Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T23:04:38.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prehistoric Pottery from the Antitaurus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

G. H. Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article presents some results of a survey of early sites begun in the summer of 1962 within the area bounded by the modern towns of Kayseri, Sivas, Malatya and Maraş. Only a small body of relevant published material from within this area is available, and of that the bulk is datable to the later part of the Early Bronze Age, the earlier date of the remainder being variously interpreted. By undertaking this survey it was hoped to establish two things: the distribution of prehistoric pottery “cultures”; and the kind of imports from the south and east into this boundary region, which may accordingly be expected also in the deeper levels of Central Anatolian sites now being excavated, and be of assistance in dating the earliest phases of Central Anatolian prehistory.

The Antitaurus is the general name for that part of the Taurus mountain chain which separates Inner Anatolia from Cilicia, northern Syria and Mesopotamia. It comprises the sector of mountain terrain between Niğde and the Cilician Gates in the west, and the Sivas–Malatya road in the east; the southern boundary of the mountains being formed by the plains of Maraş, and Cilicia, separated by the steep Amanus ridge which runs down to the sea behind İskenderun. This extensive mountainous area, broken by steep-sided valleys and relieved by upland plains and pastures, was the barrier which, in the past as now, cut off the population of Central Anatolia from the open lands of the so-called Fertile Crescent to the south.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 17 , December 1967 , pp. 123 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1967

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 Briefly reported, AS. XIII, 1963, pp. 8–9 Google Scholar, AS. XVI, 1966, p. 15 Google Scholar.

2 A pottery lamp in the shape of a fish, presumably Classical, from Kürkçüler near Adana, was presented to the Adana Museum (accession No. 3341). The remainder of the finds are still at the Institute awaiting further study.

3 Sterrett, J. R. S., “An Epigraphical journey in Asia Minor,” Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, II, 1888 Google Scholar

4 SirRamsay, W. M., The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, RGS. Supp. Papers, IV, 1890, especially pp. 274 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 (a) Hogarth, D. G. and Monro, J. A., Modern and Ancient Roads in Eastern Asia Minor, RGS. Supp. Papers, III, Pt. 5, 1893 Google Scholar.

(b) Hogarth, D. G. and SirRamsay, W. M., “Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia,” Recueil de travaux, XIV, 1893 Google Scholar.

6 Meine Vorderasien-Expedition, 2 Vols., Leipzig, 1911 (Zerezek: p. 242)Google Scholar.

7 Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor, 1929; OIC. 8, 1930 Google Scholar. The following notes should be made on von der Osten's map (p. 106):

Jesar H. is my Yassı H., Tanır.

Aristil and Küzül (Kızıl H., Merikil) are transposed.

Kapılı and Tedevin are likewise transposed.

Azaniyeh is my Ozan H., at Evzaniye village.

Kara Elbistan is wrongly placed and should be shown due west of Elbistan on the north side of the Göksun road, between the road and the river.

8 op. cit., pp. 31 ff. and Figs. 20–22.

9 Özgüç, Tahsin, “Das prähistorische Haus beim Felsrelief von Fraktin,” Anatolia I, 1956, pp. 65 ffGoogle Scholar. See also discussion in Mellaart, , “Anatolia c. 4000–2300 B.C.,” CAH. 2nd ed., fasc. 8, p. 7 Google Scholar (Vol. I, Ch. XVIII). It appears that this is the only published excavated material older than the E.B. 3 from within the Antitaurus.

10 T. and Özgüç, N., Karahöyük hafriyatı raporu 1947, Ankara, 1949 Google Scholar.

11 Dönmez, A. and Brice, W. C., “Distribution of Early Pottery in South East Turkey,” Iraq XI, 1949, pp. 44 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Özgüç, N., “Fırakdin Eserleri (Finds at Fırakdin),” Belleten XIX, 1955, pp. 295–308 Google Scholar.

13 Özgüç, N., DTCFD. V, 1947, pp. 133 ffGoogle Scholar.

14 U. Bahadır, Alkım, “Güney-Batı Antitoros Bölgesinde Eski Bir Yol Şebekesi (An Ancient Road System in the South-Western Antitaurus),” Belleten XXIII, 1959, pp. 59–78 Google Scholar.

