A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

Balkans. In eastern Thrace this pottery is intrusive at Yarımburgaz 0 and Toptepe II–IV, and more recently at Orman Fidanlig˘ i (Levels I–V), where painted ceramics also reflect connections to the southwest regions; Level Ib includes rectangular and triangular vessels with excised or incised designs, carinated profiles, open bowls with thickened rims and high feet, punctate and fluted ornamentation, and horned handles; Hoca Çes¸me Ia is typically defined by dark coloured open bowls burnished patterns on both surfaces. Stylistically, this assemblage has connections with Toptepe I, and Ilıpınar V, and further afield, with late Karanovo III and early Karanovo IV, Vincˇa A or A/B, and Tsangli/Larissa.

Metallurgy

Technically, Early Chalcolithic metalwork is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Neolithic, except for the copper pins and small ornaments at Mersin XXII–XXI and Hacılar, which suggest an interest in small luxury items. Proficiency becomes more evident in the Middle Chalcolithic. The copper mace head and bracelet from the burial of an adult male at Can Hasan is testimony of this. Originally thought to be cast from pure copper, the shaft-holed solid mace head (5.3 by 4.32 cm) appears to have been hammered into shape from a mass of native copper. But the most significant metallurgical development in the early fifth millennium BC comes from Mersin, where Garstang recovered axes, chisels, and other tools cast in simple open moulds.144 Moreover, some of the tools revealed traces of tin, arsenic, and even lead, effectively making them low-level bronze objects. While arsenic may have been a naturally occurring, hence arsenical copper, tin, and lead certainly do point to a rudimentary understanding of smelting mineral ores. Thus the transition from cold hammering through melting and casting to the threshold of smelting was realized. That threshold in the experimentation with polymetallic ores was crossed in the subsequent levels (XVI–XIV) at Mersin, when a large repertoire of tools—axes, adzes, chisels, and pins—were produced containing good quantities of tin (1.3–2.1%) and arsenic

(1.15–4.25%). The significance of these Mersin tools cannot be overstated. Presently, as the earliest smelted and cast metal items in Anatolia, they represent a technological breakthrough that enabled later metalsmiths to produce items that were significantly larger and more complicated than was possible by simple cold hammering.145

NOTES

1Schmandt-Besserat 1974, 1977.

2Düring 2006: 13, figure 1.2.

3Karul et al. 2001; Karul et al. 2004.

4Özdog˘ an 2007: 199.

5Voigt 2000, 2007a. I would like to thank Mary Voigt for giving me a copy of her 2007 paper before it went to press.

139

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

6See Voigt 2000: table 2 for attributes of these functional classes based on ethnographic and ethnohistorical sources.

7Özdog˘ an 2003a.

8Garstang 1953.

9Caneva and Sevin 2004.

10Garstang’s periodisation for the earliest levels is as follows (1953: 2): Early Neolithic (XXXIII– XXVII), Late Neolithic (XXVI–XXV), Early Chalcolithic (XXIV–XX), Middle Chalcolithic (XIX–XVII and XVI), and Late Chalcolithic (XVB–XIIA).

11Schoop 2005: 96–99. Cf. the slightly different attributions by Caneva and Sevin 2004.

12Garstang 1953: figures 12, 24 and 38.

13Düring 2006: 130–247; Mellaart 1967; Todd 1976.

14Hodder 1996, 2000, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2007.

15No final report is available on the Mellaart excavation. Mellaart 1967, an overview, has a listing of the detailed preliminary reports.

16It may seem incongruous to say that a fire “preserves,” but structures built of mud brick or organic material like those at Çatalhöyük burn quickly and collapse equally as fast, a process that smothers the fire and seals their content.

17Cessford reply in Düring 2002: 230.

18Düring 2001, 2006.

19Cutting 2005.

20Düring 2001; Hodder 2006; Matthews 2002.

21Hodder 1996: 365; Mellaart 1964: 78.

22Stevanovic 1997.

23Düring 2001.

24Although it has been argued that these courtyards were mostly rubbish dumps and therefore did not aid accessibility, it remains to be seen whether this was the case throughout the site, and whether courtyards were used this way throughout their lifespan. That is, were the courtyards only dumps when they entered the archaeological record?

25Mellaart 1967.

26While “ritually elaborate buildings” has been suggested (Düring 2001) as a more suitable concept, the reaction against “shrine” seems perhaps a little overzealous given that it can mean “a place hallowed by some memory” (Oxford English Dictionary).

