‘

id

y
DiatOFis HAVEN
 ax mt i oy ae en
d
Vase sidis and Baty | Breueze ‘ Ages :

ter Neer Bast ond Anatolian

oe
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2024

https://archive.org/details/chalcolithicearlO000jame
The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages
in the Near East and Anatolia
 The Chalcolithic
and Early Bronze Ages
in the Near East and Anatolia

by
JAMES MELLAART

1966
KHAYATS
Beirut
 Copyright 1966
All rights reserved
This book may not be reproduced
ether in whole or in part
without the written permission
of the Author.

published by KHAYATS
90-94, Rue Bliss, Beirut, Lebanon
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword Vii
Chronological Tables
Chapter I Introduction and Geography

PART I. SYRIA, LEBANON and PALESTINE

Chapter II The First Pottery Producing Cultures in

Syria and Palestine in the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic Periods
Chapter III North Syrian Development during the
Fourth Millennium B.C.: The Ubaid and
Uruk Periods
Chapter IV Trade and Contact with Egypt and
Mesopotamia
Chapter V The Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon
and Palestine
Chapter VI The Khirbet Kerak Ware of Syria and
North Palestine
Chapter VII The Khirbet Kerak Ware and its East
Anatolian Links DV
Chapter VIII The End of the Early Bronze Age in Pales-
tine and Syria. A Second Wave of Nomad
Semitic Invaders 91

PART II. ANATOLIA

Chapter 1X Late Chalcolithic Anatolian Cultures and

their Spread to the Aegean (c. 5000-
3200 B.C.)
Chapter X The Early Bronze Age (c. 3200-1900 B.C.)
The First Phase (E.B. 1) 121

Vv
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Chapter XI The Second Phase of the Anatolian Early
Bronze Age (E.B. 2) c. 2750-2300 B.C.
The Age of International Trade 139
Chapter XII The Third Phase of the Anatolian Early
Bronze Age (c. 2300-1900 B.C.). Indo-
European Invaders from the North.
Catastrophe and Recovery
173
Abbreviations
197
Glossary
199
Bibliography
201
Index
205
Maps
214

val
 FOREWORD

This book is written for the general reader interested in ar-

chaeology, as well as for the archacologist and culture historian. It
is, however, not a handbook meant for specialists. For this reason
the professional idiom, footnotes and an extensive bibliography
have been omitted.
Archaeological evidence is often limited to scraps of architec-
ture, a few graves and some broken pots. These fragments somewhat
optimistically constitute a “‘culture’”’ until more extensive excava-
tion, or some brilliant chance find reveals its wider, more attractive
aspects.
The period dealt with here is fully prehistoric and scarcely
any light has been shed on it by its literate and historical neighbours.
Here all source-material has been produced by archaeological
methods — surveys and excavations (legitimate or not), and the
odd chance finds. All statements about religion, language, migra-
tions, etc. are inferred or deduced from archaeological facts; none
are based on later texts.
To turn a description of three thousand years of Chalcolithic
and Early Bronze Age cultures into literature is a challenge, and
beyond the author’s ability.
Many of the illustrations are new, and repetition has been
avoided where possible. Acknowledgements must be made here to
the following persons and institutions granting permission to repro-
duce photographs: Prof. Tahsin Ozgiic, Thames & Hudson Ltd,
Messrs. J. Perrot, P. Bar-Adon and Prof. B. Mazar. The sources of

Vil
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
the line drawings are found in the list of text figures. Although the
author has in the past worked in Palestine, his special field is Ana-
tolian prehistory and he is therefore deeply indebted to his
colleagues further south who have kept him up-to-date on their
progress through offprints and publications. Tribute is due to all
these and many others, not specifically mentioned, who have
helped in this work.

Istanbul, Turkey JAMES MELLAART

May, 1963

Viil
 Chalcolithic)
NYA CILICIAN PONTIC
AIN PLAIN REGION

M.

‘ux II | CILICIAN
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND GEOGRAPHY

In these days of ever-increasing specialisation it could be con-

sidered rash to attempt this book, which deals with a vast area of the
Near East, three millennia of cultural development in most varied
conditions, plus numerous far-reaching invasions. To present all
this in detail would require volumes, and more knowledge of the
Near East than this writer claims. Much hard labour remains
to be done before we can hope to see how cultural developments in
one country affected those of another. Had this book been written
twenty years ago, its area would have been entirely different: Egypt
and Mesopotamia would have held the most prominent places.
The fact that a volume on the Chalcolithic and the Early
Bronze Ages of the Near East can be written without including
these two countries, indicates the radical changes that have taken
place in Near Eastern archaeology since World War II. It is not
the intention here to minimise the cultural achievements of Egypt
or Mesopotamia. Far from it; they alone have produced literate
civilisations during the Early Bronze Age, and in art and architec-
ture outstripped anything attempted by their neighbours. It is for
this reason that their achievement is better known and more widely
publicised. Anyone can walk into a bookshop and buy a book on
Ancient Egypt or Sumer, but when we turn to Anatolia, Syria or
Palestine, the general reader is less fortunate. Professor Albright’s
Archaeology of Palestine is easily available, but does not deal in detail
with the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages; Dr. K. Kenyon’s
Archaeology in the Holy Land is more detailed and up-to-date, bu

Bronze Ages — I
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
both volumes are limited to Palestine, which is only a small part of
a larger geographical area. This area includes Lebanon and Syria,
stretching from the Taurus Mountains in Turkey to the Arabian
Desert and Red Sea. Prof. K. Bittel’s Grundziige zur Vorgeschichte
Anatoliens (1950), Prof. A. Goetze’s Kleinasien (1956) and Mr. Seton
Lloyd’s Early Anatolia (1953) are all out-of-date as many new sites
have been found and excavated since these books were written.
From recent research it would appear that Egypt’s and Meso-
potamia’s role in civilising their more barbarous neighbours was —
at least during the period which concerns this book — considerably
overrated. Even in Syria, west and southwest of the Euphrates,
where one would expect Mesopotamian influence to be strongest,
local traditions and peculiarities persisted during periods when
Mesopotamia exerted its strongest influence. Future excavation
in Syria is likely to produce still stronger evidence of such local
elements. Mesopotamian influence on Anatolian culture was
hardly noticeable until the Accadian period, about 2300 B.C. How-
ever, it remained strictly regional and restricted, even during
the early second millennium B.C.
The once popular theory that the Caucasus was the home of
early metallurgy is now abandoned. Present evidence indicates
that Anatolia taught the Caucasus and not vice versa. The earliest
metal objects found in the Near East come from regions not even
remotely connected with the Caucasus, where no single object of
metal is yet known that can be safely dated earlier than ca. 2600
B.C.
Such considerations allow one to concentrate here on cultural
developments in Anatolia, Syria and Palestine. Due reference will
subsequently be made to Egypt and Mesopotamia.

GEOGRAPHY AND EXPLORATION,

Anatolia and Syria, along with Palestine, have been described

as land-bridges, the first between Asia and Europe, the second

2
 Introduction and Geography
between Mesopotamia and Egypt. These terms are useful only if
we consider these countries as paths of communication and do not
associate this definition with cultural transfusions from Mesopota-
mia or Iran to Europe or Egypt. While the Amanus and the Taurus
mountains neatly define the boundary between Anatolian, Syrian
and Mesopotamian cultural areas, there is no geographical boundary
between Syria and Mesopotamia.
The ranges of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon (ancient Labnan
and Sharyan) divide the North Syrian plain from the South Syrian
uplands (with Palestine and Jordan). Here the division is much
less definite than that between the Anatolian Plateau and the
Syrian Plain. A coastal range with a narrow plain, conveniently
broken south of Antioch by the mouth of the Orontes, near Tripoli,
and by the plain of Esdraelon, stretches from the Amanus mountains
to south of Mt. Carmel. It then widens into the coastal] plain of Pales-
tine and continues as uplands into the Sinai Desert. Communication
along the coast is possible. However, a more obvious route follows
the great rift valley starting as Wadi Araba from the Gulf of Akaba
to the Dead Sea. From the Dead Sea through the Jordan, Litani,
the Beqaa and Orontes Valleys, it continues its course along the
Amuq Plain, the Karasu Valley up to Maras, with a northeast
extension up to the edge of the Malatya Plain on the Anatolian
Plateau.
A third route lies to the east of the rift, over the North Syrian
Plain, skirting the main range of Anti-Lebanon via Nebk to the
oasis of Damascus, then through the rolling Leja to the Jordanian
uplands. This area is open to infiltration by nomads from the
Syrian and Arabian desert, but appears — at least south of the
Jabbul lake (south of Aleppo) — to have been the least favoured
by early settlers. Only to the north of the desert, where the
Euphrates runs north-south, do we find continuous settlement
between the Amanus and the river. This can be followed up to the
gorge of the Euphrates in the Taurus Mountains.

a
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Therefore Syria and Palestine are exposed to contact by land
with Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the desert and Egypt. Their long
coastlines favoured maritime exploration, which curiously does not
seem to have appealed to the coast dwellers until later. The Egyp-
tians probably initiated the sea-trade by going to Byblos in search of
timber. Among the thousands of pots found on coastal sites such
as Byblos and Ugarit, not a single one shows so much as a graffito
of a ship.
Archaeological exploration of this large area has been most
uneven. Palestine and Jordan are comparatively well-explored but
Lebanon is not. A good survey of the Beqaa is highly desirable,
for this valley is the link between Palestine and the Orontes Valley.
Syria is the least explored country of all. Although the Orontes
Valley abounds with archaeological sites, only its northern end, the
Amuq Plain, is fairly well-known. Even less is known about the
densely settled parts round Aleppo and Gaziantep, this in spite
of archaeological surveys. Few excavations in Syria have penetrated
beyond late third millennium levels. Similarly southern Syria, in
the Damascus and Jebel Druze area, is an unknown entity during
this early period.
When we think of Syria and Palestine in this remote prehistoric
era, we must consider the results of years of overgrazing, which
have reduced much of the wood and grassland to semi-desert. The
coastal districts must have had a lush vegetation. This may be the
reason why the great alluvial valleys were preferred by a predomi-
nantly agricultural population. Besides agriculture, stock-breeding
must have played an important role in the early economy. Then, as
now, we can imagine shepherds and nomads on the edge of the
desert and the cultivated land and in marginal territories like the
Negeb, as well as in the uplands and plains.
The fauna was more varied than now. There were leopards
and lions, wolves and hyenas, gazelles, antelopes and fallow deer;
bears in the mountains and hippopotami in the coastal plain of

4
 Introduction and Geography
Palestine. In North Syria elephants and onagers (wild asses) were
numerous.
The mountains of Lebanon and Amanus supplied excellent
building material: Aleppo pine, cedar, box-wood, etc. From the
early fourth millennium onwards, these were exported to Egypt
and probably also to lower Mesopotamia.
Other natural resources included salt, bitumen, sulphur, ivory
(Syria) and some mineral deposits. Copper could be found in Wadi
Feinan (Biblical Punon), southeast of the Dead Sea, and also at
Jebel Hass, south of Aleppo. Some silver may have been available
in the Lebanon, but it was more common in the Taurus Mountains,
which also supplied gold near Adiyaman. Oil and perfumes were
important items of export to Egypt and no doubt were widely used
throughout these countries.
Cilicia, as a neighbour of North Syria, maintained closer
contact with the south and east than other Anatolian areas isolated
on the plateau behind the Taurus Mountains. Except in this area,
no early Anatolian cultures are found on the Mediterranean littoral
of Turkey. Two main routes through the Taurus link Cilicia to the
plateau; the Calycadnus Valley and the Cilician Gates. Both routes
lead to the Konya Plain, the largest open plain on the Anatolian
plateau and the richest in prehistoric sites. West of this grassland,
the bold sweep of the Taurus Mountains is broken into five separate
ranges, pointing south-west like the fingers of a hand. These enclose
numerous small plains and valleys, also a series of magnificent
lakes. The lake district of Southwestern Anatolia forms a second
cultural province which reaches into the western valleys of Maean-
der and Hermos, natural routes to the Aegean coast.
South of the Maeander in the Carian coastlands facing the
Cyclades, the scattered remains of prehistoric occupation may be
seen. From Samos northwards, the offshore islands are linked cul-
turally to the coast and inland valleys of lowland northwestern
Anatolia. The Carian and northwestern Anatolian cultures faced

5
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
the sea and were strongly maritime, due to the scarcity of
hinterland.
Another cultural province lies along the south and east sides
of the Sea of Marmora. The region of Bursa and Iznik (classical
Nicaea), was connected by an ancient trade-route with the basin
of the Sakarya River, the heart of ancient Phrygia on the plateau.
Beyond this, to the east, lies the hilly region of Ankara, another
centre of local, though provincial culture. To the south of Ankara
a central depression of arid waste was tribal land until recently.
This ends in the semi-desert area surrounding the Great Salt Lake
or Tuz Géolii and roughly divides the northern cultures from their
southern neighbours.
To the east, mainly within the great bend of the Kizil Irmak
(the “red river” and the Halys of the ancients) lies the vast area of
Central Anatolian cultures. Their separate identities are not yet
clearly distinguished. Eastward these cultures extend to the water-
shed of the Euphrates, beyond which Eastern Anatolia begins.
Southwest, they reach to the end of the Konya Plain, and north to
the foot of the Pontic Mountains. This central area is mountainous
and wooded, but contains very fertile parts. Between this area
and the Black Sea a further cultural group, the Pontic, straddles
the only route to the north coast. It is located partly on the Anato-
lian Plateau, near Merzifon and Amasya, partly in the lowland
valley of the Yesil Irmak (Iris), and on the coast between Sinop
and Ordu. The latter is the only stretch of Anatolian Black Sea
coast where prehistoric occupation can be found.
Further east lie the high plateaus of Eastern Anatolia, great
barren blocks of mountains hemmed in by the ranges of Taurus and
Pontus. ‘They are broken by the upper courses of the Euphrates and
Araxes. It is a cold, barren and desolate land, beautiful, yet for-
bidding. Pastures abound, but agricultural land is restricted to the
depressions; the Van Basin, the plains of Mus, Elazig, Malatya,
Erzincan, Erzerum and Kars and the valley of the Araxes.

6
 Introduction and Geography
Culturally and archaeologically the area looks east towards
Transcaucasia. With the latter it forms a single geographical
unit.
Communications in Anatolia run mainly in an east-to-west
direction. Few natural routes are to be found through the surround-
ing ranges to the north or south coast. Generally the population
and cultural centres in Anatolia were on the plateau, except for
the northwest coast, where the population was predominantly
maritime. The early Anatolians were mainly agrarian since the
plateau soils were easily workable. They were not liable to seasonal
floods nor overburdened with luxurious growth. Sheep, goats, cattle
and pigs were herded over the rich pasture country. Anatolia pos-
sessed the richest natural resources in the Near East. No other land
had been so well endowed by nature with timber, minerals,
stones and metal ores. It was a country rich in copper and silver,
although gold and electrum also existed. Iron was plentiful, although
not yet fully exploited in the periods with which we are concerned.
Tin, however, had to be imported. The exploitation of these metal
resources was aided by the plentiful supplies of wood for smelting.
All these resources made Anatolia the leading metal producer of
the Early Bronze Age.
 wot the Ele
nagaCass
kie: .
poaaty Puc:anthe ered iFis inewad
puaniy ont ols Auda
a Mee aes Maia ed Foes ioelv = the babe
tekry ci cha Voud Wins ee eaal two's -eame ‘rope
oh tej, Thre lester: be thy GR Werynch uf Aleemdii
_ eee!
on Bich Gy
= Tiree aerate we Dele: a
tertent ane Gr ioe ‘ti? SMD <i?Taa
m
MaTW Stina ef pe(wentadies IemnigedlMeReedhe Maal amas
‘lee OTs agell
Wane. Mey ase tte Sy he “yiper
nies of iy Begiaakedl
Vals 0 © 4 o> boeee ae Senter Mie, yi tlfak f=
Metis, 8 ors woos, tt agstoeiunaldand 12Centric toste
 PAR

SYRIA, LEBANON AND PALESTINE

 CHAPTER II

THE FIRST POTTERY PRODUCING

CULTURES IN SYRIA AND PALESTINE IN
THE NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC
PERIODS

Recent archaeological research in the Near East has shown

conclusively that, during the Neolithic Period, Syria, Lebanon and
Palestine formed a wide cultural province. This was distinct from
its neighbours, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and more closely related
to Anatolia.
During the early Neolithic Period wood or skin vessels were
used instead of pottery. Even then the stone tools, especially weap-
ons, such as daggers, javelins and arrowheads, show marked resem-
blances from Anatolia to Palestine. South of the Taurus Mountains,
these were made mainly in flint, whereas on the Anatolian Plateau
obsidian, a black volcanic glass, predominated. Trade relations
were established at an early date and from 8300 B.C. onwards flint
was sent north and obsidian as far south as Jericho. The importance
of this trade can hardly be over-estimated. It probably accounted
for the wealth of such cities as Gatal Hiiyiik, in Anatolia, and Jericho.
This affluence could hardly be explained by advanced agriculture
or intensified hunting.
In the later phases of the Neolithic Period pottery came into
common use and spread south along the same trade-route. Although
the distances involved were by no means great, the technical com-
petence necessary to make a good pot took time to acquire. This,

9
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
added to local conservatism, may account for the disparity in
dates between the north and south in the adoption of pottery.
The earliest known pottery is found in Anatolia ca. 6700 B.C.
Its use did not become common until half a millennium later (ca.
5900 B.C.). From there it spread southwards to Cilicia and North
Syria, where its first appearance can be dated near 6000 B.C. By
about 5800 B.C. at the earliest, it had reached Byblos (Fig.1); but
no pottery in Palestine can be dated earlier than 5500 B.C. In
Egypt, the earliest settlement in which pottery was used, that of
Fayum ‘‘A’’, is dated about 4500 B.C.
From Anatolia to Lebanon, the Damascus Basin and the
uplands above Lake Huleh in Northern Palestine, we find hand-
made pottery, usually dark in colour and finely burnished. It ap-
pears in simple globular or rounded shapes and belongs to the same
group originating in Anatolia, although there are local variations,
especially in decoration. It is only in the varied forms of decoration
that each group shows local peculiarities. On the Anatolian Plateau
the pottery is seldom decorated (most of the pots are buried up to
the rim in the ground). In Cilicia and North Syria the rims were
frequently ornamented with shell impressions. The vessels of a
slightly later period in North Syria are often pattern-burnished,
leaving dark designs on a light ground. In Early Neolithic Byblos,
shell impressions cover the greater part of the pot (Fig.l, top row);
this changes to incised decoration in the middle Neolithic stage
(Fig.l, middle row).
Everywhere this pottery is called Neolithic, and the earliest
pottery — for instance at Byblos — still shows strong links with its
northern ancestral home. This derivation is further emphasized by
the accompanying stone industry and the “pebble figurines” (Fig.2,
from Byblos and Hacilar in Anatolia). In southern offshoots
of the Byblos Neolithic such figurines worked their way to
Palestine along with the pottery known as Yarmukian (Fig.3,
second row left).

10
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
This also is known as “Neolithic”, but soon after the first
Neolithic pottery reached Byblos (ca. 5800 B.C.) different cultures
had already developed further north, in Anatolia and North Syria.

a
T
e

Figure 1 — Neolithic pottery from Byblos: top: Early Neolithic, shell im-
pressed dark ware; middle row: Middle Neolithic, coarsely incised; bottom:
Late Neolithic, coarse red ware. (after M. Dunanp, in Bulletin du Musée de
Beyrouth, 1955, 1961.)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

FicurE 2 — Two Early Neolithic pebble figurines from Byblos and a com-
parable incised stone slab from Hacilar VI (c. 5600 B.C.), in western Anatolia.
(after M. Dunanp, in Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, 1955, 1961-)

There the potters had learned to produce a light-coloured ware

which they decorated with patterns in red paint. Other technologi-
cal advances included the first production of metal, mainly copper,
and these cultures are henceforth labelled “‘Chalcolithic”, denoting
the use of both copper and stone. The Chalcolithic Age then, is
characterised by the first appearance of painted pottery cultures
from Anatolia to western Iran. They were familiar with the first
processes of copper production, although little has survived.
The first use of metal spread southward almost as slowly as
the use of pottery. The delay was due to the lack of local ore and
technical incompetence, plus the lack of wealth to import the
former. Painted pottery also was slow to spread south of the line
from Ras Shamra to Aleppo, and the old traditional dark wares
continued to be made.

12
 Syria and Palestine before 3500

Ficure 3 — Pottery of the “neolithic” period from Palestine. Top row:

Jericho IX or pottery-neolithic A; middle row: Yarmukian, and on right, Wadi
Rabah type pottery from Jericho; bottom: painted pottery from Ghrubba.
(after J. GarsTANG, Story of Jericho; K. WHEELER, The Walls of Jericho; M.
Srexeuis in JE7, I, and J. Metitaartr in ADA, III.)

13
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Ce
Ee ee

“ 5m.
Ficure 4 — Superimposed remains of round houses and kilns of the Halaf
period at Yunus, near Carchemish.
(modified from Iraq, 1, 2.)
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
Therefore, it is difficult to draw a line between the Neolithic
and the Chalcolithic Periods in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
In this book we have compromised by choosing the Halaf Period,
starting about 5000 B.C., as the beginning of the Chalcolithic
Period. In northern terminology, the Halaf Period represents
the Middle Chalcolithic Period in Mesopotamia and Cilicia
and the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic in Anatolia. There,
a Middle Chalcolithic is not actually recognisable and the
Late follows the Early Chalcolithic immediately. In the Byblos
sequence, this Halaf Period equals the Middle Neolithic Period
and in Palestine it includes the painted pottery culture of Jericho
IX (Fig.3, top rows) and the Yarmukian, which is derived from
the Byblos Middle Neolithic (Fig.3, second row, left). Some wares
are decorated with incised patterns on a red-washed ground.
From the Palestinian point of view, the use of the term Chal-
colithic, implying the first use of copper, is not really justified until
the later group of cultures (Wadi Rabah, Jericho VIII, Shuna and
Ghrubba) (Fig. 3 below) belonging to the 4th millennium B.C.