15 Garelli, P., Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie d'Istanbul, XIX, 1963 Google Scholar. Garelli gives a very good account of the topography of the Antitaurus (pp. 96 ff.); however, while the pottery on which his assumptions are based remains unpublished, his archaeological conclusions cannot be accepted unequivocally. (1) The Gürün–Darende valley is likely to have a longer history than he will allow, but early remains will certainly have been obliterated within the valley by overbuilding, in view of the high value of cultivable land (p. 98). (2) On the Maraş–Malatya road, I could see no prehistoric site at Gölbaşı, though beside the second lake there is a mound, which proved on inspection to be natural (p. 97). The mound at Sürgü, , as I mentioned in AS. XIII Google Scholar, seems not to have been occupied as late as the Karum period. This of course only reinforces Garelli's argument that the main Karum traffic went across the Elbistan plain, a conclusion with which I agree. (3) It would be interesting to know exactly what constituted the pottery dated to Karum periods II and Ib (pp. 101–3). In my limited experience true Karum pottery scarcely travelled from Kültepe; it is important to distinguish the true Karum ware, made and used at Kültepe in the Assyrian colony, from, on the one hand later Hittite fine red wares, and on the other local copies of the plain red and “Cappadocian” E.B./M.B. wares, which by themselves are insufficient evidence of Assyrian trade. Although mentioned frequently in the List of Sites below, very few of my attributions of Karum ware are confident; it may be that many of the sherds thus identified are local copies, as appears to be the case with some at least of Professor Özgüç's identifications for M. Garelli. (4) Garelli does not seem to have taken up the trail of the “Assyrian” seal mentioned by von der Osten, , from Iğde, (OIC. 8, p. 115)Google Scholar; however, there is no indication if this was an Old Assyrian seal—the site itself yielded little pre-second-millennium pottery. (5) I take Melikir, (sic, p. 103) to mean the site at MerikilGoogle Scholar.

16 Seton-Williams, M. V., “Cilician Survey,” AS. IV, 1954, pp. 121–174 Google Scholar.

17 Mellaart, J., AS. IV, 1954, pp. 175–240 Google Scholar, AS. XI, 1961, pp. 159–184 Google Scholar, AS. XIII, 1963, pp. 199–236, etc.Google Scholar

18 Orthmann, W., Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien, D.O.I., Band 24, Berlin, 1963 Google Scholar. This very useful work contains bibliographies of all excavated E.B.A. sites in Central Anatolia, to date.

19 “North Anatolia before Classical Times,” AS. VI, 1956, pp. 179–203 Google Scholar; “Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age,” AS. VIII, 1958, pp. 157–236 Google Scholar.

20 R. J. and Braidwood, Linda, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I, OIP. LXI, 1959 Google Scholar; more recent excavations include:

Hüyük, Tilmen: Alkım, U. Bahadır: Archäologischer Bericht aus Anatolien, in Orientalia 31, 1962, pp. 241–5Google Scholar; 32, 1963, pp. 76–7; 33, 1964, pp. 503–7; Çalıșmaları, Tilmen Höyük, in Belleten XXVI, 1962, pp. 462–3Google Scholar; and AS. XIII, 1963, pp. 27–8Google Scholar; XIV, 1964, pp. 23–5; XV, 1965, P. 29.

Kara, H., Gedikli, : Alkım, U. Bahadır: AS. XV, 1965, pp. 29–30 Google Scholar; AS. XVI, 1966, pp. 29–31 Google Scholar; “Gedikli (Karahüyuk) Kazısı Birinci Ön-Rapor,” Belleten XXX, 1966, pp. 1–58 Google Scholar.

Rifaat, Tell: Seton-Williams, M. V.: “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Rifa'at,” Iraq XXIII, 1961, pp. 68 ffGoogle Scholar.

Shamra, Ras: Schaeffer, C. F. A. et al. , Ugaritica IV, Paris and Beirut, 1962 Google Scholar.

21 As is suggested in Seton-Williams, , AS. IV, 1954, p. 142 and n. 1Google Scholar.

22 Garelli, op. cit., pp. 96 ff.

23 Özgüç, T., AS. VI, 1956, pp. 25 ffGoogle Scholar.

24 I include in this term that part of modern Turkey lying between the mountain zone and the Syrian frontier; for the sequence, see Mellink, M., “The Prehistory of Syro-Cilicia,” Bibliotheca Orientalis XIX, 1962, pp. 219–26Google Scholar.