27Matthews 2002: 93.

28Matthews 2002: 94.

29Garfinkel 2003.

30Voigt 2000.

31Hayadarog˘ lu 2006: 62.

32Düring 2001; Mellaart 1975: 101.

33Haydarog˘ lu 2006; Hodder 2005a; Mellaart 1967.

34Hodder 2006: figure 7.

35Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe 2007: 251–253.

36Kuijt 2000 on skull caching in the Levantine Neolithic.

37Verhoeven 2002a: 249.

38Hamilton 1996: 215–217; Voigt 2000. For comments on figurines from the renewed excavations, see Meskell and Nakamura 2006, who group them into three types—anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and miscellaneous—with the first group subdivided into human, humanoid, and schematic.

39See Grinsell 1961, 1973 on the notion of “killing” objects, even though his study examines breakage in funerary contexts.

40Watkins 1996.

140

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

41Bordaz and Bordaz 1982. For full listing of reports, see Düring 2006: 248–259.

42Bordaz 1969: 60.

43Duru 1999.

44Duru 1994b.

45Duru and Umurtak 2005.

46Duru 1994a: pls 185–193; Duru and Umurtak 2005: pls 111–170.

47Duru 1996b, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002.

48Mellaart 1970.

49Eslick 1988.

50Mellaart 1970a.

51Mellaart 1970a: 166–176.

52Voigt 2007a.

53For instance, following Mellaart’s original interpretation published in his preliminary reports that were later sanitized for the final publication (1970), Voigt 2007a argues that Mellaart 1970: figure 227 is not “a young woman dressed in a leopard skin, playing with her son,” but a two people copulating. Likewise Mellaart 1970: 201 does not depict “a young girl in position of childbirth,” but rather a young woman’s sexual readiness.

54Çilingirog˘ lu and Abay 2005; Çilingirog˘ lu et al. 2004.

55Efe 2000; Özdog˘ an 2006; Steadman 1995.

56Bittel 1969/1970; Harmankaya 1983; Özdog˘ an 1983; Pasınlı et al. 1994 (Pendik).

57Özdog˘ an 1998.

58Gérard 1997; Roodenberg 1995, 1999a; Roodenberg and Alpaslan Roodenberg 2008; Roodenberg and Gérard 1996; Roodenberg and Thissen 2001.

59Roodenberg 1993.

60Karul et al. 2003.

61Roodenberg and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008.

62Roodenberg 1999b; Roodenberg et al. 2003.

63Sagona 1994b; Jones and MacGregor 2002.

64Turner 1966.

65Hovers et al. 2003; Sagona 1994b and references therein.

66Kay and McDaniel 1997.

67Hovers et al. 2003.

68See Sagona 1994b for examples pertaining to the Australian Aborigines.

69Hovers et al. 2003.

70For a review, see Sagona 1994b. So prolific was the use of ochre in Bronze Age east-central Europe that both pit graves and catacomb graves are sometimes referred to collectively as the “ochre grave culture.”

71Sagona 1994b.

72Brain 1979.

73The sherds from Beldibi (Bostancı 1959: 51–57) represent a Neolithic intrusion into a late Mesolithic assemblage. Other Mesolithic sites, Karain (Kökten 1955), Belbas¸ı (Bostancı 1962), Carkini and Öküzini (Esin and Benedict 1963) did not yield any ceramic artefacts.

74Schmandt-Besserat 1977.

75Arnold 1985; Rice 1987.

76Arnold 1985.

77Hodder 1982.

78Özdog˘ an 2005.

79Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Caneva and Sevin 2004; Garstang 1953; Karul et al. 2004.

141

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

80Atalay 2005; Last 2005; Mellaart 1967.

81Öztan 2007: figures 13–18.

82Özbas¸aran 2000; Öztan and Özkan 2003; Öztan 2007; Todd 1980.

83Duru and Umurtak 2005: 181–194.

84Schoop 2002.

85Mellaart 1970.

86Eslick 1992.

87Çilingirog˘ lu and Abay 2005; Çilingirog˘ lu et al. 2004.

88Özdog˘ an 1983, 1999b.

89Özdog˘ an 1999b.

90Efe 1993.

91Özdog˘ an 1999: 214.

92Özdog˘ an 1998.

93Mellaart 1967.

94Yener 2000: 24.