THE HALAF CULTURE.

Towards the beginning of the 5th millennium B.C., there

appeared somewhere in North Mesopotamia, the tentative begin-
nings of a new painted pottery culture. It grew and developed,
eventually producing some of the most aesthetically outstanding
ceramic products along the Fertile Crescent. This famous Tell Halaf
Culture, named after a site on the present Turko-Syrian border
near Ras el Ain, had a distribution far greater than any of its
neighbours or predecessors. It stretched over the vast Mesopotamian
Plain, from the foothills of the Zagros to the Euphrates at Carche-
mish, and beyond. Hugging the Turko-Syrian border, its northern
perimeter is still undefined, but it appears to have included the
regions of Diyarbakir and Adiyaman.
The main area of distribution for the Tell Halaf culture lay

15
Bronze Ages — 2
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

south of the Taurus, but its influence was felt even on the Anatolian
Plateau. This influence pervaded the regions of Malatya and Tilki-
tepe on the eastern shores of Lake Van. The latter site, which has
produced excellent Halaf pottery, was probably a commercial out-
post, established there for the trade in obsidian. Perhaps the Halaf
culture arrived in the Malatya region through the fact that this
area produced not only copper, but silver and gold, as we know
from later Mesopotamian sources. The Halaf culture is the first
in North Mesopotamia in which we find some scanty evidence for
the production of metal vessels. Many of the Halaf pottery shapes
show profiles which no potter would have normally produced unless
he were competing with the metalsmith for the market. The finest
products of the Halaf Culture are later, and mostly confined to the
easternmost area of its distribution. The great polychrome plates
with rosette and other highly aesthetic patterns, are found only at
Arpachiyah and Tepe Gawra, northeast and east of Mosul. Their
date is unlikely to be much earlier than the last centuries of the fifth
millennium. The more western products of this remarkable culture
are less sensational, although always attractive.
With a distribution as vast as that of the Halaf culture, more
than one main centre of pottery production can be established.
Arpachiyah and Tepe Gawra represent the most eastern, Tell Halaf
the more central and Carchemish on the west bank of the Euphrates
in Syria, the most western production centres. In time, it may be
possible to distinguish further centres, for the entire north is still
virtually terra incognita.
In spite of local variations, the underlying unity of the Halaf
culture is clear; cream bowls are found from Tilkitepe to Mersin,
as are bucrania (bulls’ heads), textile patterns, and dots surrounded
by circles (leopard spots). The use of a lustrous paint slightly
vitrified in firing, plus the additional use of white paint are standard
everywhere and easily recognisable.
Round houses built of pisé (formless lumps of puddled clay)

16
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
on strong stone foundations are characteristic. Each house had
a rectangular ante-room. Although these are best known from the
eastern site of Arpachiyah, others were found at Carchemish (Fig.4)
and Tell Turlu near Nizib in recent excavations. Grain was stored
in deep bell-shaped pits and hearths were found in the houses
which were built of mudbrick in the-west. Kilns for firing pottery
were discovered at Carchemish and some of this Western Halaf
pottery is shown in Fig.5. Besides lustrous paint, a mat paint was
also in use there; this usually serves as a criterion to distinguish
true Halaf from local imitations west of the Euphrates in general
and in the Amugq and Cilicia in particular.
The influence of this gaily patterned pottery on North Syria
was considerable. The patterns and technique were copied, mainly
on local shapes, in Cilicia, the westernmost point of its zone of
influence. In the Amuq Plain the influence was even stronger;
although imports were few, local imitations made up for originals,
and Halaf-inspired pottery formed half of the total bulk of the
pottery in period C. The remaining half consisted of the local dark
burnished ware, including pattern-burnished vessels, jars and bowls
with flared collars (Fig.5, below). These Halaf shapes were probably
of metallic origin.
Halaf imports and influence reached the coast at the beginning
of Ras Shamra Period IV and increased in the second half (Fig.5,
below left). These local western products are less spectacular than
the true Halaf wares. Features appeared which soon led to a distinct
local style, that of Amuq D and Ugarit III, 1, at a time which is
probably contemporary with late Halaf in the east. Bichrome
painted wares are now made (Fig.6, 2), often with very attractive
forms and designs, but knowledge of these is still limited. At the
same time red washed, red painted and plain wares appeared
in which a jar with ‘‘bow rim” and two loop handles on the neck
or body (Fig.6: 3-7) is characteristic. Pedestalled vessels were
another innovation. This is a shape known at Tell Halaf itself,

Py
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Ky

ANNY

‘Vnses ~ we,

FicurE 5 — North Syrian pottery of the Halaf period ; above line

from
Yunus near Carchemish; below left, one vase from Ras Shamra, rest
Amuq C,
painted or burnished wares.
(after S. Dirvana, in Belleten, 1944 ; C. ScHAEFFER, Ugaritica, 1; R.J.
Brarp-
woop, OJP, LXI, 1960.)

18
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
which evidently came from the east. However, it is in North Syria
that it became popular, in the Amuq at Tell Judeideh and Tell
Kurdu, at Ras Shamra and at Huwayiz in the Ghab (Orontes

StH
pa CMOS IMO Sta
Kamcit diy
onl,ay ah, ee
a an mo

ne

Latee"
KKK

|
DEEL
SSE AS

Ficure 6 — Painted Amuq D or Tell Kurdu wares. N° 2 from Tell Kurdu;

4 from site west of Idlib; 1, 3, 5-7 from Huwayiz (Ghab).
(after OJP, LXI, 1960 and chance finds.)

“9
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Valley). At Mersin, bow-rim jars occur in Level XVII and to the
south the jars occur in Middle Neolithic Byblos, with the typical
handles of Late Neolithic times at the same site. In each case the
chronological setting preceded the appearance of rather impover-
ished painted pottery, known as Ubaid, which reached North Syria
probably soon after the beginning of the fourth millennium B.C.
It is at this point that we must return to Palestine.

PALESTINE DURING THE UBAID PERIOD}; NEWCOMERS FROM THE

Norra.

The overthrow of the Halaf culture in the north by southern

Mesopotamians was marked by violence at several sites. Signs of
disturbance appear at roughly the same time in Cilicia, and North
Syria must have felt repercussions from these events.
It is at approximately this time that the arrival of new northern
elements in Palestine can be traced. They were linked very closely
(as G.E. Wright has noted )with the D pottery of the Amuq. This
ware, known as “‘Jericho VIII’, is probably seen best in the pottery
of Tell Shuna I, renamed by H. de Contenson, Shuna ware. Its
distribution is virtually confined to the Jordan valley (see Map I)
and Tell Farah. The same applies to the painted Ghrubba pottery,
which has close affinities to the Shuna wares and is probably its
contemporary. It is possible that the Jericho IX pottery also
belongs to this same period, though it lacks the marked bow-rim
jars. Another member of the same family, differing in decoration,
but with the same characteristic shapes, is the Wadi Rabah
pottery. It was distributed over the coastal plain of Palestine and
the Plain of Esdraelon.
Associated with these cultures is a stone industry, poor in types
(no arrowheads) and showing nothing really new. There are un-
substantial dwellings, some built of bun-shaped bricks on
stone
foundations with a rectangular plan, while others are
circular

20
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
and subterranean. Pits are a common feature of the culture. These
subterranean round houses may derive from the round buildings
of North Syria. The character of the settlements in the Jordan
Valley is semi-nomadic or transitory. Characteristic of this Shuna I
pottery are bow-rim jars with loop handles, flattened and widened
at the base (Fig.6: 3-7). Hemispherical or slightly carinated bowls
and jars with slightly bulbous necks and everted rims are also typical.
Pots, pedestals and bases with mat imprints occur in the same types
as those which characterise the red-washed ware of Tell Kurdu
(Amuq D) and its cognates. The decoration of this ware also is
clearly derivative in the Shuna I pottery. A few pieces with bi-
chrome painting in red and black on white have come from the
bottom layers of Tell Abu Habil. Usually it is decorated with red
bands, wavy bands, chevrons and vertical splashes. Raised scale
patterns are found and some nail impressions now appear for the
first time.
The Ghrubba pottery, simple though varied in shape, bears
patterns in red or brown on a buff-white ground. The motifs are
simple with affinities both in the Yarmukian, the Jericho IX and
the North Syrian wares (Fig. 3; 15 bottom row). The Wadi Rabah
also produced red and black polished pottery with incised and
combed nail impression and herringbone patterns (cf. Fig.3: 13-14).
The same motifs are found in painting at this site.
In many respects pottery of this second phase continues earlier
traditions though connections with North Syria and perhaps even
Cilicia can be established, and there probably was an influx of
semi-nomadic newcomers from the north. The Shuna I pottery occurs
at the base of a number of large mounds in the northern Jordan
Valley (e.g. Tell Shuna, Beisan, Farah) which were then settled for
the first time. Little is known about the culture’s end; only at Tell
Abu Habil is there some evidence that it developed into Ghassulian.
The use of painted bands of red continued; vertical lugs became
more common, but the change was gradual. It is possible that Tell

QI
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Abu Habil shows the amalgamations of two different elements.
Even the uppermost layers at this site showed no cornets which can
be dated to the 33rd century B.C. Making due allowance for the
Ghassulian occupation with three strata, the Shuna Period would
end somewhere around 3500 B.C. Its beginning is still a matter of
uncertainty. Compared to its southern neighbour, the Beersheba-
Ghassulian Culture (the beginning of which is dated to the 4th
millennium B.C.) it is definitely less advanced. It lacked all the
more sophisticated features that this culture displayed.

Tue BEERSHEBA- GHASSULIAN CULTURE.

In the absence of other remains at the sites of the earlier

cultures, pottery is the main feature by which they have been
judged. It is therefore a relief to be able to describe the Beersheba
culture more fully. It has already been vividly illustrated through
the work of J. Perrot and his collaborators.
Hitherto, the bearers of these cultures have been but shadowy
figures. They were makers of pots or bone and stone tools, not
creatures of flesh and blood. Since their graves have not been
found, their burial habits are unknown.
In the Beersheba-Ghassulian culture, however, graves are
known, and from the skeletons it is obvious that the population
was already mixed. Two different strains were present: probably
a native Mediterranean type with a long head, delicate features
and graceful appearance; and a second Armenoid (or East Anato-
lian) type with a short broad skull, long straight nose in line with
the forehead and abundant hair. It is these people who are pictured
in their ivories. This is the first appearance of brachycephalic
elements in Palestine and these people were evidently newcomers.
The two groups practised different burial rites: the Mediter-
raneans were either buried in a contracted position, or somewhat
carelessly put away in disused silos. The East Anatolians on the

22
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
other hand, practised secondary burial. After the flesh had decayed
the long bones were collected and placed against the wall of a
funerary chamber with the skullon top. Ata later date, in the coastal

FicureE 7 — Ghassulian ossuaries in the form of houses.

(after J. PERROT, in Atigot, III and W.F. Avsricut, The Archaeology of Palestine.)

23
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

VTVVUITy
VY
VV Ao ©

Ficure 8 — Ghassulian pottery.

(after J. PERRoT, in Atigot, III and Pére A. MALLON Teleilat Ghassul.)

24
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
plain, the bones were placed in an ossuary, a clay box in the form
of a house or animal (Fig.7; Plates I-II). This was set on a ledge
in a funeral cave, often artificially hollowed out in the soft rock
of the country.
It would appear that the bearers of this culture were of a semi-
nomadic stock which had migrated into the northern Negeb near
Beersheba during the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. They
settled in an area with poor soil for agriculture, upon the edges of
the Sinai Desert. Their marginal position was fraught with danger
and finally abandoned about 3150 B.C. after the settlements had
passed through three successive phases of building.
The six settlements of the Beersheba Group, which extended
for a few miles along the bank of the Wadi es-Sab, seem to have
formed an independent social and economic unit numbering
between 500 and 1000 inhabitants. Each settlement, comprising
from fifteen to twenty dwellings with a population not in excess of
200 people, shows a certain degree of industrial specialisation.
Ivory and soft stone were carved at Safadi, for example, and there
was copper-working at Abu Matar.
From the very beginning stock-breeding was the predominant
occupation. The populace kept sheep, goats, small cattle and dogs,
but pigs were rare. At one settlement, Khirbet Bitar, they hunted
gazelles, but hunting was a minor pursuit, since arrowheads were
not found. To supplement their food, they grew emmer and einkorn
wheat, two-row barley and lentils. The grain was reaped with
sickles of flint and sifted in straw sieves. One of the sieves has
miraculously survived in the cave of Wadi Mishmar near Engedi
above the Dead Sea. The grain was ground on saddle querns,
parched in ovens and stored in baskets or in bell-shaped grain
pits covered with flat stones at floor-level.
The discovery of churns suggests the making of butter. Their
shapes, imitating skin containers of a type still in use among the

a9
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Bedouin, are a characteristic feature of this once semi-nomadic
culture (Fig.8, Pl. V).
The dwellings of these people were peculiar. In this strange
country, extremely hot during the summer day, chilly at night and
at all times exposed to sandstorms, subterranean houses were made
by burrowing as deep as five metres into the soft loess of the wadi
side. Their first houses were rectangular rooms opening onto a
horizontal passage cut into the wadi terrace. In the soft soil, rectan-
gular rooms did not keep their shape for long. Round or oval rooms
soon took their place, interconnected by tunnels and entered
through a vertical shaft or a flight of steps (P]. IIIa). At Safadi,
rooms are grouped around a hall, measuring ten by three metres,
which may have served as a communal or ceremonial hall (Pl.
IV). At Khirbet Bitar only one subterranean house was found.
These structures were provided with basins and hearths. They
had bell-shaped silos below the floor (plate Va), and we know
they were lit by lamps.
At a later date, when the subterranean dwellings had col-
lapsed, round and oval houses were built in the hollows thus formed
on the surface. These houses were built of mud-brick on stone
foundations and had flat roofs at surface-level made of tree
trunks and earth (Pl. Vb). Still others were built in the same
way above the surface.
Numerous mat impressions on pots show that weaving was
widely practised. Spindle-whorls, loomweights and wool-combs
are found in every settlement, so it is likely that the floors of the
buildings were covered with mats.
The pottery (Fig. 8, Pls. VI-VII) of this culture is distinctive, but
it has a utilitarian flavour and cannot be called beautiful. Small
bowls, often painted with red bands round the lip (asin the Shuna I
culture) served as cups, with coarser vessels for lamps. Larger
bowls probably contained food. Storage jars and cooking pots are
of the hole-mouth type, having small, vertically placed lugs for

26
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
tying on covers of cloth or skin (Pl. VII). This was a necessary
precaution in a dusty country, filled with flies and ants. Pottery
lids were unknown. It is obvious that such small lugs were not
strong enough, nor would it be practical to suspend a storage jar,
often two feet high and full of food. Where suspension is intended,
as in one of the ubiquitous churns (Pl. VI), very stout handles
were made. Other vessels had sieves in the spouts suggesting the
preparation of drinks that needed straining. Large storage vessels
with open spouts suggest liquid contents.
At the end of the Ghassulian Period a highly characteristic
vessel appeared, called the cornet, which was frequently painted
(Fig.8). A ceremonial use is suggested by its shape of a bull’s horn
and it may have been used as a rhyton for pouring libations.
Except for red bands, painting is not a common form of orna-
ment on this pottery, especially in the late phase. Far more common
are finger impressions, rope decoration, plastic bands, combing
and simple incision.
Vessels set on a hollowed-out pedestal are characteristic of this
culture. They have been called incense burners, but traces of burn-
ing are not usually apparent. They may have served a ritual pur-
pose, or they may have been generally useful as small ‘‘tables”’
for people who ate seated on the floor (Fig. 9). They are undoubtedly
related to, if not pottery copies of, the pedestalled basalt bowls
which appear frequently in sets of three in the Beersheba culture
(Pl. VIII). A pedestalled bowl is accompanied by two truncated
conical bowls without pedestal. They are frequently ornamented
with incised and hatched triangles on the interior of the rim, in
numbers which are generally a multiple of seven (Fig. 9). Others
are decorated on the outside with patterns derived from basketry
(Fig.9). The basalt used was brought from the highlands east of
the Jordan River. These bowls were but one product of a highly
developed stone industry. Numerous pear-shaped mace-heads
were also made, some in hematite, a black iron ore, others in

27
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
veined limestone or in a soft local limestone painted with red vertical
bands. Still others were already produced in pure copper, obtained
from malachite ores. These were mined in Wadi Feinan (biblical
Punon), a hundred kilometers east of Beersheba in the hills east
of the Wadi Araba, southeast of the Dead Sea. In the coppersmith’s
workshop at Abu Matar, a metal working centre, the malachite
ore was pulverised on flint anvils and smelted in earthen furnaces,
after a reduction with charcoal. Primitive bellows must have
produced the necessary temperatures. After refining in crucibles,
the copper was poured into open moulds for the manufacture of
tools: awls, punches, points, chisels, flat axes, hoes, mace-heads
and jewellery. The products display a high degree of technical
skill.
The Beersheba people wore narrow loincloths and garments
fastened with pins of bone and ivory. Black, green and red face
and eye paints were used. As in Egypt, they were a necessity in this
hot, dry climate and were crushed on flat polished marble palettes
of rectangular shape. Articles of jewellery were numerous: bracelet
s
of stone and ivory, beads of frit or faience, Red Sea and Nile
Valley
shells, pendants of mother-of-pearl, bone, ivory and turquois
e were
popular. Many of these materials could be obtained only
by trade.
Two ivory pins with terminals have been unearthed, one
in the
shape of a bird, the other in the form of a female figurine.
A series of remarkable ivory figurines was found,
complete
with work-bench, including a copper tool in a bone
handle (PI.
VIII b). Nearby lay the raw material consisting of
an elephant’s
tusk. The figurines, both male and female (Pls. IX-XI
) up to 13
inches in height, show naked or near-naked persons
with hands at
the waist. The men are tall and thin, while the women
are slender
with small breasts, and exaggerated stomach, enormous navel
and a strongly marked pubic triangle, but no steatopygy. The
fingers and toes are delicately carved and special
care is bestowed
on the heads. The eyes are frequently inlaid and
rows of holes in

28
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
the jaw and head served for the attachment of beard and hair (Pl.
IX). One woman’s head has the hair gathered on top, falling
down in a pony-tail; a bird-headed pin crowns the coiffure (P1.
X). Other ivory carvings include a hippopotamus head, an

Ficure 9 — Ghassulian stone vessels and their pottery copies (two top rows)
and imitations in Esdraelon ware (two bottom rows).
(after J, Perrot, in Archaeology, 12; M. Doruan, in Atigot, Il, and JE 7, VII;
Pére R. DE VAux, in RB, 1949, and OJP, St. to.)

29
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
animal which during this period was still a native of the coastal
plain of Palestine; a bell-shaped object with a snake-like ornament,
several plaques and roundels, handles for tools and daggers and a
plaque with open-work carving.
It is thought that these figurines do not represent deities, but
rather their worshippers in a state of ritual nakedness. They
resemble a scene on a fragmentary wallpainting of a later date at
Teleilat Ghassul; there a naked figure stands in front of two seated
divinities. Sexual symbols and schematic representations of both
humans and animals suggest a fertility cult. Curious groups of
painted pebbles are placed in multiples of seven on the floors of
the dwellings. They are marked in red paint with crosses, darts,
squares, etc. perhaps suggesting ancestor worship. The archacolo-
gist is tempted to connect the basalt bowls, decorated with triangles
in multiples of seven with the above cult, the origins of which in
Palestine may go back to the remote Natufian Period. Both at
Eynan (Ain Mallaha) and at Beldibi near Antalya, on the south
coast of Turkey, we find pebbles painted or arranged in groups, in
possibly related Mesolithic cultures.
Before discussing the later development of this culture, the
classical Ghassulian IV, it is best to explore its origin.
The Beersheba culture represents an attempt by a partly
nomadic people to settle in the semi-arid zone of southern Palestine
around 3500 B.C.
This culture arrived fully fledged, complete with a high level
of food production, good pottery, developed copper-working and
stone and ivory-carving. Where had they learned these crafts
which are not normally associated with semi-nomads? How did
they come to settle in such an unlikely part of Palestine, unless they
entered from the southern end of the Dead Sea? A northern origin
is suggested by the tradition of metallurgy, plus the physical types
represented both in the ivory figurines and in the skeletal remains of
part of the population. Traditions of ivory-carving obviously came

30
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
from areas where elephant tusks were available. This was in North
Syria, according to records of elephant hunts, in the country of
Niya, near Aleppo. Copper-working in that area is a theoretical
possibility, for Jebel Hass, southeast of Aleppo, provides copper
ore and the area is suitable for a semi-nomadic existence. The
pottery displays affinity with the Shuna ware, which can be traced
back to Amuq D wares. The latter were new at that time and may
have been introduced from further north. We have no other evi-
dence for an East Anatolid-Armenoid element in the population,
but in later times such elements, probably from the east Anatolian
mountains originally, were found in this area. The population
mixture in the Beersheba culture may go back to their country of
origin, for there is no evidence that the area where they settled was
already inhabited.
The practice of secondary burial does not help us solve the
riddle of the two racial groups. Nothing is known about funerary
customs in North Syria, although secondary burial was known in
Neolithic Anatolia among the long-and short-headed people of Catal
Hiiyiik. But for the fact that the Beersheba people probably came
from the north, further definition depends on future discoveries.
The Beersheba culture was apparently confined to the north-
ern Negeb, but inits third phase (P1. XIIb), that of the houses above
ground, it spread northward. The culture expanded into the coastal
plain of Palestine and along the shores of the Dead Sea and the
lower Jordan Valley. It is from the large site of Teleilat Ghassul
(Map II) there, that this later phase, dated to the 33rd century B.C.,
takes the name of Ghassulian. It gradually spread over the rest of
Palestine to the Lebanese border, during which time other elements
from the north (the so-called Late Chalcolithic culture) were
establishing themselves — or had already done so — in northern
Palestine. Archaeological evidence suggests that on the whole, these
events were not accompanied by violence.

