Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T17:53:36.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-classical Remains in Southern Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

James Mellaart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the Autumn of 1951 and from April to November, 1952, a survey of pre-classical remains in still mostly unknown areas of Southern Turkey was undertaken with the grant of a scholarship from the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (for the session 1951–2). A renewal of this scholarship in 1953 will make the continuation and completion of the survey possible in 1953–4.

A vast amount of new material, some of which is of great importance for Anatolian prehistory, having been collected, it was considered advisable to write a preliminary report dealing with the pottery in order to make preliminary results immediately available rather than postpone it until the end of the survey. Hence the sketchy nature of this report which deals with pottery groups only, and the unavoidable omission of the description of the sites, size, period and distribution maps and general conclusions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 4 , December 1954 , pp. 175 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1954

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 The white painted pottery and the early Chalcolithic pottery from the Beyşehir-Seydişehir area.

2 The delta of the Calycadnos now in front of Silifke is of recent origin. Hellenistic settlements are still near the rocky coast.

3 Iron Age material was found at Aspendos, Kaş, Patara, Xanthos, Pinara, Tlos and Bodrum. AS., ii, p. 18Google Scholar.

The early copper age site near Seyret. An early date was assigned to large “sherds” coarse ware, which later investigation identified as burnt clay floor of modern date. The earliest remains found at Seyret are some Lycian tombs.

The settlement at Ağullu was re-examined by the writer. The grey pottery which Dr. Tritsch compared with some grey sherds found under Hagia Irene at Istanbul are not of Hittite or Phrygian date, but plain Byzantine ware. The fragments said to be similar in shape to Hittite vases have no resemblance to any 2nd millennium pottery and belong to the same late period. Nothing earlier than late Hellenistic was found at Ağullu.

4 See DTCFD. V. 2. 1947, p. 228 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 1 f. Prehistoric finds in Kara In cave in Pamphylia. JHS., 1888, p. 82Google Scholar. Cycladic grave at Deveboynu Burun (Cape Krio).

5 Wiegand, in APAW., 1911Google Scholar.

6 Gerkan, A. v.. Miletus III. p. 73Google Scholar, ff.

7 JHS., 1896, p. 204Google Scholar.

8 Recently again in DrGurney's, O. R.The Hittites, 1952, p. 33 (but see second edition)Google Scholar.

9 Ormerod., , BSA., XIX (1912–1913), 48 ff.Google Scholar, fig. I A/B.

10 Bittel., K.PZ., XXXIV–V, 1949–1950, p. 135 ff.Google Scholar, for most recent discussion of Chalcolithic in Anatolia and relation with Aegean. See also Weinberg, S., AJA., 1951, p. 121 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 Nos. 5, 54, 57, 61 and 63 are in the collection of Bay Şerif Tüten, Kaymakam of Beyşehir.

12 Cf. No. 79—Mersin, fig. 102, 11, 13 (Layers XV, XVI) M. Chalco. polished yellow slip, polished matt brown paint 72, 75, 76, 77, and sherds 80, 82. Like M. Chalco. Mersin. No. 67, 71, 73, 74, 83, rather coarse in painting: compare more with L. Chalco. Ubaid ware of Mersin.

13 E.g. Dereköy, Mercimek, Candar I, II, Akhüyük, Ömerköy, Bucak, Kızlar South.

14 E.g. Boz, Dinar, Seyeti Han.

15 The Kumtepe material, still unpublished (it was dug in 1934!) which lies in the Citadel Museum at Ankara, has painted pottery in level Ib together with fruitstands of Alişar early Chalcolithic type. This pottery seems not in the least related to our SW series.

16 With Prof. K. Bittel, Prof. Garstang, Miss Goldman and Prof. Blegen I use EBA for what is often called Copper Age.

17 See ProfBittel, K., Reinecke Festschrift, Mainz, 1950, pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar; PZ., XXXIV–V (1953), p. 140Google Scholar.