95Yener 2000: 25.

96Balkan-Atlı 1994a; Özdog˘ an 1999b: 211–212.

97Carter et al. 2005; Conolly 1999.

98Mellaart 1970.

99Özdog˘ an 1999b.

100Haydarog˘ lu 2006: 62–67; Türkcan 2005.

101Asouti and Fairbairn 2002; Fairbairn et al. 2005.

102Perkins 1969.

103Martin et al. 2002.

104Hodder 2006.

105Thissen 2002: 18.

106Thissen 2002: 19.

107Efstratiou 2005.

108Colledge et al. 2004; Rowly-Conwy 2003; Zohary and Hopf 2000.

109Perlès 2001: 52–63; Schwarzberg 2006.

110Hodder 1990; Whittle 1985.

111Pinhasi et al. 2005; Tringham 2000.

112Renfrew and Boyle 2000; Semino et al. 2000.

113Bailey 2000; Tringham 1971, 2000.

114Broodbank and Strasser 1991: 236–237; King et al. 2008: 210–11. Cf. the earlier study that sparked off the discussion on genetics and the Neolithic, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984.

115Schoop 2005; Yakar 1991, 1994a, 1994b.

116On the degree of continuity in central Anatolia, see Gérard and Thissen 2002.

117Baird 2002.

118Schoop 2005: 358.

119Such is the need for a stocktake that no fewer than three conferences have been convened in recent years to address these issues. See Marro and Hauptmann 2000; Postgate 2002; Rothman 2001.

120Chernykh 1992; Kohl 2007.

121Schoop 2005.

122Campbell et al. 1999.

123Algaze 1990; Von Wickede 1984.

124Campbell et al. 1999; Carter et al. 2003. See also short annual reports in Anatolian Archaeology.

125Kansa and Campbell 2004.

142

A N AT O L I A T R A N S F O R M E D

126Algaze et al. 1994.

127Korfmann 1982; LeBlanc and Watson 1973; Marro 2007.

128Rothman 2002.

129Esin 1994.

130French 1998: 25.

131French 1998: figure 22.

132French 2005.

133Efe 1990: 102–113; Özdog˘ an 1993; von der Osten 1937: figure 67.

134Hauptmann 1969; Özdog˘ an 1993; Parzinger 1993a.

135Mellaart 1970a: 23–25.

136Mellaart 1970a.

137Duru 1994a, 1996a.

138Mellaart 1970b: 326.

139Eslick 1980; Özdog˘ an 1999b.

140Eslick 1980.

141Gérard 1997; Roodenberg 1995; Roodenberg and Gérard 1996; Roodenberg and Thissen 2001.

142Roodenberg 1999a.

143Özdog˘ an et al. 1991 (Yarımburgaz and Toptepe); Thissen 1995 (Ilıpınar); Seeher 1987a (Demircihöyük).

144Caneva 2000; Garstang 1953. Originally found in Level XVII, the copper objects have been reassigned to Level XVI by Caneva.

145Efe 2002.

143

5

METALSMITHS AND MIGRANTS

Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age

(ca. 4000–2000 BC)

In Anatolia, the Late Chalcolithic roughly equates with the fourth millennium BC (4000–3100 BC), although as with most matters on chronology, there are several variations on the timespan and nomenclature.1 There is general agreement, however, that the period is a turning point in cultural developments, foreshadowing achievements and connections in the Early Bronze Age. For this reason it is best to treat the two periods together. A distinguishing feature of the Late Chalcolithic is the emergence of new socioeconomic systems controlled by those in power whose voracious appetite to display their status and wealth fuelled a quest for resources. This need for items of luxury and new technologies—the main manifestations of their authority—ensured the geographical expansion of cultural boundaries, particularly evident in the Euphrates Valley where the Near Eastern and Anatolian worlds collided. During the Chalcolithic period, Near Eastern communities pushed into the central Taurus region, to the very threshold of central Anatolia. This level of cultural interaction, spurred on by trade, increased in the subsequent centuries so that at the end of the Early Bronze Age much of the Anatolian peninsula was involved in an extensive network, stretching from the shores of the Aegean to the northern territories of Syro-Mesopotamia.

Owing to the intensity of investigations along Euphrates Valley in recent years, it makes sense to start the survey of regional developments there, moving eastwards to its borders with the Caucasus and Iran, and then to examine the evidence in the central and western regions.

144