31

Bronze Ages — 3
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Figure 10 — Plan of part of the settlement of Tell el Ghassul (after Pére

A. Matton, Tell Ghassul, 1.)

THE GHASSULIAN CULTURE PROPER (Map II).

Their large size is often a feature of the Ghassulian settlements

in the southern Jordan Valley. The excavations at Ghassul show
that it had the character of a village (Fig.10). This is the period
called “‘proto-urban” by Dr. K. Kenyon. The step towards urban-
isation had not yet been taken, but its approach is obvious.
Houses of mud-brick on stone foundations were built on a
rectangular plan with one large and one small room. Access was
by a door set in either the narrow side or the middle of the long
room. These houses were free-standing and included a walled
courtyard.
A different type of house, built of lath and plaster on a wooden

32
 Syria and Palestine before 3500

Ficure 11 — Polychrome wall-painting from Tellel Ghassul with restora-

tion of building on the right after P. Bar-Adon. (ibid., frontispiece and JE7,
12, 1962.)

frame of posts and beams, with an arched or gabled roof (Fig.7,

Pls. I-II), would appear to have been most common in what was
then the marshy and wooded region of the coastal plain. Such
houses can be restored by the evidence of many ossuaries dating
from the 33rd and first half of the 32nd centuries B.C. These have
been found at Hudeirah, Yazur, Bnei Braq and Tell Aviv. The
rectangular houses were entered from the narrow side and windows
were found in all walls except the one with the door. Painting in-
dicates the ridge beam, the door, the structure of the timber frame
and the roof thatched with reeds. Simple houses of this type were
evidently not out of place in this region, adapted as they were to local
building materials. They may be traditional, having earlier origins,
like the wooden houses copied in the coffins of Archaic Egypt.
At Ghassul numerous houses were ornamented with wall-
paintings in red, black and white on cream plaster. The most

os
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
famous of these is a great star (Fig.11) reminiscent of a polychrome
plate of the late Halaf Period. It is surrounded by monsters, includ-
ing one (Fig.12) that may represent an elephant drawn from
description, fish, and unexplained symbols or objects. The structure
restored on the right probably shows a ‘temple’ similar to those
in the ossuaries. Another fragment displayed a naked figure in
adoration before two seated divinities. Other schematic paintings,
have been found during recent excavations, The art of wall-painting,
which reached great sophistication at Ghassul, appears to have
left few traces on the pottery (Fig.8). The ware, though often
painted, shows lack of imagination in the choice of motifs.
The cemetery of Ghassul was excavated at Wadi al-Azeimeh
not far away. The dead were buried in individual cist graves in
a contracted position. The graves were then covered with a circular
stone cairn, a form of burial which is in marked contrast to that of
the coastal plain, where the bones of the dead were placed in
ossuaries, set on a ledge in an artificial burial cave. It would seem
that the ancient racial dichotomy of the culture persisted, with
the Mediterranean element clinging to its old nomadic form of
burial under cairns, and the East Anatolid element continuing the
old rite of secondary burial.
Continuity is also marked in the pottery and stone vessels,
where there is comparatively little change. At this time cornets
and stone bowls were imitated in grey pottery by the newcomers
in the north (Fig.9: 10-21). Ivory-carving continued, but few
pieces have been unearthed.
The most spectacular technological advances may be seen
in the field of metallurgy. In a cave, south of Engedi on the
western shore of the Dead Sea, a hoard of not less than 630
copper objects was found, some years ago. They were wrapped
in matting and obviously deposited there for safekeeping at a
time of danger, then never recovered (PI. XIITa). Besides numerous
mace-heads (Pl. XIVa) of the type already known from Abu Matar,

34
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
there are many tools such as hammers and chisels for carpentry,
flat ‘‘axes” for digging and hoeing, plus a fine decorated crown
(Pl. XIVb). More important are a number of sceptre-heads, richly
ornamented with grooves, ribs and diagonal fluting (Pl. XV). The
finest is a sceptre-head ending in two heads of ibex; lower down
appears a ram’s head with twisted horns, flanked on either side by
two more ibex or antelope’s heads (Pl. XIIIb). This object shows
superb observation and excellent craftsmanship. The entire hoard
is now thought to be a temple treasure. This would explain its
richness and the ceremonial objects. This theory has been confirmed
by the actual discovery, in 1962, of the temple from which the
treasure was removed (Pl. XIIa).
The temple, occupying the terrace north of the spring of
Engedi, consists of a large courtyard, surrounded by a main build-
ing on its north side, a smaller building on the east, a gatehouse in
the south side, facing the spring, and a second gate in the east wall,
north of the smaller building leading to a second spring. A stone
wall connects these structures to unify them. A small round struc-
ture, a sort of high place, stands at the centre of the courtyard. The
gatehouse is a small rectangular room with two doors facing each
other and benches all round the room. The east building has a
plastered floor, a doorway in the middle of the long wall and a
pavement of stones leading to it. The main sanctuary, 20 metres long,
is entered in the middle of the long side. Opposite the entrance,
a hoof-shaped altar is sunk in the ground and fenced off, containing
animal bones, ashes and sherds of cornets and cups. Rows of small
holes dug in the floor at the two ends of the building contain similar
deposits. Stone benches extend along the wall on either side of the
altar, in the centre of the room and along the entrance wall. Among
the finds was the clay model of a bull carrying a pair of churns.
(ILN, April 13, 1963). The building shows some similarity to the
Late Chalcolithic shrine at Megiddo (XIX), which is probably
about a century later in date (Fig.13). The Engedi sanctuary can

35
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

FIGURE 12 — Detail of fig. 11,

showing “elephant’’. (after J. Perrot,
in Atigot, III.)

|ee

FicurE 13 — Isometric reconstruction of shrine

of Megiddo XIX
with “‘mosaic”? pavement in front courtyard.
(redrawn from OJP, LXII.)
 Syria and Palestine before 3500
be dated with its treasure to the 33rd century B.C. and must have
been the main temple of the district.
The date of its abandonment would seem to coincide with
that of numerous other sites and with the violent destruction of
Ghassul and the end of its culture. Only in the coastal plain did
the culture linger on for another century. It is not yet known what
caused the catastrophe, but it was probably related to the estab-
lishment of new elements in the lower Jordan Valley and the
Judaean uplands. This is a convenient point to look north once
again, and describe the events which took place in Syria during
the course of the fourth millennium.

37
 j » SS
% PMOR “Sn iaiovey ey rear wetir OF thea od Magidity vis
Sin “iene” pacdermas diy Wrath octelng » bad
tie int iveom PSY Pe 2h
ve
 CHAPTER III

NORTH SYRIAN DEVELOPMENT DURING

THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM B.C.: THE
UBAID AND URUK PERIODS

Soon after 4000 B.C., North Syria came under the influence of
the Ubaid culture of Mesopotamia which must be held responsible
for the end of its brilliant Halaf predecessor. How far the actual
conquest extended is unknown; throughout Mesopotamia it devel-
oped the first urban civilisation with great towns, temples and, no
doubt, palaces for its rulers (none have been excavated). Its
influence was strongly felt beyond its political boundaries.
Ubaid influences reached the shores of Lake Urmia in Iranian
Azerbaijan, and left their imprint on the Anatolian Plateau
around Malatya, north of the Euphrates Gorge. They swamped the
foothills of the Taurus and even reached Mersin at the extreme
western end of the Cilician Plain.
North Syria felt these influences strongly, probably because
the area furnished the timber necessary for construction of the
much enlarged temples and palaces of Southern Mesopotamia.
The felled trees were probably floated down the Euphrates.
Only the high forested ranges of Amanus and Taurus could
satisfy the ever-increasing demand for large timber, pine, cedar and
box-wood.
We are ignorant of the architecture of fourth millennium
Syria. After excavations at seven different sites we know only that
rectangular houses were built of mud-brick on stone foundations.

39
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Ficure 14 — A house of the North Syrian Ubaid culture

from Tabara el Akrad in the Amuq.
(after S. Hoop, in AS, I.)

One single house plan is known from the Amugq (Fig.14), at Tabara
el Akrad, Level VII, dating from late in the Ubaid Period.
The pottery is the only guide to the complexities of this period.
As in the northeast of Mesopotamia, at Tepe Gawra, Halaf strains
died hard and left their imprint on the local products in North
Syria during the Ubaid Period. On the Balikh River, birds and
other traditional elements persisted in the monotonous, uninspired
repertoire of painted patterns that has come to be associated with
Ubaid pottery. West of the Euphrates, even within the confines of
the Amuq plain (phase E), ugly Ubaid wares at Tell Judeideh are
found, side-by-side with more inspired wares at the neighbouring
village of Karaca-Sheikh Ali. Both look provincial compared to the
products of Tell esh-Sheikh (Fig.15) in the same plain, which skil-
fully blended Halaf patterns with newer Ubaid elements and shapes.
The dark-faced wares, long in use in the plain, disappeared. Further
west, on the coast of Ras Shamra (III.2) local blends again appear,
among which painted ornament combined with impressed pointillé
patterns are outstanding. The latter, also known from Mersin, is
similar in technique to the Wadi Rabah ware of the coastal plain
of Palestine. In view of these numerous local versions of painted
pottery, when dealing with this area, it seems justified to qualify

40
 North Syrian Development

VY

Figure 15 — Tell esh-Sheikh pottery from the Amugq plain (Ubaid period).
(after Sir L. Woo..ey, in A474.)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Ficure 16 — Late Chalcolithic pottery from Tarsus in

Cilicia (1-9); Amuq
F (10-12); Hama (13); the Byblos B cemetery (14-21)
and Lebea (22).
(after H. Gotpman, Tarsus, II; OIP, LXI; D. Baramxt
, Phoenicia, and C. ScHAEF-
FER, Stratigraphie Comparée.)
 North Syrian Development
the term Ubaid with the prefix Syrian. New shapes and techniques
were adopted, but decorative patterns were original. In Syria,
Ubaid influences reached as far south as Hama. Byblos appears to
have been deserted during this period, which may not have been
of long duration. However, at Ras Shamra there are not less than
seven phases of building.

Tue Late Cuatco.iruic. AMug F AND Bystos ‘B’ Prriops.

Towards the middle of the fourth millenium, about 3600 B.C.,
there appears new evidence for profound changes in culture and
population, not only in North Syria, but also at Byblos, which was
now reoccupied. In the north, the long period which had seen the
rise and fall of numerous successive painted pottery cultures, came
to an end. In north Syria, Amuq E (Ubaid) gives way to Amuq F
(Fig.16: 10-12), and in parts of Cilicia new wares occur in a Late
Chalcolithic cemetery at Tarsus. (Fig.16: 1-9). They were closely
related to those further east. In the south the only evidence for the
culture of this period comes from Hama and Byblos. Red slipped
pottery, finely burnished, and accompanied by plain buff wares,
was still handmade like the earlier wares. This took the place of
painted wares from Tarsus to Byblos. Many of the shapes show
somewhat metallic profiles, sharp indentations and curves on rims
and bodies, plus a new feature. This latter was the first proper
handle, which was unknown in the area until this period. Jugs are
innovations; many vessels have rounded bases, which required
irregular floors or pot-stands to keep their balance. The so-called
bevelled rim bowl occurs in a clumsy shape, probably votive (Fig.
16: 13). It is undoubtedly of Mesopotamian origin and oecurs as far
south as Hama. Beyond the Euphrates lie the domains of a new
culture. Characterised by red and grey burnished wares, it was
called the Uruk-Gawra culture after its two most celebrated sites
in the south and north of Mesopotamia respectively. Syria and
Lebanon showed their usual distinct local peculiarities, though

43
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
archaeologists agree that the newer fashion was somehow linked
to new developments further east. The fuller implications, in
cultural and ethnic terms, of this momentous change will be describ-
ed in a subsequent chapter (IV, p.53 ff).
Byblos B, as the new culture is called (ca. 3500-3200 B.C.),
covered the entire acropolis of this famous site with houses. Some-
times linked by paved lanes within the settlement, the houses were
rectangular at first, then round and finally apsidal. Metal was
known, and copper, gold and silver were in use. Silver suggests
trade with Anatolia, the only country where it was known to
occur in any quantity. Similarities in the pottery of this period
tend to confirm that trade relations already existed. Most of
the metal objects, such as copper daggers (Fig.17) and gold and
silver trinkets, came from a cemetery outside the settlement.
In this necropolis not less than eighteen hundred burials were
found with bodies deposited in great ribbed jars (Fig.18). These
were frequently cut to allow the insertion of burials, and not
purposely shaped, as in the case of the Ghassulian pot-shaped
ossuaries (Fig.8, bottom left). Similar pot burials occurred at
Hama (Fig.16: 12), further north on the Orontes. In Anatolia
such burials in pots are a feature of the Late Chalcolithic Period.
At Byblos no strict orientation can be observed in the graves. The
dead were buried with pottery — mostly red-slipped and burn-
ished (Fig.16: 14-21) and metal. A number of vessels were decora-
ted with stampseal impressions which can be dated after 3500
B.C. and are similar to those of Warka V in Southern Mesopotamia.
Wheel-made pottery appears towards the end of this period,
but it is still slipped and burnished and often decorated.
The following stage of development, dated to ca. 3200-3000
B.C. (phase IV) shows long houses, grouped together in enclosures
instead of free-standing. Metal was common. From this buildin
g
level come the first cylinder-seal impressions of a type known
in
Mesopotamia at Jemdet Nasr, where they start before 3100
B.C.

44
 North Syrian Development
In North Syria they first appeared in the Amugq G phase; both here
and at Byblos they are the first representatives of a seal that was
rolled over clay and not stamped on it. Their appearance west
of the Euphrates implies long distance contacts with Mesopotamia.
From Byblos some may have reached Egypt just before the begin-
ning of the First Dynasty, for it is clear that Byblos was the source
to which the Egyptians came for timber.
By the end of this period, about 3200 B.C., we reach the begin-
ning of the Early Bronze Age with full urbanisation. Byblos was
emerging as the greatest trading port on the Levant coast of the
Mediterranean. Its further development belongs to a later chapter
(V, p. 64).

Late GHALCOLITHIC PALESTINE — A Mettinc Pot oF CULTURES

(Map II).
Contemporary developments south of the Lebanon are more
complicated to follow. There was the arrival of miscellaneous
groups of people, each with their own pottery, which gradually
amalgamated and so gave rise to the full establishment of an urban
culture in the Early Bronze Age.
The exact course of events has not yet been made clear and
is somewhat complex. Archaeological remains are often insufficient
and the interpretations put on them controversial. The old scheme
of a number of successive cultures has proved to be untenable since
there are considerable overlaps and various admixtures, which
are not always geographically clear.
The cultural sequence of this period can be tabulated in
abbreviated form.
C. 31st century B.C. Round and rectangular houses, city walls.
E.B.I pottery. Rare survivals of grey and
Ghassulian wares.
B. 32nd century B.C. Grey and red wares, apsidal houses, but
with Ghassulian survivals in the north.

45
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
A. 33rd century B.C. Ghassulian with rectangular houses. At
some places grey and Umm Hamad esh-
Sherqi ware.
The previously described Ghassulian culture flourished mainly
in the 33rd century B.C. and corresponds to phase A of the above
scheme and perhaps part of B. It may have survived in a number
of places outside the coastal plain where it definitely continued for
another century. Evidence seems to indicate that this culture lasted
longer in the north, but some of its pottery, especially the cornet
rhytons, may have been adopted and were actually made by the
newcomers from the north. It was these people who introduced the
grey and red wares and who seem to have introduced the apsidal
form of house-plan. It is not known who was responsible for the
destruction of Ghassul and the abandonment of so many Ghassulian
settlements. The new elements, either the people in the Jordan
Valley or the people who introduced the painted wares of phase
C at Jericho and in the hill zone around Jerusalem, would have been
in a position to endanger Ghassul and the rich shrine at Engedi.
Apart from this, there is little evidence for warfare and raids,
though the absence of defensive walls does not necessarily mean
peaceful conditions. Raids on villages and encampments are of far
greater antiquity than urban settlement and generally increased as
populations grew and land became scarcer. A deterioration of
conditions in the valleys of Late Chalcolithic Palestine may well
have led to the construction of walled towns.

28,

Ficure 17 — Late Chalcolithic copper daggers: a) from Byblos;

b) from Buyiik Giillucek.
(after M. Dunanp, Fouilles de Byblos, 1, and H.Z. Kosay,
Bi. Giilliicek Kazisi.)
 Ce

—Sa
cS

PLATE I — Ossuary in the form of a house-model. Yazur (Azor), coastal plain of Palestine.

Ghassulian.
 cs

HE,

Pirate IV Hall & galler 1es mM subterranean house at Safadi.

Beersheba culture.
 PLATE V

a) Collapsed subterranean house at Safadi

showing silos in the floor and other
domestic arrangements.

b) Oval chamber built of mud bricks on

stone foundations in the pit formed by
the collapse of a subterranean chamber.
Part of the floor of the subterranean
chamber dug with silos is visible under
the floor of the oval chamber and its
stone foundation. On top of the mud
brick walls are niches for the head of
beams supporting a roof, level with the
surface of the hill.
Pirate VI — Ghassulian pottery from Abu Matar, Safadi and Yazur.
Churn (above) jars below.
>
SY)
Tis
DD
Pirate VII — Glassul ian pottery wi th lugs fo r tying on covers.
a) Ghassulian basalt vessels from Abu Matar.

leu, WUE

b) Copper awl in bone handle from Safadi.

 a LOG
SITE

PLATE
IX
Pirate XII — Public buildings of the Ghassulian culture: a) temple complex at Engedi above the
Dead Sea, 6) Communal hall (20 x 4 m.) with columned porch in surface level at Safadi.

Tr cm creme secs settnm gree

wes
ee
I

> by “3
PLATE XIII — a) View of the great copper treasure in Mi
ina mat. 6) The finest of the sceptres decorated with heads of ram and il
Double viewobtained through use of a mirror.
PLATE XIV — Copper maceheads and crown from the
cache in the Mishmar valley near Engedi.
 ~ AS

ROG

GN,
Gs

ES5_ ore
Prat—e XVI — a) The great mound
goyen as seal w ith h ieroglyphon ic thewt iting
of Beycesultan river Maeander.
=
ee
alee

° GH i) > fr om Beycesultan VI i
& Te
i=)
 North Syrian Development
Different groups of newcomers appear to have shared the
custom of collective burial. Contrasting with the funerary customs of
the earlier population, their tombs were cut in soft rock, probably
with copper axes. Tomb A 94 at Jericho, however, shows that
strange burial habits still occurred. In the centre of the tomb a large
pyre, surrounded by 135 skulls partly blackened by fire, was found.
On this pyre the headless, decomposed bodies were burned. Round
the tombs lay hundreds of pots, deposited with the dead.
The first intrusive elements appear to have arrived during
the 33rd century, perhaps earlier. They can be recognised by their
distinctive red and grey, so-called Esdraelon wares. These outsiders
occupied the northern part of the country, the Esdraelon Valley
and the hills bordering the coastal plain and the greater part of
the Jordan Valley as far as Jericho. The coastal plain, the Judaean
uplands and the southeast corner of the Jordan Valley remained
Ghassulian. Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi pottery is found only in the
Jordan Valley (and Tell Farah) from Beisan to Tell Alayiq.
It had a more restricted distribution than the burnished red and
grey wares, which extend up to the Lebanese border. It would
appear that the pink Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi pottery was
a local development of the Jordan Valley. Some shapes were
evidently derived from the red burnished ware, such as cups with
high loop handles rising above the rim.
The burnished grey ware (Esdraelon ware) shows few shapes,
among which are a bowl and a pedestal bow] with cut-out openings
in the pedestal (Fig.9:10-16). Both shapes are frequently decorated
with oval bosses, knobs, etc. These vessels give the impression of
a luxury ware and were almost certainly copies of stone vessels,
similar to the grey basalt bowls of related shape in the Beersheba-
Ghassulian culture. Although pedestalled bowls are a feature of
Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Anatolia, nothing similar
to them is known there and the parallels sometimes suggested are
therefore fortuitous. Both areas used pedestal bowls, but here the

47
Bronze Ages — 4
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Ficure 18 — Burial jars from the Late Chalcolithic cemetery of Byblos.

(after M. Dunanp, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, 1955-56.)

resemblance ends. Similar ware has not been found so far in Syria
or Lebanon, but their appearance in the latter country would not
create surprise, for several other vases with cut-out pedestals are
known in the Byblos B culture. Anumber of these bowls
were
copied in red burnished ware.
There remains a third element, red slipped and burnished
(Fig.19). Its full variety of shapes is probably best illustr
ated by
finds in the tombs at Tell Farah. Many of these shapes
were ances-
tral to the Early Bronze Age wares of Palestine. Others were
the
earliest forms of the Syrian bottles, but the variety
seems much

48
 North Syrian Development
Ty ge es ce
Se Se "Ces er
Sas COS eee De rr aay,
Re eh aes CTD
Se he} No el aaa

pG0a0 Dare
eas
Oe US")
BE 1g —cen nee ioli ea y from the cemetery of Tell Farah.
fi E VAU
 sasha °
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

eee 5 CMS
Ficure 20 — A silver bowl from the cemetery of Tell Farah and its pottery
copy from Jericho. (after Pére R. DE VAux, in RB, 1951.)

