Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T03:34:31.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The local Late Chalcolithic (LC3) occupation at Zeytinli Bahçe (Birecik, Şanli-Urfa): the ceramic production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Francesca Balossi Restelli
Francesca Balossi Restelli
Affiliation:
Sapienza University, Rome
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Excavations and ceramic finds of the Late Chalcolithic 3 (3,700–3,500 BC) from the site of Zeytinli Bahçe, on the Turkish Euphrates, are published and discussed, with particular attention to modes of manufacture in the phase which immediately precedes the introduction of the fast wheel and mass production (middle and late Uruk). In this period, alternative modes of manufacture (coil, mould, wheel) are probable indices of experimentations in response to ever increasing economic and social needs. Ceramic classes and types are also analysed with the aim of understanding inter-regional relations in the period preceding the arrival of Uruk influence. Together with Hacınebi, Zeytinli Bahçe provides important data on Late Chalcolithic developments in the Turkish Euphrates region south of the Taurus. These help distinguish single cultural horizons, but also identify large networks of communication right down to the Iraqi Tigris. Relations of the middle Euphrates area appear to be biased eastwards, towards the Khabur river, whilst direct contacts with the regions north of the Taurus seem absent. However, indirect chronological correlations are made possible by an overview of the general distribution of ceramic typologies in the whole upper Mesopotamia and Taurus regions during the Late Chalcolithic period.

Özet

Bu makalede Fırat Havzasının Anadolu tarafında yer alan Zeytin Bahçe ören yerinin kazısı ve Geç Kalkolitik 3 (3,700–3.500)'e tarihlenen keramik buluntuları tanıtılmakta ve tartışılmaktadır. Burada özellikle üstünde durulan konu, hızlı çark kullanımının ve seri üretimin başlamasının (Orta ve Geç Uruk) hemen ardından ortaya çıkan üretim biçimleridir. Bu dönemde, sürekli artan ekonomik ve sosyal gereksinimlerin sonucu olarak farklı üretim biçimleri (şerit tekniği, kalıp, çark) denenmiş olmalıdir. Uruk etkisinin bölgeye ulaşmasını izleyen dönemde bölgeler arası ilişkileri anlamak bakımından keramik sınıf ve tipleri de analiz edilmiştir. Hacınebi ile birlikte Zeytinli Bahçe kazıları, Torosların güneyindeki Fırat Havzasındaki Geç Kalkolitik gelişmelerin anlaşılması bakımından önemli veriler sağlamaktadır. Bu veriler hem tek tek kültürel perspektifleri ayırt etmemize, hem de Dicle-Irak'a kadar uzanan geniş ilişkiler ağini saptamamıza olanak tanır. Orta Fırat bölgesinin Toroslarin kuzeyindeki bölgelerle doğrudan bir ilişkisi yok gibi görünürken ilişki daha ziyade doğuyla, Habur bölgesiyle kurulmuş gibi görünmektedir. Yine de Geç Kalkolitik dönemin Yukarı Mezopotamya ve Toros bölgelerindeki keramik tipolojisinin genel dağılımı bir bütün olarak incelendiğinde dolaylı kronolojik paralellikler bulmak mümkün olmaktadır.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 56 , December 2006 , pp. 17 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2006

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

Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1988: ‘The period V pottery’ in Loon, M. Van (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I. Istanbul: 287–349Google Scholar
Algaze, G. 1990: Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Alvaro, C., Balossi, F., Vroom, J. 2004: ‘Zeytinli Bahçe. A medieval fortified settlement’ Anatolia Antiqua 12:191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balossi Restelli, F. in press: ‘Post-Ubaid occupation on the upper Euphrates: Late Chalcolithic 1–2 at Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey)’ Proceedings of the 41CAANE, Berlin 2004.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., Pollock, S. 2003: ‘The biography of an early Halaf village: Fıstıklı Höyük 1999–2000’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53: 9–77Google Scholar