25 AS. VIII, 1958, pp. 157 ffGoogle Scholar.

26 Hogarth and Monro, op. cit., p. 278.

27 Garstang, J. and Gurney, O. R., The Geography of the Hittite Empire, London, 1953, p. 44, n. 4 and p. 51 Google Scholar; Magie, David, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton, 1950, Ch. IX, n. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Garelli, op. cit., pp. 101–2, quoting Grothe, op. cit., pp. 26 ff.

29 Burney, , AS. VIII, p. 167, n. 32Google Scholar, mentions the discovery of east Anatolian incised ware at Alaca in L.Ch. context—“perhaps as high a date as 3000 B.C.”; cf. Mellaart, , CAH. 2nd ed., fasc. 8, p. 41 Google Scholar.

30 Ehrich, A. M. H., Early Pottery of the Jebeleh Region; Mem. Am. Phil. Soc. XIII, 1939 Google Scholar, Pottery Type I.

31 Dyson, R. H. in Ehrich, R. W., ed., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, 1965, p. 219 Google Scholar.

32 Ugaritica IV, p. 435 Google Scholar. It should be noted that the combed ware belongs much more firmly in the Syrian tradition, and may be separated stratigraphically from the Khirbet Kerak ware, as at Tabara al Akrad; see Amiran, R., “Yanik Tepe, Shengavit, and the Khirbet Kerak Ware,” AS. XV, 1965, p. 165 Google Scholar, n. 4, and reviews of OIP. LXI by Tadmor, (IEJ. XIV, 1964, pp. 253 ff.Google Scholar) and Dyson, (American Anthropologist LXIII, pp. 630 ff.)Google Scholar.

33 (a) AS. VIII, p. 174 Google Scholar; (b) OIP. LXI, p. 519 Google Scholar; in fact Harput is just north of Elâzığ.

34 Amiran, , AS. XV, pp. 165–8Google Scholar; cf. Burney, , AS. VIII, p. 195 Google Scholar: “the absence of relief decoration south of Hekimhan and Divriği hints at the arrival of people bringing the East Anatolian E.B.A. culture from the Karaz area or further east.”

35 du Plat Taylor, J. et al. , “The Excavations at Sakçe Gözü,” Iraq XII, 1950, p. 91 Google Scholar, fig. 15, no. 7.

36 OIP. LXI, p. 519 Google Scholar.

37 Goldman, J. et al. , Excavations at Gözlü Küle, Tarsus, II, Princeton, 1956, Pl. 253, no. 257Google Scholar.

38 Woolley, C. L., “The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish,” Iraq I, 1934, p. 160 Google Scholar, fig. 5, no. 1 (described as “shaley”).

39 Ehrich, op. cit., fig. 14, no. 2.

40 SirWoolley, C. L., A Forgotten Kingdom, Harmondsworth, 1953, fig. 3Google Scholar.

41 OIP. LXI, p. 512 Google Scholar; also Ras Shamra (IIIB), see Ugaritica IV, p. 480, fig. 1, G. I.Google Scholar

42 Taylor, , Iraq XII, 1950, fig. 17, no. 7Google Scholar.

43 Tarsus II, fig. 341, I, F; Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin, Oxford, 1953, fig. 103, nos. 1, 4, 7Google Scholar.

44 Koşay, H. Z. and Akok, M., Büyük Güllücek Kazı, Ankara, 1957, lev. XXIV, no. 199Google Scholar.

45 Mersin: op. cit., figs. 101, 104, 105. Ras Shamra: Schaeffer, C. F. A.: “Les Fouilles de Ras-Shamra—Ugarit, Sixième Campagne (Printemps, 1934),” Syria XVI, 1935, p. 161 Google Scholar, fig. 10, G, J, K; Ugaritica IV, Pl. VII, pp. 324–7Google Scholar. Amuq: Braidwood, , OIP. LXI, fig. 91, no. 1Google Scholar.

46 Hood, Sinclair, “Excavations at Tabara al Akrad, 1948–49,” AS. I, 1951, p. 126 Google Scholar, fig. 6, type 7; Taylor, , Iraq XII, 1950, p. 106, fig. 20, no. 3Google Scholar.