LEVER M
Leven I

Figure 21 — House plans from three successive Late Chalcolithic building-

levels at Kh. Meiser. Rectangular building in III, special houses in II and
rectangular building in I (latest). (after M. Dornan, in JE7, 7 and 9.)

greater than in the succeeding period where a few selected shapes

were produced all over the country.
The burnished ware and some of its forms have parallels in
the Lebanon, at Byblos, Lebea (Fig. 16: 22) and Gelal en-Nomus.
They seem to appear as abruptly as in Palestine; so that an origin

50
 North Syrian Development
still further north is indicated. Both the Hama and Amug F cul-
tures, also known from other sites further down the coast, produced
some parallels. They are not as close as one might wish, nor is the
evidence from these northern sites as plentiful as that of Palestine.
The jug with loop-handle, a characteristic feature of this ware in
Palestine, has not yet been found in the Amuq, but it does occur
at Tarsus and throughout southwest Anatolia; and even in Crete.
However, a direct Anatolian influence in the development of this
red burnished ware may be discounted. It is far more likely that a
developed copper-working tradition, perhaps somewhere in North
Syria, is responsible for this pottery in which metallic features such
as strap handles, sharp angles, and dimple bases are frequent.
Actual finds of metal vessels are rare; metal was precious, could
be re-melted, and unlike pottery tended to corrode. A silver bowl
from Tell Farah (Fig.20) has numerous parallels in clay at the
same site, and also at Jericho and Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.
Spouted vessels were another feature of this period (Fig.19, bottom
rows). These have parallels in southern Mesopotamia as well as in
Egypt, where some of the latest (made in copper) were found in
the tomb of Zer, a Pharaoh of the First Dynasty.

JI se \7
_—_—_—

Ficure 22 — Animal figures engraved on stones in the pavement of the

shrine of Megiddo XIX. (after OJP, LXII.)

51
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
The stone industry associated with this culture, different from
the Ghassulian, is the so-called Canaanite one which stretches
from Palestine to North Syria. It is mainly distinguished by flint
knives and sickle blades.
Besides apsidal houses (Fig.21), which form a further link with
Byblos, a shrine in Megiddo XIX (32nd century B.C.) (Fig.13)
shows some resemblance to the Engedi one. Here again, a long
sanctuary is entered by a door in the long wall. Opposite the door
an altar is built against the back wall and flanked by stones and
benches. The walled courtyard was paved with stones, many of
which bore graffiti showing lively animal figures (Fig.22), a sketchy
human being and other less obvious drawings.
Nothing is known of the cult practised in these buildings, but
it was probably a fertility cult. Ritual cornets were common in this
building, as in the Engedi shrine.
In the last of the three phases of this period (QC), still another
class of pottery arrived. This was a buff ware painted with red
stripes or covered with a brown wash. Patterns are few; parallel
lines, stripes and wavy lines. A few new shapes appeared: a jar with
a short spout (Fig.19: bottom row) is characteristic as are bottles,
two-handled jars and open bowls.
This E.B.Ia pottery, as it is often called, is particularly common
in the Judaean uplands around Jerusalem (Ophel, Ai, Tell Nasbeh)
and at Jericho. It also occurs at Tell Farah, at Umm Hamad esh-
Sherqi in the middle of the Jordan Valley and in a great tomb at
Arqub el-Dhahr above Tell Shuna in North Jordan. This pottery
is rare in the Jordan Valley, but appears frequently in the almost
uninhabited uplands. Nothing is known of its origin. With this
phase, we reach the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, about the
31st century B.C. Since it developed from the Late Chalcolithic
or Proto-urban phase it is easier to draw the hypothetical
dividing line in theory than in actual fact.

52
 CHAPTER IV

TRADE AND CONTACT WITH EGYPT

AND MESOPOTAMIA

Throughout the millennia of prehistory the rich and fertile

rolling plains of North Syria absorbed cultural and ethnic elements
from Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates. No geographical barrier
impeded contact and migrations in the area east of Aleppo. From
this region around the Jabbul Lake and Carchemish roads led to
the Balikh Valley and beyond to the extremely important Khabur
triangle, the heart of northern Mesopotamia. Further north a
large region of Turkish Mesopotamia is archaeologically almost
unknown. Its subsequent role in history was as a centre of important
kingdoms. Mineral resources gave it the mediaeval name of Diar-
bakir, the ‘“‘land of copper’, which suggests that here may lie
centres of important cultures and the keys to many problems that
have bedevilled Mesopotamian archaeologists. Among these prob-
lems are the origins of Hassuna culture and that of its successor,
Halaf. Another puzzle is that of the metallic copper and silver-
coloured red and grey wares of the Uruk-Gawra culture that
supplanted Ubaid. The Uruk wares have often been linked with
Anatolia or Iran, but the proposed theories have lacked conviction.
Recent work in Azerbaijan, Cilicia and southwestern Turkey show
no ancestors for this characteristic pottery. The Uruk wares may
have originated in Central or East Iran or in the many unexcavated
sites of eastern Anatolia or the Diyarbakir region. However, there
is a wide distribution of metal-working and metal-imitating pottery
cultures. These follow or overlap with tenacious Ubaid elements

53
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
throughout Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine in the Late Chalco-
lithic. This does not suggest that Iranians were the originators.
In Mesopotamia, the arrival of the Sumerians has often been
connected with the sudden appearance of the Uruk-Gawra culture.
This theory has recently been discredited, and it is now believed
that the Sumerians (historically attested from about 2500 B.C.
in South Mesopotamia) were the autochthonous population of
this region and not an intrusive element from elsewhere.
In any case, there is no question of Sumerians in North Meso-
potamia, Syria or Palestine. When North Mesopotamia emerged
into history in the second half of the third millennium B.C., the
rulers had Semitic names. Professor Albright has shown that a
Semitic language was spoken in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine
from the Late Chalcolithic or Proto-Urban Period. The evidence
for this is the names of mountains, rivers and towns. Ancient
Egyptian also shows traces of a Semitic language in its makeup,
mainly in grammar and in forms which gradually disappeared
as time progressed. In the earliest Egyptian texts that we can
read and which date from the third dynasty, about 2700 B.C.,
the language had already diverged widely from Semitic.
Here the problem is to find out when northern Semitic ele-
ments penetrated Egyptian, which belonged to the Hamitic lan-
guage-group, widespread in north and northeast Africa.
Faint traces of Egyptian contact with the Near Eastern world
date back to the Mesolithic Period when settlers with a Natufian-
like culture were established near Helwan, south of Cairo. The
earliest settlements with agriculture and pottery are found in the
Fayum about 4500 B.C., and at Merimde about 4200 B.C., accord-
ing to radiocarbon determinations. Their inhabitants, however,
may or may not have been of Near Eastern stock. Syrian timber
was obtained during the Badari culture of Upper Egypt, about
4000 B.C., and copper was probably obtained from the mine on the
western side of the Sinai Peninsula. Nevertheless, Egypt maintained

4
 Trade and Contact with Egypt and Mesopotamia
her splendid isolation during the Amratian Period. It is only in the
Gerzaean Period (ca. 3400-3100 B.C.) that we have evidence for
the ever-increasing contact with Palestine and the coast of the
Levant. This period is contemporary with the Late Chalcolithic
or Proto-Urban of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Then foundations
were laid for the greatness of Egypt during the Archaic period and
the Old Kingdom. This period is known elsewhere as the Early
Bronze Age. ;
At the beginning of the First Dynasty, about 3100 B.C., we
are confronted with a highly sophisticated and luxurious civilisa-
tion demonstrated by monumental architecture, developed writing,
advanced metallurgy, stone, ivory and wood-carving, painting,
etc. This occurred far in advance of the rest of the Near East at this
early phase. The explosive blossoming of culture demands a long
period of previous development during the Gerzaean period, of
which the hitherto excavated remains give us no indication.
Such a sudden advance in culture was obviously the result
of a stimulus coming from outside Egypt. There is evidence showing
the arrival, both in Lower and Upper Egypt, of a new ruling class,
called “‘Followers of Horus’’. The kings and nobility of both king-
doms founded at the beginning of the Late Gerzaean Period came
from this new class. It may have been these people who introduced
Semitic elements into the Egyptian language. They were taller
than the native Egyptians and had larger skulls. The carved ivory
handle of the famous Jebel el Arak flint knife and also the wall
painting from Hierakonpolis, the Upper Egyptian capital, show
battle-scenes between Egyptians and foreigners, as well as Egyptian
and high-prowed foreign ships. On the reverse of the knife-handle
is a “Gilgamesh scene” of a bearded foreigner, Mesopotamian or
Syrian, between two lions. It is plausible that the foreigners with
their beards, cloaks and “‘Mesopotamian” ships were members of
the new dynastic ruling class. These, and similar ships in rock
engravings in the eastern desert along the old trade route to the

30
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Red Sea port of Quseir, suggest that some of the newcomers came
by sea, unless the subjects depicted were battles on the Nile.
The first importation of Near Eastern pottery into Egypt may
be linked to this immigration of foreigners. Here we find Late
Chalcolithic Palestinian jars with wavy ledge handles, cups with
high handles, jars with drooping spouts, an Esdraelon bowl, E.B.
Ia painted cups and bottles, etc. There are other vessels such as
squat jars with small lugs of a type well-known in Mesopotamia
(since Warka VI), but also known in the Amuq, Ras Shamra, etc.
Besides pottery there are four cylinder seals of Jemdet Nasr type —
also known in Byblos and the Amuq G phase — and a number of
decorative motifs, probably Mesopotamian, which were foreign to
Egypt and never assimilated.
We are certain of two routes, the sea route from Byblos to the
Delta and a second route from southern Palestine. This was either
by land, skirting the Sinai Desert and then leading by Wadi Tumilat
into the Delta, or by sea through the Gulf of Aqaba to the Red Sea
port of Quseir and on through Wadi Hammamat to Upper Egypt.
The recent discovery of the Beersheba culture in Southern Palestine
which imported shells from the Red Sea and the Nile Valley points
to the sea route. The wealth of Chalcolithic Byblos was probably
derived from its trade with Egypt for timber and with the east for
Mesopotamian products. The spouted metal jars with lugs, Jemdet
Nasr type cylinder seals, etc., were probably exported to Egypt
along with the timber as well as lapis lazuli although none has yet
been found in the rich Byblos cemetery, where silver and obsidian
evidently came from Anatolia, and ivory from either North Syria or
Egypt. The bearded foreigners of the Egyptian carvings may have
been people from Byblos. The Gilgamesh motif of a hero between
lions, Mesopotamian though it is, reminds one that in that epic,
a king of Uruk journeyed to a Cedar mountain to obtain timber
for a building. Here the epic corroborates the archaeological
evidence; whether the Cedar mountain was the Amanus or the

56
 Trade and Contact with Egypt and Mesopotamia
Lebanon makes little difference in an epic. It would seem that it
was through trade with the Syrian coast that the Egyptians acquired
a knowledge of Mesopotamian objects. Professor Emery’s suggestion
that the indirect similarities of architecture and writing in both
Egypt and Mesopotamia may be due to the existence of a third
party that influenced both, merits consideration. Should this theory
prove true, only the ruling class of the Late Chalcolithic Semites
could have started the sudden bursts of civilisation in Sumer (ca.
3500 B.C.) and Egypt (ca. 3100 B.C.). They are the ones who intro-
duced the Uruk-Warka and the various Syrian-Palestinian Late
Chalcolithic cultures. In both Sumer and Egypt the foreigners
had become nationalised at the dawn of history.
This theory (and at present it is no more than a theory) fits
the archaeological data at our disposal, better than that of Meso-
potamians from the Persian Gulf reaching Egypt via the Red Sea.

ov
 Yer fared, sicnas the Geiat Desert ened thewSeedinghy Wee Tenia
ints thin Delin. as bv wes theowh the Gok ofAqabate
the Ree
pint of Quests
ce as ceougl, Wed Appeal te pe die
The eecea? demaewty of the Dorie). telture toSouther Pelee
' qehilly ince eadFieedis (oven the Red Sckand the Ole Vallee gee
(trate houie. Che aia’ of Cheweiithie Hyhee cay pepe
fered Tru ive tres rtads Fgyst bo Reber nd wl ti et cash e,
Demyppstacrian ji adn, 2 epee ¢ ‘RAL gars wick Jags, Jerod
<a tvpe CVS A, OM, WS sey mache Cagypt
song Save Tee Cabri at well ox Ligels Iganil atone ts mene how yet
Barri OA a ee mS itl emeearye) witee whewe ecyd sbalelbtes
rewrty cin (om Anam, ae oo ieee ole ‘orth Seva ge 7
Layne The beeled torent A ith bexpiien caryange nny Saewe
yest bogs Crete. Wpeiiee Op eee, te ef q ber@ beagpen
: ‘renee thomel “hq Reieae wt rial in Heat. ofan:
=a: @) ‘lines jroseyed 1.0 Ciel ewetaee obto
ig tinelenr
Sea Peicies Neer ie coe oedriaietes the Artineolngca
Ger) wintlow woe Gadix eurpanseie co Aronia othe

w
 CHAPTER V

THE EARLY BRONZE’AGE IN SYRIA,

LEBANON AND PALESTINE

In most areas of the Near East, the Late Chalcolithic Period

merged gradually into the Early Bronze Age. For the greater part
of the Near East, however, this latter term is a misnomer since the
common metal of this period was copper, not bronze. In Cilicia,
the mainland of Greece and afew other areas, the making of bronze
was introduced by new ethnic elements. Elsewhere the change
to a new age was stimulated by increased prosperity. Reasons for
this new affluence like the following possibilities may only be
guessed. Political union occurred in Egypt and there was a central-
isation of the economic pattern into city-states in Sumer or Pales-
tine. Byblos, the Syrian coast, or the Troy I culture probably pros-
pered through increased trade or wealth that may have been due
to the effective exploitation of metal resources as in Anatolia. Cities
took the place of straggling villages and power became centralised.
Wealth increased, and with it, causes for war which required
powerful defences to ward off enemies.
The process of urbanisation and the gradual uniformity of
culture that accompanied it are probably the most characteristic
features of the full Early Bronze Age. Areas such as Egypt and
Mesopotamia advanced in urbanisation, while others were slower.
North Syria and Byblos were probably a little ahead of Palestine,
but by the beginning of the third millennium B.C. this stage was
reached almost everywhere in the Near East.
The Amuq G Period (ca. 3200-2800 B.C.) represents the first

59
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
phase of the Early Bronze Age in North Syria. It was considerably
more advanced than its predecessor, from which it was probably
derived. Eight successive building levels at Tell Judeideh (20-13)
show the existence of mud-brick houses with rectangular rooms,
pits for storage and other domestic features. Nowhere in Syria have
excavations been carried out on a scale large enough to establish
the complete urban character of contemporary culture, with city
walls and temples, but these must have existed at this time.
The pottery of this period (Fig. 23) is wheel-made and has the
*‘mass-produced”’ look that is characteristic of the Early Bronze
Age south of the Taurus.
Half the pottery is a plain buff ware, but some was coated
with an orange brown slip, decorated with a criss-cross burnish.
Platters with rolled rims made in this ware are similar to those of
Palestine, while other shapes resemble those of E.B.1 at Byblos.
Some of the buff ware is ornamented with painted bands of slip
(the reserve-slip ware), a technique known in north Palestine as
“‘band-slip”. However, in northern Palestine it is usually a wash, red
or brown. Other forms of decoration are incision, circles impressed
with a reed, combed patterns or a combination of these with
reserve slip. Still another group was painted in red or red-brown
with a multiple brush (Fig.23). These patterns form blocks of
straight or wavy lines. Simple as they are, they form a welcome
relief from the dull red and buff polished wares of the previous
period.
In this pottery there are unmistakable links with the E.B.
1 and 2 pottery of Byblos and Palestine, but also marked differences.
This is to be expected since nothing is known of the Early Bronze
Age cultures of the middle and upper Orontes Valleys, or the Beqaa
Valley.
Painted Syrian bottles appeared during the latter part of the
Amuq G Period. They were of the type that was exported to Egypt
at the end of the First Dynasty ca. 2900 B.C. (Fig. 27). These were

60
 Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine

anon Re NL AD
VYEWOBOHD
PEG sow

FicurRE 23 — Characteristic pottery of the Amuq G period in North Syria.

(after OJP, LXI, 1960.)

probably once filled with oil, and in Palestine they are dated to the
E.B. 2 Period. In the Amugq, the same vessels still occurred at the
beginning of the next period. It is not known whether Egyptian
specimens were imported from North Syria, Byblos or Palestine, so
their value as a chronological criterion is less definite than often
assumed. There are also the spouted jars (Fig.23) which continue
a type first established during the 32nd century in Syria and

61
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Palestine, but which was known earlier in Egypt and Southern
Mesopotamia. Squat jars with small lugs, also known from both
these countries show links between Syria and South Mesopotamia,
as does the reserve slip-ware. These features are considered to be
of local Syrian origin.
New in this period were the first of cylinder-seals decorated
with Jemdet Nasr patterns, but almost certainly locally made.
They have a small loop for suspensions, a Syrian feature not found
in Mesopotamia. The flint industry was reduced to more traditional
rustic tools and the Canaanite sickle-blade was as common here
as in Palestine. Pear-shaped stone mace-heads, frequently imitated
in copper, continued the old traditions prevalent throughout the
Near East, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
At Tell Judeida a group of three male and three female figur-
ines was found wrapped in cloth, varying in height from 14.6 to
26.5 cms. They had probably adorned a shrine or temple. These
date from the end of this period or the beginning of the next, ca.
2800 B.C. The metalwork is an improvement over that of the Late
Chalcolithic Engedi Shrine (33rd century).
The admixture of tin with the copper is sufficient for them to be
labelled as bronzes. The ornaments are made of an alloy of copper
and gold, the latter rich in silver. The figures were cast in clay
moulds by the cire perdue (lost wax) process.
All figures are shown standing (Fig.24); the bodies flat, sexual
organs prominent and the males circumcised. The men hold spears
and maces with pear-shaped heads. They are bearded, but the
upper lip is shaven. The male figurines wear only belts and helmets
of sheet-metal. The women are naked and cup their breasts with
crossed hands. They wear wire torques, caps of sheet-metal and
curls of wire. Their hands and feet are enormous but with well-
shaped fingers and toes.
There is little doubt that these three pairs of male and female
figurines represent the chief deities.

62
 Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine
The geographical distribution of the Amuq G culture is not
well-known, but seems to have been fairly extensive. Characteristic
pottery occurs from the Jebeleh region, on the coast south of Latta-
kia, to Arslantepe near Malatya (Map IV). Similar elements also
occur at Hama on the Orontes, Tell Kazel and Simiriyan near
Tartus. However, little is known at the present time about this
central area.
Some Anatolian influence is notable at Qalat er-Rus on the
coast, but not in the Amuq. Mesopotamian links are evident because
of the timber trade, but contact with the peculiar North Mesopo-
tamian wares of the Ninivite V group has not been attested.
The Amugq G culture persisted into the second phase of the
Early Bronze Age (Amuq H). At that time a new and striking

Ficure 24 — Statues from the Amuq G period. (after OJP, LXI, 1960.)

63
Bronze Ages — 5
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
handmade pottery appeared. It apparently originated in the north
and is known in Palestine as Khirbet Kerak ware. This pottery
and the implications of its arrival are described in chapter VI. The
new handmade ware became increasingly popular, and the tradi-
tional pottery was made in smaller quantities. Syrian bottles, how-
ever, were a little more common than in the previous phase.

ByYBLos.

The first urban period of Byblos (Byblos IV, ca. 3200-3000

B.C.) is roughly contemporary with the beginning of Amuq G and
overlaps the Late Chalcolithic or Proto-Urban Palestine Period.
During this period there was a steady growth of the city round the
spring on the acropolis (Fig.25). The first temples were built
around the spring, but relatively little is known of their character.
They lie below the better preserved remains of successors to Byblos
VI. Between the temple of Balaat Gebal, the ‘“Lady of Byblos” or
chief deity of the city, and a second temple in the east, lay a sacred
lake contained by strongly built walls. Steps led down to the spring,
southwest of which lay a third shrine surrounded by an oval enceinte.
Houses of rectangular plan, first built of rubble and later in cut
stone, were laid out around the religious centre of the city. The use of
numerous wooden posts on stone bases along the inside of the walls is
characteristic of this period. This feature is not strange in a country
which was as well endowed with timber, pine and cedar, as Leba-
non. The first houses with rooms grouped around court-yards are
found in the next building level (V). Within the masonry walls
occur foundation deposits consisting, in one case, of four small
bowls containing white and black pebbles. Byblos V is securely
dated by imported Egyptian stone vessels of Dynasty I-II type.
Towards the end of Byblos IV or the beginning of V, ca. 3000
B.C., the city was encircled by a defensive wall consisting of
two stone faces filled with earth and debris from earlier settle-
ments.

64
 Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine
The pottery of this E.B.1 Period is a buff red-slipped wheel-
made ware, very finely burnished with criss-cross patterns or with
combing. Shapes are similar to those of E.B. 1-2 in Palestine. Bone
cylinders with Jemdet Nasr patterns and small loops for suspension
are as much a feature of Byblos IV as they are of Amuq G.

PALESTINE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EARLY Bronze AcE (Map IV).