Bishop, R.L., Rands, R.L., Holley, G. 1982: ‘Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective’ Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 275–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boese, J. 1995: Ausgrabungen in Tell Sheikh Hassan, Vorläufige Berichte über die Grabungskampagnen 1984–1990 und 1992–1994. SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
Emberling, G., Cheng, J., Larsen, T.E., Pittman, H., Skuldboel, T., Weber, J., Wright, H.T. 1999: ‘Excavations at Tell Brak 1998: preliminary report’ Iraq 61: 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felli, C. 2003: ‘Developing complexity. Early to mid fourth-millennium investigations: the northern middle Uruk period’ in Matthews, R. (ed.), Excavations at Tell Brak. Cambridge: 53–95Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 1993: ‘Local components in the development of centralized societies in Syro-Anatolian regions’ in Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. (eds), Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Rome: 133–61Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 2000: ‘The Late Chalcolithic/EBI sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and cultural remarks from a frontier site’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IV°–III° millenaires. Actes du colloque d'Istanbul, 16–19 décembre 1998. Paris: 439–71Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 2002: ‘“Non-Uruk” developments and Uruk-linked features on the northern borders of greater Mesopotamia’ in Campbell, S., Postgate, J.N. (eds), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East (Iraq Archaeological Reports 5). Warminster: 123–48Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. in press: ‘The establishment of a middle/upper Euphrates EB I culture from the fragmentation of the Uruk world. New data from Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük (Urfa, Turkey)’ in Peltenburg, E. (ed.), The Carchemish Region in the Third Millennium BC. OxfordGoogle Scholar
Frangipane, M., Alvaro, C., Balossi Restelli, F., Siracusano, G. 2002: ‘The 2000 campaign at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük’ in Tuna, N., Öztürk, J., Velibeyoğlu, J. (eds), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 2000. Ankara: 57–99Google Scholar
Frangipane, M., Balossi, F. 2005a: ‘Excavation and study campaign at Zeytinli Bahçe, 2004’ Kazı Sonunçları Toplantısı 27: 391–400Google Scholar
Frangipane, M., Balossi, F. 2005b: ‘Scavi di salvataggio a Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük’ in Tangianu, A. (ed.), Dall'Eufrate al Mediterraneo. Ricerche delle Missioni Archeologiche Italiane in Turchia. Ankara: 29–40Google Scholar
Frangipane, M., Balossi, F., Di Nocera, G.M., Palmieri, A., Siracusano, G. 2004: ‘The 2001 excavation campaign at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük: preliminary results’ in Tuna, N., Greenhalg, J., Velibeyoğlu, J. (eds), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 2001. Ankara: 20–56Google Scholar
Frangipane, M., Bucak, E. 2001: ‘Excavations and researches at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük, 1999’ in Tuna, N., J. Öztürk, , Velibeyoğlu, J. (eds), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 1999. Ankara: 84–131Google Scholar
Gut, R. 1995: Das Prahistorische Ninive. Mainz am RheinGoogle Scholar
Gut, R. 2002: ‘The significance of the Uruk sequence at Nineveh’ in Campbell, S., Postgate, J.N. (eds), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East (Iraq Archaeological Reports 5). Warminster: 17–48Google Scholar
Hauptmann, H. 1982: ‘Die Grabungen auf dem Norsun-Tepe, 1974–5’ in Peckman, S. (ed.), Keban Projesi 1974 Calışmaları. Keban Project 1974 Activities. Ankara: 41–94Google Scholar
Hole, F. 2001: ‘A radiocarbon chronology for the middle Khabur, Syria’ Iraq 63: 67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsutani, T. 1991: Tell Kashkashok: The Excavations at Tell no. II. TokyoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. 2000: ‘Fourth and third millennia chronologies: the view from tell Brak, north-east Syria’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IV°–III° millenalres. Actes du colloque d'Istanbul, 16–19 décembre 1998. Paris: 65–72Google Scholar
