. XI (1953) pl. XIII, nos. 3–5 and p. 203Google Scholar.

102 ibid., pl. XIII, no. 4.

103 This site is near Sarsap Mevki, 5 km. from Gölcük: my thanks are due to D. B. Stronach, who collected surface pottery from there.

104 See footnote 93.

105 For Trialeti, see footnote 94. Probably, for Karaz, , Türk Tarih Kongresi 1943, Karaz fig. 17Google Scholar. See also AS. IV (1954), p. 27, fig. 3 (nos. 1–2)Google Scholar, from Eilar and Kültepe (Nahcevan).

106 See footnote 65.

107 Pottery from both French excavations at this site is now in Ankara, at the Museum and in the Citadel.

108 See footnote 52.

109 See footnotes 50 and 51.

110 Cf. the “red gritty chevron incised ware” and the “red gritty cross-stitched incised ware” of Tarsus; the latter has close parallels at Sincirli, and it is possible that the centre of this particular type of incised ware lay in the eastern part of the Cilician plain. See Tarsus Vol. II, nos. 278–9 (pp. 122–3 and pl. 255)Google Scholar; also fig. 254.

111 A brief note appeared in AfO. XVI, pp. 151–2Google Scholar.

112 Tarsus Vol. II, pp. 168–9Google Scholar; figs. 287 and 368.

113 See footnotes 74 and 76.

114 See footnote 74. These parallels with the Amuq and Cilicia rather suggest that certain features of the E.B. III painted pottery of the Malatya-Elazığ region did not appear until the beginning of the Cilician M.B.A. (c. 2100 B.C.).

115 For the revised chronology of the Alalakh levels, see Mellaart, J., “Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age,” in AS. VII (1957), pp. 55–88Google Scholar.