At the time the powerful rulers of Upper Egypt were extending
their sway over the Delta, the process of urbanisation was already
a century old in Syria and Lebanon. When it reached Palestine,
cities began to surround themselves with strong walls. Numerous

. Crd
z er <s

6 se as 2 5
\ ¢ SS=secue
ry WSS
RRS
@SE
e A MWS se:
ND CO/TEIN
z '
HM \\
ws 8ww
MMS

cé) SO
acne) Het ake ak aeSRE mahal i

FicurE 25 — The temple quarter on the acropolis of Byblos: 1) Temple of

Baalat Gebal; 2) Temple of the obelisks; 3) third temple; 4) the great spring;
5) sacred lake.
(after M. Dunanp, in Mél. de Univ. St. Joseph, 1961.)

65
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
villages were deserted as people concentrated in the new towns,
each of which was probably the capital of a small city-state. This
form of political organisation was to dominate the country until
the establishment of the Israelite monarchy in the Iron Age. The
process of urbanisation tended to level out the differences between
the various cultures of the preceding period. There were still marked
differences between north and south, mostly confined to pottery,
which was then thrown on a potter’s wheel.
The exotic grey ware disappeared and the red burnished
pottery developed into the red-slipped and burnished ware charac-
teristic of Early Bronze Age Palestine. At the same time a new painted
element appeared in the north. This was the so-called band-slip
ware in spouted local shapes, which was probably related to the
reserve-slip ware of North Syria. The distribution of this pottery
in Palestine was confined to the valley of Esdraelon and to the
Jordan Valley down to the Wadi Zerqa. It occurred at Tell Farah
and also in the northern Trans-Jordanian uplands, but not on the
coast at Byblos, which was off the regular trade-route to North
Palestine. The characteristic shapes were jars with pushed-up
ledge-handles, hole-mouth jars, some spouted, with a line of incised
dashes, bowls with inverted rims and small red-washed cups with
string-cut bases.
On Lake Tiberias, the site of Khirbet Kerak, ancient Beth-
Yerah the ‘‘House of the Moon-god’’, was surrounded with a
mud-brick wall eight metres thick. Other walled cities at this
period were Beisan XV-XIV, Megiddo XVIII, Tell Farah and
probably Jericho. Houses of this period were rectangular at Beisan
XV and round at Tell Shuna III and Jericho (VII). At Tell Shuna,
the roof of light materials was supported by a central post which
stood on a stone base.
In the south, the painted E.B.la pottery probably lasted
through this period. There is a striking absence of E.B. 1-2 occupa-
tion in the coastal plain, apart from Gezer and Tell Batashi, but

66
 Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine
this area has been little explored as yet. Burial in collective tombs
was still practised throughout the country.
No upheavals marked the transition from E.B.1 to 2. At
many sites new fortifications were built, such as at Beth-Yerah III,
Beisan XIII, Megiddo XVII, Jericho and Tell Hamid on the
Yarmuk. Little is known of the occupation of the southern
highlands and the coastal plain. In the north, however, this was
evidently a period of great prosperity.
At Tell Shuna IV, for example, band-slip ware continued as
the main decorated pottery, but red burnished ware with pattern
combing and burnishing tended to supplant it elsewhere. Inverted
rim bowls and stump-based Syrian juglets were the standard fine-
ware shapes and hole-mouth jars with ledge handles served for
cooking and storage. At Kinnereth, on the Sea of Galilee, a rich
grave contained a Syrian jug decorated with a red pattern like
those of Amuq G-H and Abydos (Fig.27). With it was found a
gold roundel ornamented with bosses. The gold for this ornament
probably came from Egypt since it is not native to Palestine. Un-
fortunately, virtually nothing is known of the metalwork in this
period.
The transition of the second to the third phase of the Early
Bronze Age in Palestine coincides, roughly, with the beginning
of the Third Dynasty in Egypt (2686 B.C., with Byblos VI ca.
2700) and the E.B.3 period lasts until the beginning of the Sixth
Dynasty, ca. 2345 B.C.
This period saw the culmination of the Early Bronze Age
culture throughout the Near East. Its end was marked by wide-
spread migrations of new peoples not only in Syria and Palestine,
but also in Mesopotamia and Anatolia with repercussions as far
as Greece and Egypt (see chapter VIII).

67
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Tue CULMINATION OF Earty BronzE AGE CuLTuRE. BysBLos VI

AND PALESTINIAN E.B.3.

It is at this period that intrusive elements from North Syria

began to settle in northeastern Palestine, bringing with them the
beautiful pottery known as Khirbet Kerak ware. Although it
was known on the North Syrian coast, it never reached Byblos,
which at this period (ca. 2700-2300 B.C.) had reached the height
of its power. Byblos VI, as it is called, was a strongly fortified city.
Enriched by an almost unrivalled and lucrative timber trade with
Egypt, Byblos was just entering its richest period when the settle-
ment was rebuilt at the beginning of the Third Dynasty in Egypt.
The old temple of the ““Lady of Byblos” and the two secondary
temples were rebuilt and enlarged; the water supply was remodelled
(Fig.25) and houses of the rich merchants contained as many as
eight rooms grouped around an elongated court-yard (Fig.26).
The recesses and projections in the long walls were characteristic of
the period, as were the central rows of the wooden columns and the
fine masonry which now graced the rooms. One of these houses
measured 30 by 28.5 metres, with thirty-five wooden pillars support-
ing the roof. The central hall had a roof higher than that of the
neighbouring rooms and windows were probably set below the
eaves. The temples of the period showed the same principles of
arrangement and construction.
With the phenomenal increase of monumental buildings
during the Pyramid Age, the demand for Lebanese timber, cedar
and pine must have been enormous. The glory of Byblos reflected
on the other coastal cities, for the Egyptians imported other
things as well. Large loop-handled jars, frequently ornamented
with combed decoration, and tall one-handled jugs of the E.B.3
types of Palestine and Lebanon have been found in the Old King-
dom cemeteries at Giza and Saqqarah. These undoubtedly once
contained olive oil from the Levant coast. Syrian jugs and Syrian

68
 Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine

Ficure 26 — Early Bronze Age Buildings: A. earlier apsidal and later rectangu-
lar house from Byblos III; B. E.B. III temple at Ai (Et Tell); C. and D. Large
houses of Byblos VI.
(after M. Dunanp, in RB, 1950.)

bears (Fig. 27) are shown on a fragmentary relief from the funerary
temple of Sahure, who was the second king of the Fifth Dynasty, ca.
2500 B.C. Sahure sent an expedition to the Levant, possibly Byblos,
which is recorded in the same temple. The ships returned with
bearded Asiatics, and Montet has argued that the expedition
brought back an Asiatic bride for the Egyptian king. A similar scene

69
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
of seagoing ships occurs in the causeway of the funerary temple of
Unas, the last king of the Fifth Dynasty.
The Egyptian kings who sent expeditions to Byblos also paid
their respects to the ““Lady of Byblos’, and fragments of stone
vessels have been found in her temples inscribed with the names of
Egyptian kings from Khasekhemwy, the last king of the Second
Dynasty to Pepi II, the last king of the Sixth, most of them in the
temple of Balaat Gebal. During these four hundred years the city
underwent four re-buildings, but the prosperity continued. Trade
must have been continuous, even if at present no king of the Third
Dynasty is represented by finds at Byblos. Nor does the list include
the Egyptian king Snefru, but on the Egyptian king list, known as
the Palermo Stone, it is recorded that he built great ships of cedar
and coniferous wood and brought forty shiploads of cedar, some of
which was used for the doors of a palace. His successors, Cheops,
Chefren and Mycerinus, the builders of the three great pyramids
of Giza, are known from records at Byblos. An axe-blade found
at the mouth of the Dog River (Nahr el Kelb) bears a Golden Horus
name, shared by Cheops and Sahure. Sahure’s brother, Kakai,
is known from a stone bowl, and so are the other powerful kings
of the Fifth Dynasty. Among these are Nyuserre, Isesi and Unas
and his successors, and the first two kings of Dynasty VI, Teti I
and Pepi I. During the reign of Pepi I (2331-2292 B.C.) an official
called Uni recorded on the walls of his tomb an account of Egyp-
tian punitive raids on the nomads of South Palestine, and of an
expedition which may have reached Mt. Carmel. This was perhaps
the first warning of the unsettled conditions and disquiet which
soon became general.
Some time afterwards, Byblos VI was burnt. After the catas-
trophe new elements appeared with caliciform pottery (Fig. 33)
and a different type of dwelling. Each consisted of a well-built
structure up to twelve to fifteen metres long and about four metres
wide, with a recess in one of the walls. Each house seems to have

7O
 Early Bronze Age in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine
GEASS—._ — :a
sor
. AOE Ns

N \
. .

FicurE 27 — Painted Syrian jug from a First Dynasty tomb at

Abusir el Meleq in Egypt and Syrian bears and jugs from a relief in
the funerary temple of Sahure.
(after H. Bonnet, Ein Friihgeschichtliches Graberfeld bei Abusir, 1928;
and Wreszinsx1, Aflas, vol. III.)

contained only a single room of enormous size. In one of these

buildings, an Egyptian vase with the name of Pepi II (ca. 2278-
2181 B.C.) has been found, suggesting a resumption of trade at
this time. After the death of Pepi II the Old Kingdom broke down
and it is unlikely that any of the ephemeral rulers of the First Inter-
mediate Period could have traded with Byblos. We know of Asiatic
inroads in the Delta, and the conflagration that destroyed Byblos
was probably connected with these events.
However, Byblos rose again and Egyptian inscriptions tell us
that trade was re-established by Kheti III (died 2040 B.C.), the
Jast king of the Tenth, or Heracleopolitan Dynasty, who drove out
the Asiatics from the Delta. An obelisk, found in the second temple
at Byblos, records in Egyptian hieroglyphs that Kukun, the son
of a Lukka man (a West Anatolian!), set up this monument

71
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
for Abishemu, an Amorite Prince of Byblos, beloved of the Egyp-
tian god Herishef (Arsaphes). The date of this monument is about
the 21st century B.C., and it is the first record of the cosmopolitan
nature of Byblos society.
Apart from Byblos, inscribed Egyptian stone vessels have been
found only at Cythera in the Aegean and at Dorak in Northwest
Anatolia. Egyptian calcite bowls of a type in use during the Second
and Third Dynasties have been discovered, together with Anatolian-
looking battle-axes, near a temple at Ai (Et-Tell) in the Palestinian
uplands north of Jerusalem. These are the only foreign objects
found in Early Bronze Age Palestine, but a tomb at Taanach
in the Esdraelon Valley is said to imitate Egyptian Third
Dynasty masonry. It dates from the end of E.B.2 or the beginning
of E.B.3.
The Ai temple showed hammer-dressed masonry (the rule at
Byblos, but rare in Palestine) and a plan already familiar from the
shrines at Engedi, Megiddo and Beth-Yerah IV. In the centre of a
long wall, a doorway led into a long rectangular room, with a
small chamber at one side (Fig. 26b). Four wooden pillars on stone
bases supported the roof. Store-rooms extended along the back of
the building which had a courtyard in the front.
The native E.B.3 pottery of Palestine continued the earlier
tradition of wheel-made red-slipped and burnished ware. The
introduction of Khirbet Kerak ware in the north exercised little
or no influence over the local wheel-made pottery, except that a
number of local shapes were now made in the superior northern
technique.

72
 CHAPTER VI
THE KHIRBET KERAK WARE OF SYRIA
AND NORTH PALESTINE

The handmade, brilliantly burnished pottery known as

Khirbet Kerak ware (after Beth-Yerah, Kh. Kerak IV) was by far
the most beautiful ever made in Palestine. It appeared there in the
E.B.A.3 Period and is evidently of foreign origin. The quantity
in which it appears rules out the possibility that it was imported. It
is, therefore, almost certainly the product of new elements in the
population, who brought the technique with them, and perhaps
closely guarded its secret; for there are no imitations of this ware.
The southern limit of this pottery is roughly the same as that
of the Esdraelon ware; it did not penetrate into the coastal plain
south of Megiddo, the central hill country, or the Jordan Valley
south of the Plain of Beisan. Occasional imports in the coastal plain
or at Jericho do not affect its general distribution. On the coast it
occurs at Tell Tabayiq, but not in Lebanon. The Beqaa is virtually
unexplored, but this must have been the route by which these
people entered Palestine from further north. Khirbet Kerak ware
occurs at Hama on the Orontes and on the North Syrian coastal
sites of Ras Shamra, Qalat er-Rus and Tell Sukas. Its greatest and
main centre of distribution lies in the plain of Antioch, extending
up the Afrin River; towards kilisrand scattered sherds have been
found up to Malatya (see Map V).
The pottery is homogeneous from North Syria to North Pales-
tine and one gets the impression of dealing with the same ethnic
group throughout the area. Moreover, wherever Khirbet Kerak

fis)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
wares appear, we find their makers lived peacefully alongside the
old native population. No trace of destruction accompanied their
arrival and one cannot prove that they formed an upper class,
although this is likely.
It has been suggested that Khirbet Kerak was no more than a
new fashion in pottery, unassociated with other evidence of cultur-
al changes. Such scepticism is no longer justified after the excava-
tions in the Amuq and two of the largest Khirbet Kerak sites in
Palestine, Beth-Yerah IV and Tell Shuna, ten miles further south.
Here, as in the Amugq, there are a number of features in domestic
architecture which have no precedents in the earlier layers. Though
the houses were of rectangular plan as before, and had several
rooms, benches now lined the walls, while hearths and ovens were
carefully constructed on a base of pot-sherds or chips of stone and
covered with plaster. Platforms and plastered circular basins were
set in the centre of the room or in the courtyards. Horseshoe-shaped
ovens (Fig.28) appeared with a platform in front, and pot-stands
or andirons (Fig.30: 30) were often incised with human faces. The
neatness of the construction compares well with the slovenliness
of much of the native work and suggests that the newcomers were
used to higher standards of personal comfort. Built-in furniture
was a standard feature on the Anatolian Plateau. It first appeared
there in the seventh millennium B.C.
At Khirbet Kerak itself, the site was surrounded witha wall four
metres thick made of lava boulders, which stood on top of a slope
of beaten earth. This form of defence was also seen in the later E.B.A.
wall at Byblos and became a standard feature of Middle Bronze
Age fortification throughout Syria and Palestine. At the same site
was found one of the largest and most intriguing buildings yet seen
in Early Bronze Age Palestine (Fig.28). It forms an approximate
rectangle measuring forty by thirty metres, built of big basalt
blocks, and is preserved in places to a height of nine courses, or
about two metres. The walls are some ten metres thick and nine

74
 The Khirbet Kerak Ware of Syria and North Palestine

¢ af
eff
«5
ieLaas
°
Fe
~ i)

wey ae (has. <

aa
rf = <
~S
LY ACTIN

hy.
Ky STAIRS

Ficure 28 — The Public Building at Khirbet Kerak (E.B.3).

(adapted from plan in JEF, II, 1952.)

stone circles with diameters varying from seven to nine metres

are sunk into the top of the wall. Each of these circles has four
stone partitions, two metres long.
A gate seven metres wide in the east side of the building leads
through a wide passage fourteen metres long, into a paved court-
yard, twenty-five metres long, which contained four ovens. From
the court, stone stairs lead to the top of the structure and to the
circular buildings.

75
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
In the middle of the west wall of the court a wide doorway
leads into a hall (25x 5 m.) in which stand two stone bases for
wooden columns, and three corridors lead into the circular struc-
tures behind. The entire complex was free-standing and surrounded
by paved streets 2.5 metres wide, and at the north-west corner
there was a flight of steps 3.5 metres wide.
This monumental building was probably a sanctuary; the
hall and court resemble the Engedi, Megiddo and Ai sanctuaries.
The nine circular structures were probably domed and may have
served as dwellings for the temple personnel or as temple granaries.
The reconstruction gives the building an appearance not unlike
that of the beehive villages of North Syria today. In this building
pottery of the period was found, both Khirbet Kerak and local
wares, some figurines, pot-sherds with bulls’ heads in relief, some
animal bones and a carbonised olive kernel, the earliest on record.
Beth-Yerah is one of the largest mounds in Palestine, nearly one
kilometre in length, and this, combined with the size of the temple
and the great walls, suggests considerable authority. It would not
be surprising if the palace of a local ruler were found in later excava-
tions. Early Bronze Age palaces have not yet come to light in Syria
or Palestine.
Nothing is known of the physical appearance of these new people,
and their burial habits do not appear to have been different from
those of the local population. At present there is no knowledge of
their metal-work which, judging by the metallic shapes and decora-
tion of most of the pottery, may be assumed to have been advanced.
The Khirbet Kerak ware was apparently handmade, or if the
wheel was used all traces of it were obliterated by the brilliantly
polished slip with which it was covered. This slip, orange-red in
colour, covered both the interior and exterior of the vessel. Nearly
all the carinated shapes, cups, large bowls, jars, etc., were subjected
to a special treatment. The pot, still hot from the kiln, was coated
on the outside with warm fat or dipped in hot oil, producing a

76
 The Khirbet Kerak Ware of Syria and North Palestine
black exterior below a red rim (and red interior) which is the hall-
mark of this ware. Apart from this distinctive surface treatment,
many vessels were decorated with ribbed or fluted ornaments.
Lids were grey or buff-coloured, unslipped, but burnished and bear
incised patterns filled with white chalk. The most typical shapes
are shown in Fig.29-31.
Most shapes are virtually identical, whether they come from
the Amuq or from Palestine. The favourite northern form of deco-
ration was horizontal ribs below the rim, followed by chevrons and
infrequently by ribbing covering the entire lower part of the vessel
(Figs.29: 15, 30: 19, 21); this is not found in Palestine. Several
southern motifs do not occur in the north, but high cylindrical
stands occur throughout the area.
It may be categorically stated that the Khirbet Kerak culture
came from North Syria, like so many others that reached northern
Palestine. In North Syria it probably began in Amuq phase H,
about 2800 B.C., but lasted through phase I with some modifica-
tions. In Palestine, it may have arrived a century later and its
duration is unknown. Few sites have produced clear evidence
for a post-Khirbet Kerak phase of Early Bronze Age culture,
and its end is still obscure.
This is, however, only part of the picture that archaeology has
made clear, for although North Syria and in particular the Amuq
Plain, was the staging point for a diffusion southwards, the Khirbet
Kerak culture did not originate in those parts. Its distribution up
the Afrin River shows that it entered the plain through this valley.
All efforts to trace it further north in the triangle between the
Taurus Mountains, the Euphrates and the Aleppo area have failed.
Nor is there a trace of this culture in Cilicia, but scattered sherds
in the Maras area and the plain of Elbistan may indicate a migra-
tion route between Malatya and the Amuq plain.
This culture was not associated with violence or destruction,
so it is possible that these people may have passed through certain

77
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

areas without settling, thus leaving few traces of their passage.

However, recent work in Eastern Anatolia has established an
indisputable link between the Khirbet Kerak culture and this
vast region in the Early Bronze Age, which we will now consider.

78
 CHAPTER VII

THE KHIRBET KERAK CULTURE AND ITS

EAST ANATOLIAN LINKS?