47 The pottery has been extensively dıscussed; reference should be made to the following works: Tarsus II, pp. 77–87 Google Scholar; Lloyd, Seton, “Iraq Government Soundings at Sinjar,” Iraq VII, 1940, pp. 19 ffGoogle Scholar. (Grai Resh); Taylor, , Iraq XII, 1950, pp. 77, 95 ffGoogle Scholar. (Sakçe Gözü), p. 95, n. 2 (Esh-Sheikh), n. 3 (Judeideh); Garstang, , Prehistoric Mersin, p. 174, fig. 113Google Scholar; Hood, , AS. I, pp. 125 ffGoogle Scholar. (Tabara al Akrad); Perkins, Anne Louise, The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, SAOC. XXV, 1949 p. 57 Google Scholar (Grai Resh), p. 82 (Uqair); Burney, , AS. VIII, 1958, p. 161 Google Scholar (Malatya and Maras regions); Maxwell-Hyslop, R. et al. , “An Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul,” PEQ, 1942, fig. 1, no. 7Google Scholar (Jedeideh Jabbul); Braidwood, , OIP. LXI, Pl. 84, nos. 1, 6Google Scholar (Amuq F); von Oppenheim, Max Freiherr, Tell Halaf I, die prähistorischen Funde, Berlin, 1943, Taf. CIV, nos. 1, 3Google Scholar (Taf. XXXIII, nos. 13, 16), also p. 69, Textabb. 78, for jar form; Tobler, A. J., Excavations at Tepe Gawra, II, Philadelphia, 1948, figs. 174, 177, 240Google Scholar.

48 (a) Braidwood, R. J., Mounds in the Plain of Antioch, OIP. XLVIII, 1937 Google Scholar; Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq III, 1936, pp. 1–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Iraq IV, 1937, pp. 91–177 Google Scholar (Habur); Iraq VIII, 1947, pp. 111–159 Google Scholar (Balih): (b) Braidwood, , OIP. LXI, p. 512 Google Scholar. Burney, (AS. VIII, p. 161 Google Scholar) dates this group to Amuq F, but it would probably be more accurate to place their beginning at least in the E–F transition period, if not in Phase E (cf. OIP. LXI, pp. 512–13Google Scholar). Amuq F is in any case a long period, including as it does Uruk bevelled-rim bowls, which at all the excavated sites are later than the flint-scraped group.

49 Braidwood, , OIP. LXI, Pl. 29, no. 4, and p. 511 Google Scholar, n. 85 (from Malatya); Woolley, C. L., Carchemish II, London, 1921, Pl. 58Google Scholar c is a good illustration of the jar form.

50 Le Breton, L., “The Early Period at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations,” Iraq XIX, 1957, p. 56 Google Scholar, fig. 10, no. 16 (dated to the Uruk!). Dyson, R. H. Jr. (in Ehrich, R. W., ed.: Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, 1965, p. 224 Google Scholar) has described the earliest occurrence of Reserved Slip ware known to me, from Tall-i-Ghazir in Susiana.

50 Le Breton, L., “The Early Period at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations,” Iraq XIX, 1957, p. 56 Google Scholar, fig. 10, no. 16 (dated to the Uruk!). Dyson, R. H. Jr. (in Ehrich, R. W., ed.: Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, 1965, p. 224 Google Scholar) has described the earliest occurrence of Reserved Slip ware known to me, from Tall-i-Ghazir in Susiana.

51 See n. 30 above; in addition to the references quoted by Mrs.Ehrich, see Delougaz, P., Pottery from the Diyala Region, OIP. LXIII, 1948, Pl. 39Google Scholar b (T. Ahmar), and Robert, J. and Braidwood, Linda, “Report on Two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of Tartous,” Syria XXI, 1940, p. 216 and Pl. XXVIIGoogle Scholar, no. 1 (Simiriyan).

52 Perkins, , SAOC. XXV, fig. 12, no. 4, and pp. 99 ffGoogle Scholar.

53 Braidwood, , OIP. LXI, fig. 207, no. 9Google Scholar. I previously described this pottery as “a local copy of Amuq Brittle Orange Ware” (AS. XIII, 1963, p. 9 Google Scholar); see now Alkım, U. B., AS. XVI, 1966, p. 30 Google Scholar.

54 Koşay, H. Z., “Alaca-Höyük Çanak-Çömlekleri Üzerindeki İşaret ve Damgalar,” Belleten XXIX, 1965, pp. 1–2 Google Scholar (examples from Alaca).