18 Grundzüge der Vorgeschichte Kleinasiens. (Heidelberg 1945.)Google Scholar

19 AJA., 1949, p. 46–49Google Scholar.

20 Mersin fig. 122, p. 196. Other sherds of this ware were collected during Miss V. Seton Williams' Cilician Survey. See report in Anatolian Studies IV.

21 A painted double beak spout was found in Kumtepe Ib. (pre Troy I—Chalcolithic). Citadel Museum, Ankara.

22 A survey of the south coast failed to locate any settlements of pre-Iron Age date between Silifke and Miletus at the mouth of the Maeander.

23 Simple larger bowls occur, but differ in no respect from those in W Anatolia and are therefore not treated separately.

24 Bittel and Otto, Demirci Hüyük.

25 Found by the Director of Kony a Museum, Bay Zeki Oral, who kindly allowed me to publish it.

26 Possibly a bowl like fig. 167 (interior surface destroyed).

27 MissWilliams, V. Seton in AS., IVGoogle Scholar.

28 Both areas have been surveyed for the Amuq, see Braidwood, , Mounds in the plain of Antioch. Chicago 1939Google Scholar. The Maraş area was in part surveyed by Miss V. Seton Williams (see Iraq, XII, 1)Google Scholar, partly by the author.

29 Sherds BIAA.

30 Belleten XII, 1948, p. 260 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 Blegen, , Troy, I. p. 54Google Scholar.

32 In early Helladic Greece also the inverted rim bowl is the most common shape. (Kunze, , Orchomenos IIIGoogle Scholar, fig. 25. Blegen, , Zygouries, p. VIIGoogle Scholar. 1 and fig. 75.)

33 Dr. H. Z. Koşay, Alaca Hüyük (1937–39), pl. XCVII, No. 3, 5.

34 Archaeologia 87, p. 239, fig. 9Google Scholar.

35 Hesperia VI, p. 539 ff, fig. 3hGoogle Scholar.

36 Heurtley, Preh. Macedonia, catalogue No. 86.

37 Dündartepe, DTCFD. II, p. 712 ff.Google Scholar, fig. no. 5; and Türk Tarih Kongresi II (1943)Google Scholar, pl. V, 5, 11, 12.

38 Cf. Troy I early (on different shape), Blegen, , Troy, I, fig. 266, 5Google Scholar. Tekeköy, , Belleten, IX, pp. 382–400Google Scholar (not illustrated).

39 On white painted see ProfGarstang, in Prehistoric Mersin, p. 182 ffGoogle Scholar.

40 The first person to discover white painted pottery in the SW is Mr. Sinclair Hood, who found it during a survey of the Elmalı plain in 1947. When I showed him my material from the same area in 1951 he generously allowed me to incorporate the material in my own article for which I am much indebted to him.

41 AS. I, chart fig. 5, fig. 13, Nos. 9, 10 (text p. 51).

42 Esp. Türk Tarih Kongresi 1943, p. 10, 21–24Google Scholar.

43 Belleten IX, 1945, p. 382 ff.Google Scholar, with 2 sherds at Dündartepe in Chalcolithic layer.

44 Alishar, I, p. 57Google Scholar.

45 Belleten XII, p. 484 class 7Google Scholar.

46 Blegen, , Troy, I, p. 79Google Scholar, and one sherd in Troy II c., ibid., p. 243.

47 Lamb, Thermi, plate XXX.

48 The loop motive does not occur in Mersin XII A which is characterized by white painted.

49 Jugs are naturally painted on the outside and flaring bowls are usually painted on the inside as painted decoration on the outside would not show.

50 I may be mistaken about some of this ware, having no first hand knowledge of the material.

51 The white paint often peels off, leaving a dull mark on an otherwise burnished surface.

52 Not altogether satisfactory as the white fill often tends to fall out.

53 Blegen, , Troy, I, fig. 266. 3Google Scholar.

54 Schmidt, H., Schliemann Sammlung, p. 5, No. 154Google Scholar.

55 The incised patterns are on the exterior.

56 And at Fraktin.

57 Incised as well as painted crosses of parallel lines and latticed bands occur on the inside of bowls at Tarsus, but not in white paint (AJA., 1947, p. 385Google Scholar) at the beginning of the MB period. Troy V tradition, cf. also white filled incised crosses on stand at Mancarlı. No. 608–611. Troy IV–V.