McMahon, A., Tunca, Ö., Bagdo, A.-M. 2001: ‘New excavations at Chagar Bazar, 1999–2000’ Iraq 63: 201–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, D.J. 1988: ‘Tell Hammam: architecture and stratigraphy’ in Loon, M. Van (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I. Istanbul: 69–127Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1981: ‘The prehistoric pottery from the Neolithic to the beginning of EB IV (7000–2500 BC)’ in Matthers, J. (ed.), The River Quoeik, Northern Syria and Its Catchment. Oxford: 131–319Google Scholar
Nishiaki, Y., Koizumi, T., Le Mière, M., Oguchi, T. 1992: ‘Prehistoric occupation at Tell Kosak Shamali, the upper Euphrates, Syria’ Akkadica 113: 13–68Google Scholar
Oates, D., Oates, J. 1993: ‘Excavations at Tell Brak 1992–93’ Iraq 55: 155–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, J. 1985: ‘Tell Brak: Uruk pottery from the 1984 season’ Iraq 47: 175–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, J. 2002: ‘Tell Brak: the fourth millennium sequence and its implications’ in Campbell, S., Postgate, J.N. (eds), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East (Iraq Archaeological Reports 5). Warminster: 111–22Google Scholar
Özgen, E., Helwig, B., Engin, A., Niewenhuyse, O., Spoor, R. 1999: ‘Oylum Höyük 1997–1998. Die Spätchalkolitische Siedlung auf der Westterrasse’ Anatolia Antiqua 1: 19–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özguç, N. 1992: ‘The Uruk culture at Samsat’ in Hrouda, B., Knoll, S., Spanos, P.Z. (eds), Von Uruk nach Tuttul. Munich and Vienna: 151–57Google Scholar
Pearce, J. 2000: ‘The Late Chalcolithic sequence at Hacınebi, Turkey’ in C. Marro, , Hauptmann, H. (eds), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IV°–III° millenaires. Actes du colloque d'Istanbul, 16–19 décembre 1998. Paris: 115–43Google Scholar
Pollock, S., Coursey, C. 1995: ‘Ceramics from Hacınebi Tepe: chronology and connections’ Anatolica 21: 101–41Google Scholar
Schwartz, G.M. 1988a: A Ceramic Chronology for Tell Leilan: Operation I. New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, G.M. 1988b: ‘Excavations at Karatut Mevkii and perspectives on the Uruk/Jemdet Nasr expansion’ Akkadica 56: 1–41Google Scholar
Stein, G. 2001: ‘Indigenous social complexity at Hacinebi (Turkey) and the organization of Uruk colonial contact’ in Rothman, M.S. (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe and Oxford: 265–305Google Scholar
Stein, G. 2002: ‘The Uruk expansion in Anatolia: a Mesopotamian colony and its indigenous host community at Hacinebi, Turkey’ in Campbell, S., Postgate, J.N. (eds), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East (Iraq Archaeological Reports 5). Warminster: 149–71Google Scholar
Stein, G.J., Bernbeck, R., Coursey, C, McMahon, A., Miller, N., Mısır, A., Nicola, J., Pittman, H., Pollock, S., Wright, H. 1996: ‘Uruk colonies and Anatolian communities: an interim report on the 1992–1993 excavations at Hacınebi, Turkey’ American Journal of Archaeology 100/2: 205–60Google Scholar
Stein, G., Edens, C., Pearce Edens, J., Boden, K., Laneri, N., Özbal, H., Earl, B., Adriaens, A.M., Pittman, H. 1998: ‘Southeast Anatolia before the Uruk expansion: preliminary report on the 1997 excavations at Hacınebi, Turkey’ Anatolica 24: 143–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, G., Mısır, A. 1994: ‘Mesopotamian-Anatolian interaction at Hacınebi, Turkey: preliminary report on the 1992 excavations’ Anatolica 20: 145–89Google Scholar
Thissen, L.C. 1985: ‘The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery from Hayaz Höyük’ Anatolica 12: 74–130Google Scholar
Wright, H., Rupley, E. 2001: ‘Calibrated radiocarbon age determinations of Uruk-related assemblages’ in Rothman, M. (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbours. Santa Fe and Oxford: 85–122Google Scholar