55 AS. VIII, 1958, p. 164 Google Scholar, figs. 21–24. See also Koşay, H.: Pulur Kazısı, Ankara, 1964 Google Scholar. I am very grateful to Mr. Burney for permission to redraw some of his sherds for illustration here.

56 op. cit, p. 167, n. 32.

57 AS. VIII, 1958, p. 164, n. 14Google Scholar; OIP. LXI, p. 511, n. 85Google Scholar.

58 Personal communication; see also above. For similar lids, cf. Hood, , AS. I, 1951, p. 131, fig. 7, nos. 21Google Scholar a–c; OIP. LXI, fig. 282, nos. 10–12, fig. 285, nos. 1–19.

59 To some extent corroborated by the many modern villages supporting isolated groups of immigrant Kurds, Avşars, Çerkes, Greeks, Russian Turks, Armenians and others, scattered through out the Antitaurus.

60 For a bibliography see Orthmann, op. cit., passim; for discussion see Tarsus II, pp. 95–7Google Scholar, Burney, , AS. VIII, 1958, p. 195 Google Scholar.

61 Gjerstad, E., Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala, 1926 Google Scholar (Red Polished II Ware); Dikaios, P., “The Excavations at Vounous-Bellapais in Cyprus, 1931–32,” Archaeologia 88, 1942, Pl. XLVI, no. 3Google Scholar (dated about 2500–2400 B.C.).

62 Mellaart, , AS. XIII, 1963, p. 213 Google Scholar and fig. 4, no. 8; Tarsus II, pp. 95–6Google Scholar. The black-topped technique presumably derives ultimately from Predynastic Egypt, though whether it spread first to Cyprus or to the Anatolian mainland remains to be determined; cf. Amiran, R. B. K., “Connections between Anatolia and Palestine in the Early Bronze Age,” IEJ. 2, 1952, pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar; Gjerstad, op. cit., pp. 301 ff.

63 Tarsus II, fig. 285, no. 38.1821, and p. 160, no. 691 (an import from Central Anatolia in an E.B. 3 context).

64 AS. VIII, 1958, pp. 205–8Google Scholar, figs. 244–285.

65 In north Syria overfiring is one of the characteristics distinguishing this type of pottery from the earlier Reserved Slip; see Ehrich, , Jebeleh Region, p. 75 Google Scholar.

66 AS. VIII, 1958, figs. 244, 246–7, 250–1Google Scholar; see also Puglisi, S. M., “Malatya—I,” Oriens Antiquus, 3, 1964, pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar, where similar pottery from Fethiye (one of the sites discovered by Burney) is described and illustrated (Tav. XLV, 2), but attributed to the neo-Hittite period. Since other remains from the site are described as pre-Hittite, this attribution is doubly mystifying.

67 AS. XIII, 1963, pp. 213–5Google Scholar.

68 OIP. LXI, p. 521 Google Scholar; the dates are based on Rowton, M. B.: “Chronology: Ancient Western Asia;” CAH. 2nd ed., fasc. 4, pp. 23–69 Google Scholar (Vol. I, Ch. VI). A bibliography of this ware, or group of wares, will be found in Braidwood, op. cit. Tarsus II, fig. 350, no. 207 looks very similar, though it is not so described. See also Moortgat, A., Tell Chuera in nordost-Syrien, 1963 (Köln, 1965 Google Scholar), especially Abb. 35, and the review thereof by Mallowan, , Iraq XXVIII, 1966, pp. 89 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Karahöyük hafriyatı raporu, lev. XLIII, no. 3.

70 Mellaart, J., “Anatolia before c. 4000 B.C. and c. 2300–1750 B.C.;” CAH. 2nd ed., fasc. 20, p. 35 Google Scholar (Vol. I, Ch. XXIV).

71 Hama J, lower level: H. Ingholt, Rapport Préliminaire sur Sept Campagnes de Fouilles à Hama en Syrie; Det Kgl. Selskab, Videnskabernes, “Archaeologisk-kunsthistorisk Meddelelser,” III, 1, Copenhagen, 1940, p. 30, n. 4Google Scholar.

Simiriyan: Braidwood, , Syria XXI, p. 211 Google Scholar, fig. 18, nos. 4, 5, 6, 9½.