Eastern Anatolia, as a geographical and archaeological prov-

ince, extends from the watershed between the Halys (Kizil Irmak)
and the Euphrates to beyond the eastern frontier of Turkey. The
Taurus range forms its southern, the Pontic ranges its northern
boundary. The present eastern frontier does not correspond to
geographical or cultural realities and the East Anatolian culture
province extends over the adjacent territories as far as the Rion
basin (ancient Colchis), Tiflis, Lake Sevan and Tabriz and Ha-
madan. The area east of Lake Urmia, the Little Caucasus, and
the steppes north and east of it, stretching to the Caspian Sea,
were the homes of different cultures.
The major part of the vast area is occupied by mountain
ranges and does not lend itself to settled conditions based on
intensive agriculture. Cattle breeding was most important.
No traces of Neolithic occupation have yet been reported, and
Chalcolithic remains have only been found in the regions of Malatya
Elazig, Palu, Van and Urmia, where mountain passes led to the
lowlands of North Syria and Mesopotamia.
However, it is not until the Early Bronze Age that we can
form a picture of the cultures that flourished in this area as a whole,
and one is struck by the apparent homogeneity of the culture com-
plex throughout this vast extent of territory. Regional differences

1 Map V.

79
Bronze Ages — 6
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
exist, of course, but at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age they
would appear to be much less marked than in the rest of Anatolia,
Syria or Palestine. This could mean that we are dealing with
a single ethnic group such as we know existed from later sources
throughout this area. It is possible that the East Anatolian Early
Bronze Age was produced by the Hurrians, a powerful ethnic group
speaking a non-Indo-European language first attested in the
later third millennium B.C.
This group survived throughout the second millennium and
the Iron Age until the end of the Assyrian Empire, about 612 B.C.,
when the Medes and others first introduced Indo-European speech
throughout the vast domains of the old Urartian kingdom and
its neighbours.
The entire area is almost inaccessible and thus lends itself
to conservatism, resistance to change and development. It was not
until the Late Bronze and Iron Ages that it entered the political
forum of the Near East. This was first under the name of Mitanni,
led by Indo-European war lords, and later as the native Hurrian
states of Urartu and Mannai. However, this apparent political
immaturity in no way diminished the importance of this region
in the prehistory of the Near East.
During the third millennium B.C., there developed in these
parts an Early Bronze Age (frequently also called Late Chalcoli-
thic or Aeneolithic) the origins of which are still uncertain. The
use of copper was known, but the chief characteristic of the culture
was its hand-made pottery which was distinct and striking. It was
a slipped and burnished ware, usually with a black, brown or grey
exterior and a red or buff interior. It shares this feature of a light
interior with certain Central Anatolian Early Bronze wares and
with the Khirbet Kerak ware, so that a genetic link is quite possible.
The comparatively early date (ca. 2800 B.C.) when this pottery
appears fully developed in the Amuq Plain, rules out the possibility
of any direct link with the Central Anatolian wares of this kind,

80
 The Khirbet Kerak Culture and its East Anatolian Links

which are dated somewhat later. The resemblances noted by

some scholars are not always accurate and the only characteristic
shape which occurs in Central Anatolia is the cylindrical
potstand. Neither the Khirbet Kerak ware nor the Central Anato-
lian Early Bronze ware with which it has been compared, has
any association with the migration of the Hittites.
This East Anatolian pottery has sharper and more metallic
profiles than the Khirbet Kerak pottery, which is more rounded.
The highland ware is profusely decorated and much of the bolder
relief decoration is confined to large shapes. Jars and pithoi are
badly represented among the Khirbet Kerak ware, both in the
Amuq and in Palestine (see Fig. 29-31).
This pottery has many different types of decoration, the
popularity of which varies according to place and time. The richer
and more sophisticated pottery was generally the earlier, the un-
decorated the later. This is suggested by the stratified deposits at
Karaz near Erzerum, Trialeti west of Tiflis, Geoy Tepe near Rizza-
yeh, and Yanik Tepe near Tabriz.
Regional variations are marked, especially towards the extreme
limits of the distribution of this pottery. The E.B.1 pottery from
Yanik Tepe is ornamented with incised and excised patterns which
seem to derive from wood-carving, and this origin is suggested by
a number of other shapes. Another characteristic is the frequent
appearance of incised pictures showing goats and birds, common
motifs in Persian painted pottery of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
date. In the easternmost part of this group such influences may be
expected. The later E.B.2 pottery is similar, but bears no decora-
tion whatsoever. Across the lake of Urmia (Rizzayeh) a different
variant has been found at Geoy Tepe. Most of this ware was undeco-
rated and only one example of relief decoration was found (Fig. 31:
17, 23) on a large jar of characteristic type. The spiraliform pattern
has good parallels further north and west, but the deer is unique
and again points to Iranian influence. Further south, the one

81
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
decorated sherd (Fig.31:21) from Hasanlu has western and north-
ern parallels. It is strange that East Anatolian pottery has not been
found on the site during the recent American excavations. The
later Geoy Tepe E.B. 2 and 3 pottery (after 2450 B.C.) is ornamented
by simple grooves and dimples, evenly arranged. There are crude
Nahcevan lugs, great blobs hollowed out on either side which often
do not make a continuous hole, and seem to be relatively late.
A lack of rich ornamentation also distinguishes the pottery
found near the Lakes of Van and Sevan and the Mus plain. Grooves
and dimples occur as at Geoy Tepe, but relief ornament seems scarce
(Fig.31: 9). Unfortunately the material consists entirely of surface
finds and much of it may really be later in date. The pottery from
Colchis and the Kars area (Fig.29:7) again has some relief orna-
ment, sometimes combined with dimples. Elaborate ornamentation
occurs in the Trialeti region near Tiflis, the middle Araxes Valley
around Erivan and the plain of Erzerum. It is also found in the
western groups of this culture, on either side of the middle course
of the Euphrates.
There we find grooves and dimples, especially rich at Karaz;
fine and bold relief patterns, the latter frequently on pithoi, the
former on smaller jars. Elaborate groove and dimple patterns orna-
ment lids of circular, square and oblong shapes with a single handle
like a Nahcevan lug. These lids are well-made, slipped, burnished
and flat, unlike those of Khirbet Kerak which are conical, plain
and white-filled incised, but the patterns used in decoration are not
dissimilar. Decoration is generally confined to the central or shoul-
der-zone of the pots, but in the Divrigi-Malatya and Elazig regions
and sometimes at Karaz, relief ornament is found on the rims, as in
the Khirbet Kerak wares, Patterns are numerous, varied and sophist-
icated, especially in the relief class of decoration and frequently
give the impression of having been copied from metal vessels
ornamented with repoussé work or from carved wooden vessels.
It is clear that metal vessels were used in this culture. Examples

82
 The Khirbet Kerak Culture and its East Anatolian Links
of these have been found in the Maikop barrow, north of the Cau-
casus (Fig.29:11). They were probably imported from further
south. The absence of incised wares in the East Anatolian province
is noteworthy. With the exception of the E.B.1 pottery of Yanik
Tepe, incised designs are found only ‘on lids and coarse potstands
or andirons (Fig.30:28, 29, 32). The latter are another link with
the Khirbet Kerak ware, but their distribution is much wider in
Anatolia and includes parts of Central Anatolia (Alisar region).
On the Konya Plain, they are ornamented with human faces. At
Karaz and Pulur a different type of andiron was in use and elabo-
rate hearths were built which have, as yet, no counterparts else-
where. This local peculiarity is not surprising, for the altitude is
over 6000 ft. in the Erzerum plain. It is sometimes referred to as
““Turkey’s Siberia”. A more efficient way of keeping warm than
braziers and andiron-hearths was clearly desirable during the
eight or nine cold months of the year.
The andiron hearths occurred in Palestine, the Amuq Plain
and the Araxes Valley, areas less exposed to great cold than the
Eastern Plateau. Further west and north on the plateau, the andi-
ron hearths were purely subsidiary to the large hearths which
occurred in every house.
Fig.29-31 show that in both form and decoration the resem-
blances between East Anatolian and Khirbet Kerak ware are so
close as to be almost indistinguishable. A glance at these three
figures shows conclusively that, although not identical, the Khirbet
Kerak ware is evidently of East Anatolian derivation. Only
cylindrical potstands have not been found in Eastern Anatolia,
but otherwise nearly all the shapes and forms of decoration can be
matched. The same applies to the cooking pots with rim lugs that
are a feature of Khirbet Kerak ware in the Amuq, but not in Pales-
tine. These occur (without Khirbet Kerak ware) from the Maras
area as far east as Karaz.
Little is known of other features of this East Anatolian culture.

83
 Chalcolitic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Ficure 29 — Khirbet Kerak ware from North Syria and Palestine (4,5,8,13-16)
and related shapes from East Anatolia, Transcaucasia and Azerbaijan.

84
 The Khirbet Kerak Culture and its East Anatolian Links

Provenance

1,2. Yaniktepe-Tazekent (Tabriz)

Eilar, near Lake Sevan (Soviet Armenia)
Affuleh (Palestine)
Tabbara el Akrad (Amuq)
Kiketi, near Tiflis (Georgia)
Amiranis Gora (Georgia)
Beisan (Palestine)
reese
Br
~
tse
gp
2 Karaz, near Erzerum (East Anatolia)
10. Qsni in Trialeti (Georgia)
11. Maikop tomb, north of Caucasus (silver)
12. Geoy Tepe, Rizayyeh (Iran)
13. Affuleh (Palestine)
14. Tabara el Akrad (Amuq)
15. Tell Tainat (Amuq)
16. Affuleh (Palestine)
17. Nidhznem Gomi (Colchis).
For the location of these places, see Map V.
(figs. 29-31 after: C.M. Firzcerayp, in Museum Journal, 1935;
PEFQ, 1936; S. Hoop, in AS, 1; W. Lams, in AS, IV; C.A.
Burney, in AS, VIII and Jrag, XXIII; R. J. BRaAtpwoop, in OJP,
LXI; H.Z. Kogay, in Belleten, 1959; Sov. Arch., 1957, No. 4; B.A.
Kurtin, in Arch. Exc. in Trialeti, 1941; in Contrib. to mat. culture
of Colchis (Russian) ;in Arch. investigations in the Tsalka region, 1948
(Russian); T. Burton Brown, Exc. in Azerbaijan, 1948; A. STEIN,
Ancient Routes in Western Iran and in “Atlas of Oriental Silver”’, St.
Petersburg, 1909.

85
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Simple metal objects were made, such as daggers and axes, but
Khirbet Kerak sites have produced virtually no metal. Knowledge
of burial habits is scanty because so few sites have been excavated.
Intramural burials with contracted skeletons in earth graves were
found at Pulur near Erzerum. Single burials in cists occurred in
Trialeti; collective burial (as in Palestine) was practised in the
Van region (Ernis), but no burials were found at Yanik Tepe.
A little more is known about East Anatolian houses and dwellings:
cyclopean fortresses occur at Beshtasheni (Akhillar) in Trialeti
and at Ejilar north of Erivan. In the Araxes Valley, round houses
on stone foundations with central hearths were found at Eilar and
Shengavit. The richest evidence comes from Yanik Tepe (Fig. 32);
here was a fortified city containing round houses, each with a small
outer court, grouped round a huge granary. This architectural
arrangement is faintly reminiscent of the E.B.3 building at Khirbet
Kerak (Fig.28), but is less monumental. The fittings of the Yanik
Tepe houses are standardised to a remarkable degree. Each has a
bin to the right of the entrance, with compartments for the prepa-
ration of food, a hearth and sometimes a bench along the opposite
side of the house. These elaborate standard features have already
been noted in the rectangular shaped houses of the Khirbet Kerak
culture in the Amuq and some also occur in Palestine. Houses
of rectangular plan are a feature at Karaz and offer a strong con-
trast to the round houses found further east. At Yanik Tepe, for
example, the later Early Bronze Age houses also show a rectangular
plan, but with the same fittings.
Although certain analogies may be observed in architecture
and burial habits, the principal evidence for a link between the
Khirbet Kerak culture and Eastern Anatolia rests on the pottery.
Until further excavations are made, it is impossible to determine
where exactly this culture originated.
The language and ethnic affiliation of the Khirbet Kerak
people is not definitely known, If they originated in the eastern

86
 The Khirbet Kerak Culture and its East Anatolian Links

SOB
po agony

1Aapne

FicureE 30 — Cups, bowls, lids, etc. of Khirbet Kerak ware and related East
Anatolian types. N° 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24-26, 30, 31: Kh. Kerak
ware from the Amuq plain.
4, 6, 23: Kh. Kerak ware from Beisan. 5, 14: from Beshtasheni. 13 : Osni in
Trialeti (Georgia). 15, 17: from Ernis (Van). 11: from Geoy Tepe (Urmia).
27, 32 : from Yanik Tepe (Tabriz).
2, 7, 9, 20, 22, 28, 29 from Karaz (Erzerum).

Anatolian highlands at the beginning of the third millennium, both

a Semitic or an Indo-European affiliation are ruled out. It is quite
possible that these people already spoke a language related to,
or a form of, Hurrian.

87
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

48 Mt TO KF BY 28
)

Se

St Oc Ib
aS
pig ee) 20

Ficure 31 — Relief decoration on Khirbet Kerak and related East Anatolian

wares.
Nes 1,5: from Osni
2: from Takavoranast
3, 4: from Beshtasheni in Trialeti
6, 16: from Kultapa
7, 8, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24: from Karaz near Erzerum
g: from Van
10: from Yayci (Mt. Ararat)
11: from Sivrikaya (Malatya)
12: from Hinsor (Elazig)
17, 23: from Geoy Tepe (Urmia)
21: from Hasanlu (Urmia)
25-29 : Kh. Kerak ware from Amuq H
30-31 : Kh. Kerak ware from Beisan
32: Kh. Kerak ware from Affuleh
 The Khirbet Kerak Culture and its East Anatolian Links

Ficure 32 — Plan of the E.B.I settlement at Yanik Tepe, near Tebriz.

(after C.A. Burney, in /rag, XXIII, 1961.)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

VV FLD
DD) OE
OPER PRES
RS 7

Dynbaas
FicuRE 33 — Caliciform pottery from North Syria (Amuq J).
(after OJP, LXI, 1960.)

go
 CHAPTER VIII

THE END OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN

PALESTINE AND SYRIA. A SECOND WAVE
OF NOMAD SEMITIC INVADERS?

Little is known of the later centuries of the third millennium

B.C. in Palestine. There are few sites in the north where a post-
Khirbet Kerak occupation of local Palestinian type has been found.
The two most important sites of this culture, Khirbet Kerak and Tell
Shuna, were destroyed and deserted respectively and not reoccupied.
In the south, away from the influence of the Khirbet Kerak culture
area, the old local culture may have continued for a time without
much change. However, the evidence is somewhat equivocal, and
of an E.B. 4 or E.B. 3a period little is known, except perhaps in the
remote Jordanian uplands to the east of the Dead Sea. The length
of this period is also unknown, but recent re-dating of the subse-
quent culture might allow much less of a time gap. At Jericho, on
the other hand, recent evidence clearly suggests that there is no gap
and the flourishing Early Bronze Age town went up in flames as
the result of an invasion. This was not an isolated event and the
Early Bronze Age culture of Palestine seems, at numerous sites,
to have ended in violence, massacre and destruction. The date of
these events was previously put around 2100 B.C., but if we can
accept the radiocarbon dates from Hama, this date should be raised
by perhaps two hundred years.
The events that took place in Palestine seem to have been a

1 Map VI.

g!
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
repercussion from the widespread movements of new peoples further
east and north; these events left their mark, even on the peaceful
civilisation of the Nile Valley.
Soon after 2400 B.C., the city-states of Sumer, centres of one of
the highest cultures the Near East has ever seen, were conquered
by Sargon of Akkad, the first Semitic overlord to rule southern
Mesopotamia. Sargon and his people, the Akkadians, had settled
on the northern edge of the Sumerian states not far from Baghdad
and it is thought that these Semitic tribesmen came from the mar-
ginal desert west and south of Sumer.
Akkadian aggression did not stop with the conquest of Sumer,
and Sargon and his successors extended their rule over Elam and
Northern Mesopotamia. His grandson, Naram Sin, left a stele at
Pir Huseyin near Diyarbakir and built palaces at Assur and Brak.
Later epics describe a campaign of Sargon in Anatolia, but its
authenticity is not confirmed by contemporary documents. It is,
however, clear that these Akkadian rulers gained a great reputation
as conquerors and as a result of their conquests the old Sumerian
civilisation was gradually pushed northwards over the territories,
later to form the centre of the Assyrian Empire. Sargonid pottery has
been found as far as the Euphrates near Carchemish, and Sargonid
metal-work influenced even eastern and central Anatolia. Those nor-
thern campaigns were directed against Hurrian kings, who ruled in
the Khabur area. Proof of this has been found from a number of
objects in these parts. A series of great circular fortified towns exten-
ded from the Balikh to the Tigris and they appear to have formed
a fortified boundary. It is not yet clear whether they were built by
the Akkadians against the Hurrians or vice versa. The excavations
at Tell Huwera, just south of the Turkish frontier in Syria, tend
to favour the second alternative, and Naram Sin’s palace at Brak
may well have been a counterfort. These warlike exploits in the
north must certainly have had their repercussions in North Syria
west of the Euphrates,
 The End of the Early Bronze Age
During the later phases of the Khirbet Kerak occupation of
the Amuq (phase I) a new plain ware developed which was the
beginning of the wheel-made “‘mass-produced” pottery. This was
called ‘“‘Caliciform” from the predominance of chalices, goblets
and drinking cups (Fig.33). The production centre of this pottery
is thought to have been the area between the Amugq plain and the
Euphrates. There are numerous strange shapes in the north, such
as pedestalled bowls, pots on three feet, etc. No marked signs of
violence have been found, but the character of the culture changed
with the disappearance of the Khirbet Kerak ware, which was also
a foreign element. This caliciform ware, in a developed form, was
decorated with bands of paint and zigzags scraped through the
paint. It spread down the valley of the Orontes and into Northern
Palestine. A related ware occurred at Byblos after a destruction of
the city, some time before the reign of Pepi II, who ruled Egypt for
ninety-four years (2278-2181). These newcomers then installed
themselves both on the coast and in the hinterland and a few cen-
turies later, texts refer to them as Canaanites (coast) and Amorites
(hinterland). They were both west-Semitic peoples who dominated
the cultural development of Syria and Palestine throughout the
Middle and Late Bronze Ages. They controlled Phoenicia through
the entire Iron Age until the conquest of Alexander the Great in
333)B.G;
In Palestine, events were more complicated, for it would
appear that apart from northern elements who introduced the
Orontes version of Caliciform ware (as at Megiddo and in the
Esdraelon Valley), several others entered the country from the
east. The so-called E.B.-M.B. pottery had a_ widespread
distribution in the Jordan Valley, and at Jericho there are
at least two different elements represented in the tombs of
the necropolis, those buried with daggers and those buried with
pots. At Tell Ajjul near Gaza at the southern end of the coastal
plain, there is evidence of more diverse elements, each with their

98
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
own customary burial offerings. In Palestine, at least, one has
the impression of an invasion by heterogeneous nomadic and war-
like people from the surrounding deserts. It is known from Egyptian
sources that some of these Asiatics penetrated the Delta, contribu-
ting to the fall of the Old Kingdom and the Early Bronze Age civi-
lisation of Egypt.
All these elements shared a number of features, namely a high
standard of metallurgy. This is evident in their warlike armament,
and unaesthetic standardised wheel-made pottery of northern
origin. Individual tombs are in sharp contrast to the previous
collective burials. Wherever they settled on the devastated sites an
inferior form of living and architecture developed. There can be lit-
tle doubt that these were, at least in Palestine, only recently settled
nomads, whatever their counterparts in the North may have been.
It seems likely that it was these people who gradually developed
the Middle Bronze Age cultures of the early second millenniumB.C.
History is not aware of the factors which forced these nomads
to migrate. It is not known for certain what drives people out of
the steppe-like edge of the deserts, but it might be suggested that
a few years of drought, serious enough in agricultural communities,
would be disastrous to pastoralists. Lack of water would reduce
their flocks, and famine is usually the most potent agent behind
mass migrations. In a prehistoric period such events cannot be
recorded, but there is one scrap of evidence. In the reign of Unas,
the last king of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (ca. 2375-2345 B.C.),
there are a series of reliefs from the causeway of the king’s funerary
temple, depicting acute famine in Egypt, one of the richest and most
fertile agricultural lands in the Near East. There is, of course, no
way of telling whether this famine was confined to Egypt or even
to a part of it, but it must have been regarded as an event serious
enough to be recorded. It is possible that it was part of a more
widespread disaster which might well lead to the events described
above.

04
 The End of the Early Bronze Age
There is also evidence that similar migrations took place from
a totally different quarter, the south Russian steppe, at approxi-
mately the same time. Rather than regard this as a coincidence,
the author would tend to consider this period as one of general
migrations, comparable to the centuries at the end of the Bronze
Age or the great migration period at the end of the Roman Empire.

95
Bronze Ages — 7
 aamneensanceaen et 3
. Border hts ater on a
oanlert
dl wmctihngs, Tak iseven in-thees ;
and whosthene stancentived where pouter? 2. wanthamne
atu. Indvidnsl ioe off Sectherp Moet the preves

aficke Gam wi seg andbarchiwcture iveloqed. Thane cao. eile

i demott
het Uw were,#7 Meare, Polywine, ondy eccently wale
iammanic, taal orethew Teeplcr pants the aor cewy Tea ieee,
at setrus Neely ‘ipid1 wees (hese proginwhn gradually devdonalc
the Miaculle Brenas Age euleaces ofthe tal erruod ellie
Hiniery bs get Jownrc
af the factors whield fervent (ieee eee
& snlgrae:. bi > Gtaeger)dor onrtin whee Gichees people oung My
Peon ~abe rdgeol she Umerm, tui i might be engeeerd Shae
3 frw years of arougit, earqw caongh = Restieliotel cotta,
ed (lieesious it {eerhebse«, Lert ol water would peed 7
. their theke, ard Ivwcee te caeliyibe tae pose agens ERE
“ms tepeiteng, Te « mebleGle pried sich een ae Te
“one bu thet Ocwr ptep al ethenegn thee One
thd last ting of Ge Pe Presseyaf Beppe oo. Ss DGS,
iueT’ ote 4 scan! Pt) hi the aenenvasid Ts Ae eee
tetrple, cbqattiioy acti? Stuer Beyer, cvie of thé rich ge Ra eemt
Feriske ~erdonisure! ioras me var Nigoe\Set, There Sef ohare
rewy of culleu whcaler ile Gucdine teendemlin
ty Dgypeayed,
ea
$0 pare of tp taal deme, Raves hen CEA as On exe wetiCRe
east oo be soured. fa japonable that evs pert ala ce
pedcleaperr
a? imastesy welpnbh snndytlig yeelbeiaiedl es
align. a
 PART II
ANATOLIA
 CHAPTER IX

LATE CGHALCOLITHIC ANATOLIAN

CULTURES AND THEIR SPREAD TO THE
AEGEAN ™® (ca. 5000-3200 B.C.)

