Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T12:49:04.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting the end of the Late Bronze Age and the transition to the Early Iron Age at Tille Höyük

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Geoffrey D. Summers
Geoffrey D. Summers*
Affiliation:
Graduate Program in Settlement Archaeology, METU, Ankara, Turkey [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dendrochronological dating of two phases of the monumental Gateway excavated at Tille Höyük on the Turkish Euphrates was carried out by Peter Kuniholm and his team in 1993. Very recently Carol Griggs and Sturt Manning, also of Cornell University, used AMS 14C to check cross-matching of tree-ring sequences. New dates suggest that the first phase of the gate was constructed toward the middle of the twelfth century BCE, probably a few decades after the fall of the LBA Hittite capital at Hattuša. Some implications of this lower dating for our understanding of the Early Iron Age are discussed, and new reconstructions of the Gateway plan are provided.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 72 , 2010 , pp. 193 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2010

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

References cited

Algaze, G. 1990. Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia. Vol. II: The Stratigraphie Sequence at Kurban Höyük, OIP 110, Chicago.Google Scholar
Blaylock, S. 1998. “Rescue Excavations by the BIAA at Tille Höyük, on the Euphrates, 1979–1990”, in Matthews, R. (ed.) Ancient Anatolia, London (BIAA): 111–26 and col. Pls. 21–2.Google Scholar
Blaylock, S. 1999. “Iron Age pottery from Tille Höyük, south-eastern Turkey”, in Hausleiter, A. and Reiche, A. (eds.) Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 10), Ugarit Verlag, Münster, pp. 263–86.Google Scholar
Blaylock, S. 2009. Tille Höyük 3.1: The Iron Age: Introduction, Stratification and Architecture (The British Institute at Ankara, Monograph 41), London.Google Scholar
Erdem, A. 2009. “Van Gölü havzası'nda bulunan demir çağ yivli çanak çômleğinin Urartu kalelerindeki varlığı”, in Sağlamtimur, H., Abay, E., Derin, Z., Erdem, A. Ü., Batmaz, A., Dedeoğlu, F., Erdalkıran, M., Baştürk, M. B. and Konakçı, E. (eds.) Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu: A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea (Arkeoloji ve Sanat), Istanbul, 299–307.Google Scholar
Gates, M.-H. 2001. “Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite ceramic industry”, in Jean, É., Dinçol, A. M. and Durugönül, S. (eds.) La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (IIe millénaire av. J.-C. — IVe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Varia Anatolica 13), Istanbul, 137–57.Google Scholar
Gates, M.-H. 2006. “Dating the Hittite levels at Kinet Höyük: a revised chronology”, in Mielke, D. P., Schoop, U.-D. and Seeher, J. (eds.) Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. Voraussetzungen — Probleme — Neue Ansätze/Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology. Requirements — Problems — New Approaches. Internationaler Workshop, Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004. BYZAS 4. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Istanbul, 293–309.Google Scholar
Glatz, C. 2009. “Empire as network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia”, Journal of Anthropological Archeology 28, 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griggs, C. B. and Manning, S. W., 2009. “A reappraisal of the dendrochronology and dating of Tille Höyük (1993)”, Radiocarbon 51/2, 711–20.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. D. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaschau, G. 1999. Lidar Höyük: Die Keramik der Mittleren Bronzezeit, von Zabern, Mainz.Google Scholar
Konyar, E. 2005. “Grooved pottery of the Lake Van basin: A stratigraphical and chronological assessment”, Colloquium Anatolicum 4, 105–27.Google Scholar
Korbel, G. 1985. Die spätbronzezeitliche Keramik von Norşuntepe, Institut für Bauen und Planen in Entwicklungslädern, Mitteilungen 4, Hannover.Google Scholar
Korbel, G. 1987. Materialheft spätbronzezeitliche Keramik Tarsus (Grabung Hetty Goldman), Institut für Bauen und Planen in Entwicklungslädern, Mitteilungen 5, Hannover.Google Scholar
Kuniholm, P. I. S. L. Tarter and Griggs, C. B. 1993. “Tille Höyük (Adiyaman) Dendrochronological Report”, in Summers, G. (ed.) Tille Höyük 4 (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara), London, 179–89.Google Scholar
Mielke, D. P. 2006. “Dendrochronologie und hethitische Archäologie — Einige kritische Anmerkungen”, in Mielke, D. P., Schoop, U.-D. and Seeher, J. (eds.) Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. Voraussetzungen — Probleme — Neue Ansätze/Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology. Requirements — Problems — New Approaches. Internationaler Workshop, Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004. BYZAS 4. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Istanbul, 77–94.Google Scholar
Müller, U. 1999. “Die eisenzeitliche Stratigraphie von Lidar Höyük”, Anatolia Studies 49, 123–32.Google Scholar
Müller, U. 2003. “A change to continuity: Bronze Age traditions in Early Iron Age”, in Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, É. and 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, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul, 137–49.Google Scholar
Müller, U. 2005. “Norşuntepe and Lidar Höyük: two examples for cultural change in Early Iron Age”, in Çilingiroşlu, A. and Darbyshire, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van in 2001. BIAA Monograph 31, London, 107–14.Google Scholar
Postgate, J. N. 2007. “The ceramics of centralisation and dissolution: a case-study from Rough Cilicia”, Anatolian Studies 57, 141–50.Google Scholar
Roaf, M. and Schachner, A. 2005. “The Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in the upper Tigris region: new information from Ziyaret Tepe and Giricano”, in Çilingiroğlu, A. and Darbyshire, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van in 2001. BIAA Monograph 31, London, 115–23.Google Scholar
Schachner, A. 2003. “From the Bronze to the Iron Age: identifying changes in the Upper Tigris region, the case of Giricano”, in Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, É. and 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 (Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü), Istanbul, 151–63.Google Scholar
Summers, G. D. with contributions by Collon, D., Kuniholm, P., Tarter, S. and Griggs, C., 1993. Tille Höyük 4: The Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Transition (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara), London.Google Scholar
Yağci, R. 2008. “Hittites at Soli (Cilicia)”, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 50, 797–814.Google Scholar