58 Such as the inverted rim bowls without handles, or with pedestals, the Yortanlike jug No. 568 or the bowls with upright rim which occur at Tigani. cf. shape F 66, F 68 (Ath. Mit. 60/61 1935–1936)Google Scholar.

59 Bittel, and Otto, , Demirci Hüyük (1939)Google Scholar, pl. 8, No. 5; pl. 13, 5, 8, 9.

60 TT., II (1934), e.g. p. 47Google Scholar.

61 Archaeologia 86, fig. 6. 5.

62 NW of Afyon.

63 It was found filled with ashes and carbonized bird bones. Presumably from a grave on the hüyük itself.

64 Lamb, W. in BSA 37, pl. 23b. (Fitzwilliam Mus., Cambridge, Inv. No. 128.)Google Scholar

65 Ath. Mit. XXIV, 1899Google Scholar, pl. IIb. Sarılar Hüyük?

66 Belleten IX, pl. LVII.

67 Two unpublished jugs in Bedesten Museum, Ankara.

68 Afyon Museum, unpublished.

69 Alaca I (1939)Google Scholar tomb BM, pl. CLXXI

II (1944) „ MA, 75, pl. LXXXVIII

III (1951) pl. CLXXIX, CCIV, CXLVII, plain. CLXXIX, CXXXII, CXCVI, CXXII.

70 Belleten XIV, 1950, p. 481 ff.Google Scholar, pl. XXXVIII, from Mahmatlar, east of Amasya.

71 Blegen, , Troy, IIGoogle Scholar, fig. 181. 19. See also lids fig. 169 lower top (Troy IV).

72 See also Tarsus., AJA, LI, 1947, pl. XCV. 1, p. 385Google Scholar for incised or painted crosses as interior of bowl at the beginning of MBA.

73 Belleten, XII (1948)Google Scholar, pl. CV bottom row right.

74 Istanbul Museum unpublished.

75 Yortan. BM Cat., No. 62.

76 Denizli (Gazi Ilkokulu from “Denizli” i.e. district).

77 Like Murdigan, Götze, Kleinasien, fig. 4a.

78 Types like shape D 24. Troy, which have a range from Troy I–V.

79 Belleten XII (1948)Google Scholar, pl. CVII third row, middle.

80 PZ., 1932, XXIII, p. 127Google Scholar, fig. 14, 3.

81 AS., I, fig. 9. group 10, 2.

82 Ath. Mit. 60–61, p. 410 shape F 74Google Scholar.

83 Annuario, 1925–26, fig. 79.

84 See Weinberg, , AJA, 1947, p. 178Google Scholar.

85 Said to be one of three found by the peasants. The other two were sold to dealers.

86 Group of 9 small figurines from graves. Afyon Museum. Unpublished.

87 Blegen, , Troy, IGoogle Scholar, fig. 127.

88 Yortan. Bossert, Altanatolien, fig. 213.

89 Ibid., fig. 213.

90 Drawn in 1947 by Mr. Sinclair Hood by permission of the Director, Bay Süleyman Gönçer. These were added to his Elmalı report.

page 240 note 1 See DrAlp, S., Personennamen in der hethitischen Hieroglyphenschrift (Ankara 1950), p. 3 ff.Google Scholar, reading the sign as Meriggi 174 (sa) not as Mer. 171 (a). I am much obliged to Dr. O. Gurney for drawing my attention to this reading. In many cases however the reading seems to be ā.

page 240 note 2 Li and also ili in Hattus Uru ili (and Murs-ili ?) Alp. ibid. Note 13, page 8.

page 240 note 3 Sign resembling ṷa sign on the Köylütülü Yayla monument. (Gelb, HHM, No. 41 pl. LXIII).

page 240 note 4 A. Götze, Die Annalen des Mursilis.

page 240 note 5 Friedrich, J., Staatsverträge, I, 95 ffGoogle Scholar. (Kupanta-LAMA treaty.)