It is the object of this book to present a balanced picture of

cultural development in two main areas of the Near East, Anatolia
and Syria-Palestine. It is only logical to begin our discussion of Ana-
tolian culture at a date roughly parallel to the earliest develop-
ments described in the first part of the book, about the beginning
of the fifth millennium B.C. This means that we must begin with
a series of cultures which in Anatolia were known as the Late
Chalcolithic, beginning ca. 5000 B.C., and roughly contemporary
with the Halaf culture of North Syria and Mesopotamia. At this
stage the spectacular civilisations of Southern Anatolia, the Catal
Hiiyiik and Hacilar cultures were already a thing of the past. The
Can Hasan culture had gone, and everywhere were dismal traces
of destruction, violence and semi-barbarism. The old civilisations
had disappeared, the seed for the next was being sown, and there
existed the beginnings of a new set of cultures which ultimately
developed into the Anatolian Early Bronze Age. This was a period
of great achievement parallel to, but quite different from, that in
Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
The Late Chalcolithic Period of Anatolia is unfortunately
a period where our knowledge is restricted and the areas in which

1 Map VII.

99
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
it is represented comprise only a small portion of Turkey. At this
moment (May, 1963) the distribution of Late Chalcolithic cultures
in Anatolia is geographically restricted south of a diagonal line
drawn from the Bosphorus to the Amanus Mountains which divide
Anatolia from North Syria, thus excluding central, northern and
eastern Anatolia. Nothing earlier than Early Bronze Age remains
have thus far been discovered in Eastern Anatolia (see Chapter
VII). In Central Anatolia only the site of Biiyiik Giilliicek can
possibly claim to belong to this period, but nothing in the north
seems earlier than the beginnings of the Early Bronze Age. This does
not imply that these regions were not settled until then; they may
have been, but nothing that can be attributed to the Late Chalco-
lithic Period has yet been revealed by excavation or surface
exploration.
In the early nineteen-thirties, when the real characteristics
of the Late Chalcolithic Period were still unknown, this name
was given to certain cultures such as the first phases of the Early
Bronze Age of Alisar. To avoid misunderstandings, it has been
renamed E.B.1 here.
Within the Late Chalcolithic culture area of Turkey, four
distinct provinces can be discerned as the result of recent surveys.
One is in the northwest and along the Aegean coast, a second inland
in south-western Anatolia, and two others in the plains of Konya
and Cilicia respectively. Their description follows, starting with
Cilicia which had contact with North Syria (see Map VII).

LATE CHALCOLITHIC IN THE CILICIAN PLAIN.

Because of its intermediate geographic position, halfway
between the Anatolian Plateau and the Syrian Plain, Cilicia’s
prehistory is irregular, influenced by both its neighbours. This
was a swampy lowland region, lush and fertile, but endowed with
a climate similar to the Egyptian Delta, glorious in winter, unheal-
thy in summer. A strong Halaf influence during the fifth millennium

100
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia
B.C. enriched the local painted pottery with numerous interesting
patterns, but did not contribute much to local shapes. The new
pottery, besides copying the pretty Halaf patterns, absorbed
polychromy at an earlier date than the Halaf culture itself. This
may have been the result of a more developed ceramic industry.
The new culture, known as ‘‘Middle Chalcolithic’? or Mersin
XIX-XVII, showed contact with a foreign culture by which
it was replaced soon after: Mersin XVI. This seems to have
happened only at Mersin.
In level XVI new forms of pottery, the use of copper both for
weapons and tools, and a totally new form of architecture were
introduced. It probably came from the Anatolian Plateau at a date
which well preceded the first appearance of Ubaid pottery from
the east. The beginning of the Mersin XVI culture occurred around
4500 B.C., and it would be roughly contemporary with the Amuq
D culture across the Amanus.
Mersin XVI pottery introduced features hitherto unknown, such
as the first use of handles, which are great loops (Fig.34 and 36:
1-3). They were probably ancestral to those of the Amuq D (Fig.6)
and ‘‘Late Chalcolithic” Byblos cultures (Fig.1, bottom) and their
numerous offshoots in Palestine (Shuna I, W. Rabah, Ghrubba
cultures). As in those cultures, red, buff, and brown burnished
wares without decoration are common. With them we find a fine
class of black burnished wares with white-filled pointillé design
(Fig.34: 1,2), sometimes with horned handles. There are two varie-
ties of painted pottery: a cream-slipped ware, decorated with red,
brown or black paint (Fig. 34:3-5, 8) and a trichrome ware orna-
mented in red and black on a buff ground (Fig. 34:6-7). Artistically
this pottery with its pleasing shapes and its intricate geometric
design, is the best product of Late Chalcolithic Cilicia. This ware
seems to have exerted its influence as far south as Ras Shamra.
The rosette patterns may have been borrowed from Halaf, though
even that is not certain. Apart from this possibility, the Mersin

10I
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
XVI culture is not connected with Halaf. On the contrary, its
distribution up the Calycadnus Valley shows unmistakable links
with the Konya plain. The strange tab-handles found on many of
the bowls appear to be derived from plastic faces such as graced
the earlier pottery of Can Hasan in the Konya Plain. The architec-
ture has its best parallels not in the Halaf culture, but on the
Anatolian plateau, in the fortress of Hacilar I, built three-quarters
of a millennium earlier and at Can Hasan, c. 5000 B.C.
In the Cilician plain, the fortifications of Mersin XVI are the
earliest example of this type of structure. Carefully planned, and
built of mudbrick on stone foundations, it stood on the top of a
fifty-foot mound. The sides had been steeply revetted to form a
glacis, adding considerably to its strength. The prevalence of glacis
in Early and Middle Bronze Age fortifications in Syria and Pales-
tine probably derives from the fact that many of the sites already
stood on ancient mounds.
The fortress (Fig. 35:1) appears to have had a single storey,
with a continuous roof over the barrack rooms which provided
a platform for the garrison whose main weapon was the sling.
Behind the 1.5-metre thick defensive wall, provided with stout
offsets, lay a series of rooms each lit by two slit windows in the
outer walls. Each room had a small open courtyard in front, grind-
ing platforms, grain bins, hearths and other domestic arrangements.
Doors in the side walls made communication possible along the
inner face of the wall. On the northwest side of the mound, a track
or ramp led from the river to the ‘‘Water Gate” which was about
two metres wide and flanked on either side by a projecting tower
containing a guardroom, An important building, which the excava-
tors thought to be the ruler’s residence, formed a rectangular
block divided down the middle by a long central courtyard contain-
ing a domed oven. A group of rooms lay on either side. Thus the
plan of the structure resembles that of many an Early Bronze Age
house at Byblos. The fortress was destroyed by fire, probably well

102
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia

Ficure 34 — Late Chalcolithic pottery from Mersin XVI in Cilicia.

 Chalcolithtc and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

FicurE 35 — Fortification of Late Chalcolithic: a) Mersin XVI; b)

XV; c) XIV;
(After J. Garstane, Prehistoric Mersin.)

104
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia
before 4000 B.C., and the change in culture that followed its des-
truction suggests that it may have been seized and sacked by the
native Cilicians. ;
The Mersin XVI element gradually gave way to the much less
artistic productions of later building-levels (XV-XIII) in which
eastern influences, the Tell esh-Sheikh ware from the Amuq in par-
ticular, gradually increased. New fortifications were built in Mersin
XV (Fig.35:2), destroyed in XIV and were rebuilt (Fig.35:3),
and destroyed a second time at the end of XIII. Conditions
appear to have been unsettled. During this period new handmade
burnished wares appeared, in grey colours imitating stone bowls,
and also in red and black, but with no decoration. These were
roughly contemporary with Amuq E and Ubaid in North Mesopo-
tamia. Cilician contact with these areas is shown by a local variant
of Ubaid ware, which in turn was followed by buff wares related
to those of Amuq F’. Graves of this period were also found at Tarsus
(Fig.16, top three rows).
Just before the beginning of the Cilician Early Bronze Age,
there was a revival of painted pottery. At Tarsus, and in the plain
east of it, a red-on-buff ware is found decorated with chevrons, etc.,
based on local ‘‘Halaf”’ forms of decoration. At Mersin XII, on the
other hand, new and probably foreign wares occurred side by side
with the decadent and uninspiring “‘Ubaid’’-like painted vessels;
there was no trace of the Tarsus “chevron ware’’. Once again
Mersin’s western position was responsible for the appearance of new
wares, in this case a fine black burnished pottery decorated with
patterns in white paint or occasionally pattern-burnish (Fig.36:6-9).
A few sherds of the latter variety have also been found at Tarsus.
The shapes, ware and decoration of this Mersin XII pottery can
be easily matched in the Konya plain. New forms were bowls with
flaring sides (Fig.36:6) sometimes set on pedestals (Fig.36:9).
Peculiar flat tab handles may represent the ultimate degeneration
of plastic bulls’ heads which in earlier times graced the polished

105
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
bowls of the Can Hasan culture near Karaman. Although these
wares probably had a northern origin, local peculiarities must be
taken into account. A red variety, similarly decorated with white
paint and found both in the plain of Konya and in the Calycadnus
valley, does not seem to have reached Mersin. However, pattern-
burnish, as found at Mersin, had not yet appeared on the plateau.
It is somewhat difficult to date this last wave of painted wares in
Cilicia, but it should fall somewhere in the second half of the fourth
millennium B.C. They came to an abrupt end with the arrival of a
further wave of newcomers from the same highland area, the Konya
Plain, which ushered in the beginning of the Early Bronze Age,
perhaps about 3200 B.C.

Tue LATE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE Konya PLAIN.

(4500 ?-3200? B.C.).

The plain of Konya offers few attractions to the average

traveller. It is three thousand feet above sea level, treeless and
endowed with the lowest rainfall in Turkey. Ten thousand years of
deforestation have turned it into a dustbowl in spring and an arid
brown waste, shimmering with mirages, in the heat of summer.
Ankle-deep dust covers the roads in autumn and angry clouds rim
the thirsty plain to give way to a blanket of snow and brilliant
sunshine in winter.
Its northern edges are formed by buff, pink and mauve hills,
monotonous and forbidding. At the foot of these hills lie salt flats,
artemisia steppe, and around Karapinar a genuine desert with
black volcanic sand and forlorn cores of ancient volcanoes. All
these add to the loneliness of the place. Beyond the hills lie the
haunts of the nomad. Villages are poor and few in this arid waste.
Life in the plain is only possible where streams flow from the Taurus
Mountains which sweep along its southern and western flank. The
largest of these, the Carsamba Cay, is a full-blown river which
flows from the Lake of Beysehir via that of Seydisehir, into the plain

106
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia

WW
eo

Ficure 36 — Late Chalcolithic pottery from Southern and Western Anatolia, the
Cyclades and Crete.
1-3. Mersin XVI; 4, 5, 7, 8. Late Chalcolithic — Konya Plain; 6, 9. Mersin
XII — white painted; 10, 11. Konya Plain — white painted; 12-15. Beycesultan;
16-17. Tigani (Samos); 18. Late Neolithic Phaistos (Crete); 19. Tigani; 20. Iasos
(Caria); 21. Beycesultan; 22. Goblet of Pyrgos type (Crete); 23. ‘‘Fruitstand”’ of
Kumtepe Ib type (Troad); 24. Tall necked jug from Komotini (Greek Thrace) ;
25. Wase from Phaistos (Crete); 26. Phaistos; 27. Tigani; 28. Phaistos; 29. Pelos
culture; 30. Tigani; 31. Tigani (pattern-burnished) ; 32. Iasos.
(after J. Garsranc, Prehistoric Mersin; J. MELLAART, in AS, XIII, 1963; S. Luoyp
and J. MELLAART, Beycesultan, I, (1962); A. Furness, in PPS, XXII, 1956: D.H.
Frencu, in AS, XI, 1961; D. Levi, in Annuario, 1961-62 (Iasos), 1957-58 (Phaistos.)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
of GCumra, the westernmost and most fertile of the plain’s three
sections. It is here, at the site of Catal Hiiyiik, that the earliest
civilisation of Anatolia has been found, dating from the Early
Neolithic Period in the seventh millennium B.C. This was presum-
ably followed by a Late Neolithic culture of which nothing is
known, and a known Early Chalcolithic culture with a distinctive
painted pottery named after Catal Hiiyiik West. The Early Chalco-
lithic culture had at least two main phases; the later one is best
known from the burnt settlement of Gan Hasan near Karaman. Its
destruction may have taken place around 4900 B.C., which brings us
to the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic Period in Anatolia. How-
ever, in the Konya plain, as in Cilicia, there is a “Middle Chalcoli-
thic’’, more closely linked to what went before than to the typical
Late Chalcolithic of the plateau, with dark burnished wares and
little or no painting. As at Mersin, the ““Middle Chalcolithic” of
Can Hasan has several varieties of painted pottery; a black on red
ware, a black or brown buff-ware and a polychrome ware, as well
as plain red and black burnished pottery. These are parallel to
Mersin XIX-XVII, the period in which Halaf influence made
itself felt there. In the Konya plain, there is no trace of this influence
so the development is probably a local one. It is derived in part
from the later painted wares of the preceding Early Chalcolithic
Period and possibly influenced Mersin. The tendency of that west
Cilician site was to reflect northern developments, whereas Tarsus
appears to be more representative of the Cilician plain itself. This
“Middle Chalcolithic’’ of Can Hasan (discovered in 1962 and thus
not yet published) gave way about 4500 B.C., or somewhat later,
to an altogether different culture which is truly Late Chalcolithic
and is found over the greater part of the Konya plain.
So far only sherds and broken vessels have been discovered
and nothing at all is known of Late Chalcolithic buildings, metal-
work or other artifacts. It would seem that many sites were settled
for the first tume and that there was a break with earlier cultural

108
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia

traditions. The new customs were probably introduced by a new

people, of a different, inferior culture. Where they came from is
not known. Resemblances of their pottery to the Late Chalcolithic
wares of Beycesultan in southwestern Anatolia would seem to
indicate a northern or northwestern origin. They may have drifted
in from the marginal areas of the earlier painted pottery cultures,
the distribution of which was restricted to the southern half of the
country.
At this time straw was first used in clay as a temper instead of
small grits. Walls of vessels were thicker, and the firing less well
controlled so that grey cores and mottled surfaces are common.
A thick and often crackled burnished slip was frequent and the
pottery was mostly dark in colour; black, brown, grey, purple and
red outnumber buff and orange pieces. Shapes also lacked the grace
of the earlier cultures and tend to be heavy with enormous lugs.
Sharply carinated shapes were common for bowls, jugs and jars
(Fig. 36:4-5). Other jars have funnel necks (Fig.36:7-8) and bowls
are hemispherical or straight-sided. No bowls on pedestals have yet
been found, although numerous shapes are matched in the Mersin
XVI ware. Coarse ware was also common at this time. Some was
wiped or brushed to produce a scored surface. Incision was not
common, but there was much white paint, especially on finer shapes
and perhaps mostly in the later phases of the period. The patterns
were few and simple (Fig. 36:10, 11) and exclusively linear. Plastic
ornament was by no means rare and many of the vessels give the
impression of having wood or metal prototypes.

LATE CHALCOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH-WEST OF ANATOLIA.

(ca. 5000-3200 B.C.).

In the southwest of Anatolia, the Early Chalcolithic Hacilar

culture was destroyed by new elements, probably from the north-
west, who introduced a much inferior culture, the Late Chalcolithic.
This culture is now fairly well-known from the excavation of the

109
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
great mound of Beycesultan in the Upper Maeander Valley (Pl.
XVIa). The site was surrounded by heavily wooded hills and was
partially encircled by the Maeander River, near a ford. The mound
of Beycesultan evidently owed its importance not only to the lush
valley in which it lies, but to its situation on the natural route from
inner Anatolia to the Aegean coast. Fifty kilometres south of Beyce-
sultan a low rim of hills protects the upper plain from the deep rift
valley which leads to the coast. The descent, though abrupt, can
be negotiated on foot in about an hour, easily the most convenient
route from the Anatolian plateau. This and a number of other
sites in the southwest were first settled at this period. Further south,
in the Hacilar area, there are a number of sites where remains of the
later culture overlie those of the earlier Hacilar culture.
An overlap between the two can be ruled out, but there could
have been a temporary hiatus. At Beycesultan there are at least
twenty building levels of this Late Chalcolithic Period, and by the
beginning of the Early Bronze Age the mound measured eleven
metres in height. These thick deposits clearly show that this was
a period of great length, but with little internal development and
no great achievement. However, it was during this long period
that the foundation was being laid for the coming of the Early
Bronze Age. The great steps forward were not so evident in pottery
or living conditions as in the particularly Anatolian field of metal-
lurgy. At the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age, parts of
Anatolia were fully familiar with the manufacture of tin-bronze,
a knowledge they could only have obtained by experiment during
the preceding period. The first settlers at Beycesultan were certainly
not nomads, for the earliest remains are not those of camp sites,
but neat rectangular houses built of mud brick with rectangular
rooms and plastered walls. Stone foundations were lacking, but
round hearths and clay storage bins containing wheat were a stand-
ard feature. The stone industry was decadent, which is an indica-
tion of the use of metal tools. None have been found, but other

IIo
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia

copper objects such as needles, awls, bars and a fragment of dagger,

prove the use of this metal. A silver ring shows the first use of this
attractive metal, so common in Turkey, and it may be assumed that
gold was also known. The Beycesultan settlement was large,
and in its fourth and last phase it was surrounded with a defensive
wall, which was not unusual in Anatolia where fortifications were
used as early as the sixth millennium B.C.
Like their predecessors, these people practised agriculture,
kept sheep, goats, cattle, pigs and dogs and hunted deer and boar
with wooden pikes and sling. They spun, wove cloth and mats,
and used baskets, leather vessels and pottery. The pottery is like
that of the Konya plain, straw tempered, heavy, not too well-fired
and generally dark. The only decoration was painted in white
with fine and simple geometric patterns on bowls (Fig.36:14) and
jugs (Fig.36:12). Shapes are few and unimaginative (Fig.36:12-15,
21) and though the pottery can be divided into four successive
phases, little development may be traced except in the bowls. Jugs
were particularly common in this culture and also deep-flaring
bowls. Pedestals did not occur and lugs were rare, except in the
second phase which shows some links with the Late Chalcolithic
of the Konya Plain. As in that culture, an increase of sophistication
is only noticeable towards the end of the period at the approach
of the Early Bronze Age.
Another feature of this period, attested at Beycesultan and
Kusura, is the burial of the dead in cist or pithos graves. In western
Anatolia the graves, except for children, were outside the settle-
ments. At the (final) Late Chalcolithic cemetery at Kusura, the
dead were accompanied by one or two pots and West Anatolian
burial gifts were nearly always scanty, except in the case of royal
tombs. The cemeteries of Beycesultan, which would be well worth
excavating, have not yet been discovered.

ee

Bronze Ages — 8
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
LATE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD oF NORTHWEST ANATOLIA AND THE
AEGEAN COAST.

The Late Chalcolithic of southwestern Anatolia developed

without a break into the Early Bronze Age, ca. 3200 B.C. Throughout
the latter period this area was in contact with the Aegean coast by
means of the great river valleys of the Maeander and the Hermos,
whose headwaters reached into this culture province. Southwestern
Anatolia was linked by these natural routes to the coast and to the
southern end of the northwestern province which reaches down to
Izmir (classical Smyrna). Recent explorations by Mr. D.H. French
in the northwest, and excavations by Prof. D. Levi in Caria have
shown that cultural links go back to a much earlier period.
Archaeological surveys show Late Chalcolithic settlements of
a Beycesultan type in the inland area between Manisa and Akhisar
(the real centre of ancient Lydia) and in the adjacent plain of
Balikesir to the north. There are no surface remains for the first
phase of this culture. However, the Late Chalcolithic settlers of the
southwest may well have originated in those areas. Such a point
can only be established by future excavations.
The final Late Chalcolithic phase is best represented in the
inland areas. By this time the links with the Beycesultan area had
become greatly weakened, giving way to a local culture known as
Kumtepe Ib, from a site in the Troad near Troy. This was excavat-
ed thirty years ago but the findings are still unpublished. From the
stratigraphy of that site we know the Kumtepe Ib immediately
preceded the Troy I culture (the beginning of the Early Bronze
Age), of which it is evidently the ancestor. From this it is possible to
establish a rough sequence of Late Chalcolithic cultures for the
maritime provinces along the Aegean coast and the offshore islands.
From the nature of these finds it is clear that although the inland
areas can be linked with Beycesultan, the coast showed other con-
nections. In fact, it formed a different, though related, culture
province.

EL?
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia

He
Z “B37

"
fy
<
4 2
ys? J lo

Figure 37 — The cemetery of cist graves at Iasos, Caria. pp. 87, 101
(after D. Levi, in Annuario, 1961-62.)

Ficure 38 — Late Chalcolithic pottery from Biyiik Giilliicek in Central

Anatolia.
(redrawn from H.Z. Kogay, Ausgrabungen von Biiyiik Giilliicek, Ankara, 1957.)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
The last Late Chalcolithic phase of Kumtepe Ib is widespread
in N.W. Anatolia and in the islands of Lemnos and Chios. Typical
pottery shapes, such as the bowl with rolled rim on a pedestal (Fig.
36:23) even occur in Naxos, Paros, Nisos, Amorgos in the Cyclades
group and in the Pyrgos group of Crete (Fig.36:22). These wares
were distributed through maritime trade to Attica, Boeotia, Thes-
saly, and along the northern shore of the Aegean (see Map VIII).
At Kumtepe, in the Troad, this phase was preceded by one in
which pattern-burnished ware, already known from Mersin XII
in Cilicia, was in use, but on the wane, in Kumtepe Ia. Ata number
of other sites down the coast, at Bessiktepe and at Tigani on Samos
in particular, the pattern-burnished ware is abundant (Fig.36:16,
17, 31) and a few sherds at Beycesultan inland would date it to
an earlier phase of the Late Chalcolithic. Similar sherds have been
found at Paros in the Cyclades, and they are not unusual at Aigina
in the Saronic gulf or in the Pygros Culture of Crete. Although
these wares are not all from the same period, this form of decoration
was evidently popular in the Aegean.
Where it can be dated securely, as in Anatolia, it belongs to
the middle phases of the Late Chalcolithic (except in Cilicia). In
many ways it was a substitute for the elaborate white painting
on dark vessels, since it was probably easier to produce the
faint pattern by burnishing than by painting. A leather-hard
vessel before firing could be burnished with a pebble or a piece of
wood, making patterns, which after firing would come out dark on
a light ground. This saved the labour of painting in white on a dark
background with a similar effect, as the white paint had a tendency
to be obscured in the firing.
Although Tigani on Samos offers interesting parallels to Beyce-
sultan, it is clear that this unstratified material represents another
culture. On this pottery, incision was as common as pattern-burnish.
White-painted decoration was relatively rare (Fig.36:16). A parti-
cular feature of all these cultures was the use of horned handles —

114
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia
notably missing at Beycesultan, but widespread in northern
Anatolia, Greece, Crete and the Balkans (Fig.36:24, 26, 30). The
earliest examples of these occur in Hacilar I, at the beginning of
the fifth millennium, but they were not perpetuated.