Byblos: Dunand, M., Fouilles de Byblos I; Etudes et Documents d'Archéologie, Paris, 1939, Pl. CLIV, no. 5399Google Scholar.

Ta'yinat: Braidwood, , OIP. LXI, p. 436 Google Scholar, fig. 336, nos. 3–8 (Amuq J).

72 Ugaritica IV, pp. 445–6Google Scholar, figs. 34, 35.

73 Seton-Williams, , AS. IV, 1954, pp. 156–7Google Scholar.

74 AS. IV, nos. 8, 9, 11; it is a great pity that the pottery from this survey was never published.

75 cf. Lloyd, Seton and Mellaart, James, Beycesultan I, London, 1962, p. 270, fig. F 3Google Scholar.

76 French, D. H., “Prehistoric Sites in the Göksu Valley,” AS. XV, 1965, p. 183, n. 5Google Scholar.

77 Garstang and Gurney, op. cit., p. 51 (see n. 27 above).

78 For a bibliography see Orthmann, op. cit., passim; see also n. 83 below.

79 Garelli, , Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, pp. 100–1Google Scholar.

80 Özgüç, N., “Marble Idols and Statuettes from the Excavations at Kültepe,” Belleten XXI, 1957 taf. 10–11Google Scholar, shows a prehistoric figurine from this village, now in the Kayseri Museum.

81 Eski Tomarza; Meriggi, P., Oriens Antiquus V, 1966, p. 84 Google Scholar and Tav. XXXI, fig. 49.

82 Von der Osten, , OIC. 8, pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar; see also the bibliography for Fraktin in the List of Sites, below.

83 Özgüç, T., Anatolia I, 1956, p. 69 Google Scholar and Pl. XVII, bottom row; Mellaart, , AS. XIII, 1963, p. 201 Google Scholar; cf. Orthmann, op. cit., p. 77, n. 227.

84 Özgüç, , Anatolia I, 1956, pp. 69–70 Google Scholar, and Pl. XVIII.

85 Mellaart, , AS. XIII, 1963, p. 212 Google Scholar, map, fig. 6. Like the jug from the Bulgar Maden mines, now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, this piece comes from an area with considerable zinc–lead–silver mineral reserves; see the report by Wendel, C. A., Development of the Zamanti River Zinc–Lead Mining District, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1965 Google Scholar, which mentions many old workings in the mountains directly to the south of Fraktin. Further research may improve our understanding of this apparently significant relationship between “metallic” pottery and mineral sources.

86 Mellaart, , “Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age,” AS. VII, 1957, p. 64, n. 35Google Scholar.

87 cf. Garelli, op. cit., p. 99.

88 One of the few C. Anatolian C14 dates, c. 2570 ± 250 B.C., concerns the I a phase at Alişar (No. C 183, quoted in McBurney, C. B., “Radiocarbon dating results from the Old World,” Antiquity, 101, 1952, p. 39 Google Scholar); however, the very wide range in the variation, the early date of the determination relative to the development of C14 technique, and the possibility that this was a contaminated museum specimen, all militate against putting too much faith in this isolated reading.

89 Özgüç, N., Belleten XXI, 1957, lev. 27Google Scholar; Orthmann, op. cit., Taf. 95.

90 Personal communication, during a visit to Ankara in 1962.

91 “Early Bronze Trinket Moulds,” Iraq XXVII, 1965, pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar, especially fig. 3; see also Tarsus II, Pl. 396, no. 1; Koşay, , Belleten XXIX, 1965, fig. 62Google Scholar (from Alaca Höyük); von der Osten, , OIC. 8, p. 161 Google Scholar, fig. 163 (from Troy).

92 Belleten XXI, 1957, pp. 71 ffGoogle Scholar.

93 OIP. LXI, p. 520 Google Scholar.

94 AS. VIII, p. 195 Google Scholar. Compare my fig. 13 with von der Osten, The Alishar Hüyük, 1930–32, Pt. III; OIP. XXX, 1937, Map XVIGoogle Scholar.

95 I am sorry that lack of time in Ankara prevented me from drawing out more of the plain red E.B. pottery. However, in the absence of a sufficient quantity of published stratified material to use as a guide, I have felt that it would for the most part be misleading to try to discuss the plain wares in any detail.

96 The numeration of sites follows Fig. 1; numbers in brackets after the site names indicate pottery bags and are the original survey numbers.