THE CYCLADES.

The first settlements on the offshore islands in the northern

Aegean appear to date to a phase in the Late Chalcolithic, and
a similar pattern may be observed in the Cyclades, further
south.
Our knowledge of these islands is extremely restricted. Their
earliest occupation must have been at the beginning of the Neoli-
thic Period, because obsidian from Melos was in wide use through-
out the Aegean at this time. The earliest known remains from the
cist grave cemeteries of the Pelos group yielded pottery and marble
vessels. The pottery has shapes which are similar to those of the
Late Chalcolithic on the Carian mainland, while the marble vessels
are of local origin. The recent discovery of a prehistoric cemetery
of cist graves (Fig.37) at Iasos on the Carian coast, sheds new light
on the origin of this early Cycladic culture. The Iasos pottery
includes the same funnel-necked jars (Fig.36:32), and bottles with
vertical tubular lugs which are so characteristic of Amorgos, Naxos,
Paros, etc., in the same brown or blackish grey ware (Fig.36:29).
At Iasos there are jugs (like Fig.36:12) with white painted decora-
tions which link up with Tigani on Samos (Fig.36:19), with Chios
and Calymnos and with the last Late Chalcolithic phase of Beycesul-
tan and Kusura (Fig.36:12-13). This new evidence from Caria
tends to support Thucydides’ statement that the prehistoric inhabit-
ants of the Cyclades were Carians. Seafaring might account for
the Kumtepe Ib vessels in the Cyclades, the spread of the pattern-
burnished ware and the marble Cycladic vases found at Tigani,
Kumtepe and other sites.

115
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

CRETE.

Far to the south, the island of Crete was inhabited as early as

6000 B.C. It is now fairly certain from the pottery and food plants
brought with them, that the first settlers came from western Ana-
tolia at about the same time the Late Neolithic settlers arrived
at Hacilar, where they developed the first culture with painted
pottery. In Crete, however, older traditions prevailed and the
pottery was dark and burnished, decorated with incised patterns
which were filled with white chalk. If one accepts the radiocarbon
dating for Knossos, it must be assumed that the ancestral culture
from which the Knossos Neolithic sprung was already flourishing
at the end of the seventh millennium, probably in coastal western
Anatolia. Moreover the Cretan Early Neolithic already contained
a number of derivations that are typical of the Late Neolithic
cultures in West Anatolia. This suggests that the earliest Cretan
Neolithic and the West Anatolian Late Chalcolithic cultures, a
thousand years later, descended from a common ancestor. Although
possible, further excavations are needed to prove the relationship.
Hypothetical Ancestral West Anatolian
| (Coastal Neolithic)

Knossos Early Neolithic West Anatolian Late Chalcolithic

Sixth millennium after 5000 B.C.
supplants Hacilar Culture

The Early and Middle Neolithic Periods of Crete flourished

contemporarily with the Hacilar culture. The Cretan Late Neoli-
thic, best known from Phaistos, presents numerous parallels with
the West Anatolian Late Chalcolithic culture, both that of Beyce-
sultan and of the Konya Plain. It probably came to Crete through
fresh arrivals from the Anatolian mainland or the offshore islands,
or through a strong increase in trade. Whatever its origin, there

116
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia
existed fine black and red burnished-wares, some decorated with
coarsely executed pattern burnish. Others were marked with coarse-
ly incised filled triangles and, new and unexpected, painted deco-
ration in red ochreous paint on black vessels. Horned handles (Fig.
36:26), like those of the Konya Plain, were also used. Many shapes
had sharp metallic profiles (Fig.36:25) and although local forms
prevailed, we find straight-necked jugs of Beycesultan type, shallow
flaring bowls of similar origin (Fig.36:18), funnel-necked jars and
others. Links with Cos, Calymnos and Samos are strong and show
the way in which these west Anatolian influences reached the island.
Towards the end of the period, perhaps contemporary with
the fourth Late Chalcolithic phase, or shortly thereafter, there
appeared a “subneolithic” or ‘‘Pyrgos phase’’. This included fine
pattern-burnished wares, goblets and fruit-stands of the Kumtepe
Ib type, together with Cycladic figurines and other island features.
This phase overlapped the beginning of the Early Bronze Age just
as it did in Northwestern Anatolia, and during its first period (Early
Minoan I) both new and old wares were found. However, it is not
yet possible to accurately date this period.
During the “Pyrgos’’ phase the dead were buried in communal
burial caves. There is still no trace of metal objects at this time. It is
possible to demonstrate, archaeologically, that the islands of the
Aegean derived their culture and population from Western Anato-
lia, but influences emanating from that country went far beyond
these islands. In mainland Greece during the Late Chalcolithic
Period (locally termed ‘‘Late Neolithic”, for metal was scarce or
non-existent), many parallels may be drawn to the island features
which are originally Anatolian. These similarities may also be
found on the northern shore of the Aegean, in Macedonia, Thrace
and the inland regions beyond (see Map VIII). Within the limits
of this work, it is impossible to describe the multitudinous ways in
which Anatolian influences contributed to the formation of the
various Early Bronze Ages in Greece and southeastern Europe.

117
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
NORTHERN ANATOLIA
Within northern Anatolia there are a series of ceramic groups
(or cultures) belonging mainly to the last phase of the Chalcolithic
Period. In the Troad, on the islands of Lemnos and Chios and
inland, occurs the Kumtepe Ib culture with oval mudbrick houses
on stone foundations. Pedestalled goblets, called fruitstands, were
characteristic with rolled rims and a few tubular lugs set below or,
occasionally, on the rim. Projections on the rim were featured and
sometimes these took the form of miniature horns. Carinated bowls
with inverted rims were found, but these were unusual. Slightly
everted rims were more common, frequently provided with the
same tabular lugs, horizontally perforated. Jugs were made, but
they still had horizontal mouths since the typical “beak spout”
(Fig.52) began at the very end of the period. Pattern-burnish was
then out of fashion, but white paint decorations were common,
especially at Lemnos, and horned handles were still popular. Burial
customs are not well documented; extramural burial seems to have
been the rule except at Kumtepe. Funeral gifts were rare or non-
existent and metal objects are not definitely recorded. Late Chalco-
lithic pottery has been found further east at Pazaryeri (with bowls
like Beycesultan Late Chalcolithic 4) and at Yazir, near Sivrihisar
in Phrygia. A fruitstand has been found here with white-painted
bowls like those from the Konya Plain, also incised and pointillé
ware and bowls with horned handles. Some similarities can be
observed with the sites of Alaca Hiiyiik and Biiyiik Giillticek in
Central Anatolia, the only two which may date back to the Late
Chalcolithic Period, as here defined. Biiyiik Giilliicek was a hamlet
on top of a hill in the middle of a forested region. Rectangular rooms
were common, containing hearths and ovens. The inhabitants
were buried in contracted position below the floor. Two building
levels of this period have been found, but the pottery is homoge-
neous and it is clear that the settlement was short-lived. At Alaca
Hiiyiik on the other hand, at least six levels have been discovered

118
 Late Chalcolithic Anatolia
but the material still awaits publication. Although most of the tools
were of flint and imported obsidian, these people knew how to manu-
facture copper daggers (Fig.17b) and flat axes. They used socketed
battle-axes for warfare of a type which is common throughout Early
Bronze Age Anatolia. At Alaca Hiiytik the most distinctive pro-
duct was pottery, dark in colour, burnished and frequently incised
with a wealth of patterns (Fig.38). White paint decorated the pot-
tery, similar to the cultures further south and west. Some red paint
was used on buff or black ware, as at Yazir and Phaistos. Coarse
ware had rope decoration, and bowls and jars were made with
horned handles. Other handles imitated animal heads; pedestals
were short and rare and the fruitstand was apparently unknown;
local clay figurines were clumsy. This Biiyiik Giilliicek pottery has
also been found at Alaca Hiiyiik, but with different pottery which
may be of later date. This included fruitstands of the Alisar type
(Fig.59:2), which cannot be earlier than the Early Bronze Age.
The date of Biiyiik Giilliicek cannot be firmly established, but it
may be late fourth millennium. The origin of this culture is unknown,
but, surprisingly, the pottery shows links with western Anatolia
and, through its large horned handles, with Thrace and eastern
Bulgaria. It is unlikely that Biiyiik Giilliicek was an isolated site,
but the north of Anatolia still presents one of the greatest archaeo-
logical voids in the region.
Our knowledge of culture patterns in Central and Eastern
Anatolia does not go back beyond the beginning of the Early
Bronze Age. Perhaps the excavations at Kiiltepe, near Kayseri,
which have produced such a wealth of information about the
Early and Middle Bronze Ages in this area, will soon penetrate
deeper layers, and shed light on the earlier prehistory of Central
Anatolia.

119
Boise c ital
ae ey Bee
222 Has t
ake | wl of
task) ae
~isaryl,
Sur ype
F89531 ah
os PietEis Mae
Pi = Cita SNe ee
noe | re oat64
_ "
anateid bas “Torin figaqigH Sa
sR
aetia
pot si, longciangicod 2 poorer
SPEEA, TE 299% 16 prot ayagRa
ig8 pA. 9
agi duce egesreR
iad.1. nen oft Beae fl diakar
Saatone dogs Mhiyg Lor RidRe) ph. 280% obi aE are
Lecthita in’ renaiclorss pias wt, RO igi | fsa

Peete s phox aM bec tare i, an tien nea ts

Sewats ax corto Lave beim Angst ete pnetnbesmiet. 7

Po el Pe he ‘rwas’ te ws tyrant At wWwi¢ alvast~li eet, At Alaca
ey zi ~) head, ot joke say byowhe base team chinetiwvywad
 CHAPTER X

THE EARLY BRONZE AGE a. 3200-1900 B.C.

THE FIRST PHASE (E.B.1)

The period following the Late Chalcolithic is conveniently

described as the Early Bronze Age, even though only a few areas
had mastered the technique of making bronze. Actually copper
remained the more common material for the manufacture of tools,
weapons, objects and vessels. Precious metals such as gold, silver,
electrum were widely used. Iron, the most precious of all, was rare.
“Early Metal Age’ has therefore been proposed, but the other
term has now been in use for so long that, provided the meaning is
understood, there seems to be no reason to discard it. ‘“Third mil-
lennium’’ is frequently used as a term for the same period. However,
it lacks accuracy, especially now that it is known that the Early
Bronze Age might reach back to the fourth millennium. The dates
given here are rough estimates and still controversial. It should not
be assumed that the Early Bronze Age started or ended everywhere
at the same time, for this was evidently not the case. No single date
for this period in Anatolia has yet been fixed by the radiocarbon
dating method.
Generally speaking, the Early Bronze Age appears to have
developed from the preceding culture without the arrival of new
elements. There is no actual break or dividing line between these
two periods, and the quickening tempo noticeable everywhere at
the end of the Late Chalcolithic foreshadowed the beginning of
the new age, one of widening horizons and greater prosperity.
The cause of this increased prosperity is still unknown, for the

I2I
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East |
period, as a whole, belongs to prehistory and there are no written
records. At the end of the period Assyrian merchants became es-
tablished at Kiiltepe near Kayseri and at numerous other sites in
central and southeastern Anatolia. It is clear that trade, especially
in metal, may have been one of its main resources, if not the chief
one. During this period metallurgy was practised on a large scale.
Since Anatolia was the richest country in ores in the Near East,
its wealth was assured. Riches from the royal tombs at Alaca
Hiiyiik, Mahmatlar, Horoztepe and Dorak, and from the royal
treasury at Troy include many exotic materials. These range in
origin from Badakhshan and the Kuen-Lun mountains in the east
to the Baltic in the northwest, so it is clear that the trade was
organised on an international scale. A succession of caravans,
culminating in those of the black Anatolian donkeys, carried goods
over plains, mountains and rivers, while ships traded in the Black
Sea, Marmora, the Aegean and the Mediterranean throughout
this period. Trade was evidently organised by local rulers who
must have protected the merchants both physically and by treaties
with other potentates.
The Early Bronze Age can be divided into three main phases,
of which the first is the least known. The second marked the height
of prosperity throughout the country, and the third was hardly
less wealthy in the centre of Anatolia and the Pontic provinces.
Trade contacts were established with Mesopotamia and Syria
under Sargonid rule. In the west and south, however, the prospe-
rous age of E.B.2 ended in catastrophe when invaders from the
north overran the earlier cultures and upset the balance of power
around 2300 B.C. Some sections recovered earlier than others and
trade was soon re-established in the Aegean, but other areas, such
as the Konya plain, lay waste for several centuries. During this
period it is likely that the first speakers of Indo-European langua-
ges forced their way into Anatolia, to be rapidly followed by others.
At the end of E.B.3 we can trace a gradual development

122
 Early Bronze Age I
into the Middle Bronze Age, upset by only minor disruptions. Only
in the south (Cilicia) and the east of Anatolia and in the Pontic
provinces has the transition been obscured by lack of excavations.
Throughout this long period, the culture remained essentially
Anatolian and no changes in the material culture were introduced
by the Indo-European invaders. Judging from the Late Bronze Age
texts the invaders’ influence was confined to language, religion and
political and social organisation, but the culture which emerged
from this amalgamation was more Anatolian than foreign. The
Indo-Europeans absorbed the superior civilisation of the native
population so their invasion is marked, archaeologically, by des-
truction and desertion of earlier settlements along the passage of
their migration. No tell-tale traces, such as tumuli, remain of their
steppe heritage, and it is doubtful that they introduced the horse
or the chariot to the area.

THE BEGINNING OF THE ANATOLIAN EARLY Bronze AGE (E.B.1).

At least fourteen different cultures have been distinguished
during this period in Anatolia, mainly on the basis of their pottery
(see Map X), with each occupying a distinct geographical district.
Our knowledge of this panoply of cultures is extremely uneven.
Their distribution has been quite carefully defined by archaeological
field surveys in the last decade, but excavation (and therefore a
wider knowledge of the cultures concerned) has been restricted.
The area is so vast that it will take many years to complete the
present discoveries. Some cultures are known only from surface
pottery; others from deep soundings which produced pottery and
little else. In still other areas only the cemeteries have been un-
earthed, but no settlements, or vice versa. Some cultures are more
advanced than others, or seem to beso from our present knowledge.
Thus, it is difficult to indicate a particular area as the centre and
pivot of Early Bronze Age culture. Unity was never achieved in
prehistoric Anatolia and one of its most interesting features is the

123
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
cleavage between the west and south, and the centre and east. This
is marked not only in pottery, metalwork, figurines and other
remains, but is equally noticeable in burial habits, extramural
being the rule in the west, intramural in the east. The dividing
line runs diagonally from the Gulf of Izmit to the mountains east
of Ankara, and then down to the Amanus Mountains (line of crosses
on Map X). Very little contact took place across this ““boundary’”’,
which may have been an ethnic and linguistic one, until the break-
down of cultural frontiers at the beginning of E.B.3.
Both areas were alike in religion, which, among these pre-
Indo-European Anatolians, was still one of the agricultural fertility
type in which a “Great Goddess” played a predominant part.
The figurines and statues characteristic of such a cult are essentially
the same, for they portray the goddess and her attendants, male,
female, or animal. Their names, and the rituals and customs of such
religions no doubt varied from area to area, but this is scarcely
expressed in the archaeological material which has been found.
Of the Anatolian E.B.A cultures, the best-known is the North-
west Anatolian Troy I culture, the distribution of which is purely
maritime (Map VIII).
No single culture in Anatolia can boast a larger number of
excavated sites: Troy, Poliochni, Thermi, Emporio, and soundings
at Bayrakli, Helvaci-Hiiyiicek, Bozkéy-Hiiyiicek, Karaagactepe
and Kumtepe (Ic), but nothing is known of their cemeteries, ex-
cept that they were extramural. There is now evidence that this
culture was also represented along parts of the northern sea-board
of the Aegean, with a strong centre in coastal Macedonia, where
it starts off the local Early Bronze Age. From the fortress of Troy
I, the city of Poliochni (II-IV) and the township of Thermi (I-V)
a clear picture of the life of their inhabitants can be obtained. In
this region stone, easily available, was used for the lower parts of
the walls, not merely for foundations. Sleeping platforms, ledges,
benches and other items of built-in furniture were fashioned in stone

124
 Early Bronze Age I
covered with plaster. In the windy and rainy climate of the northern
Aegean the plaster has not survived, so that many features stripped
of their cover are hard to interpret. Houses were built on a rec-
tangular plan and consisted of a long hall with a porch in front
opening onto a courtyard. This is called the megaron. The main
living-room had a central hearth, beriches, etc. and was lighted by
windows set directly below the flat roof. The houses were one-
storeyed, sometimes free-standing, but more often grouped in blocks
with party walls. Narrow streets or lanes separated the blocks and
served as thoroughfares of the settlements. Wider streets led to
gates in the city walls as at Troy, Poliochni and Thermi V. The
walls were provided with gate towers and bastions, and approached
by ramps. At Poliochai the stone-built walls still stand five metres
high and have slit windows for archers. At Troy they are nearly as
well preserved, but obscured by later remains, since much of Troy I
is unexcavated. Only public buildings have been found, so far, at
Poliochni which is the most impressive site of the period. An im-
mense storeroom lies north of the main thoroughfare, and just a
little inside the gate and on the opposite side there is a great hall
provided with tiers of benches along the entire long side of the build-
ing, the earliest form of theatre construction.
As the settlements grew, new quarters were added and new
walls built, extending the occupied area. Food was stored in large
vessels or clay-lined bins, either raised or sunk in the floor. Wheat
and barley were grown and this was parched and baked in bread
ovens or boiled in three-legged cooking pots. Carbonised remains
of figs have been found in Poliochni. The coastal sites people were
also engaged in fishing and the gathering of shellfish. Domesticated
animals, such as cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, were kept every-
where. Stone tools were still common; blades oflocal flint and obsid-
ian (not necessarily imported, as it is found in the Troad) were
used for cutting or sickle blades. Polished stone axes and adzes were
made for tree-felling and carpentry. Although arrowheads were

125
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
found only at Poliochni, perforated battle-axes and maceheads of
hard stones, beautifully polished, were used as weapons of war.
Bone tools were common, especially awls and piercers for leather
work. Spindlewhorls, biconic in shape and ornamented with incised
patterns filled with white chalk or ground-up bone, and crude
loomweights, show that weaving was extensively practised.
None of this equipment shows any technical advance over
that of the previous period. In metallurgy, however, progress
was manifest; at Thermi and Troy I true bronze was used, although
the tin must have been imported, as there was none in Anatolia.
Childe has suggested Bohemia as a source for tin but this remains
to be verified. However, this culture’s interest in Eastern Europe is
beyond any doubt. A late Troy I hoard from Poliochni yielded
three bronze daggers, flat or with a pronounced midrib, five flat
axes or hoes (of a type which first appeared in the Late Chalcolithic
all over the Near East) and one fine socketed axe of advanced type.
Thirteen other flat axes came from a hoard near Edremit and Troy,
while Thermi and the cemeteries of the Yortan culture inland are
equally rich in tools and weapons. The metal armament of this
period consisted of socketed battle-axes, daggers, and spearheads
with two slots in the blade for tying thongs round the split wooden
shaft into which it was set. As yet there is no evidence for swords
in this period. Curved knives (see Fig. 50:3), awls, needles, punches,
drills, chisels and pins with bird terminals were all made of metal,
thus indicating that plenty of copper and bronze was available
then. As neither Lesbos nor Lemnos have natural ore deposits the
richness of metal on those islands must have been derived from
trade.
The pottery of the Troy I culture is a more developed form of
its predecessor, Kumtepe Ib. Black, dark grey, brown and red burn-
ished handmade pottery continued, but some of the old shapes like
the fruitstand disappeared, except at Poliochni, and other new
shapes, like the beak-spouted jug, became common. Pedestalled

126
Plate XVII — a) Plan of larger of two Dorak tombs with burial of a king (right)
and queen (left) accompanied by their grave goods.
PratE XVIII — 4) Sketch of the kilim (woven woollen carpet) found
in smaller of Dorak tombs.
 PLATE XIX

a) Bronze figure of a stag, inlaid with

silver, antlers and head silver plated.
Alaca Hiiyiik, grave B.

b) Bronze figure of a stag. Alaca Hiyuk,

erave A I,
 PLATE XX

a) Bronze figure of a bull with dots im

electrum. Alaca Hiiyiik, grave E.

b) Bronze figure of a bull, plated and inlaid

with silver. Alaca Hiiyiik, grave H.
Pirate XXI— a) Bronze standard of a stag flanked by two bulls. Alaca Hiyiik, grave B.
b) Bronze standard with geometric pattern and figure of a wild ass. Alaca
Huyuk, grave D.
Pirate XXII — a) Four ceremonial battle axes from the larger Dorak tomb, made of nephrite, |
lapis lazuli, obsidian and amber with gold and silver fittings.

b) Restored drawing of silver dagger with gold plated hilt and rock crystal
pommel in the form of lions, heads, Dorak.
Pirate XXIII — Gold plated silver figure of a woman. Probably from Horoztepe.
 S

. a

Ce
2

AIS:

ses
7
aK

<

PLATE XXIV — Bronze sistrums ornamented with small animals and birds from Horoztepe.
 Early Bronze Age I
vessels and jugs and jars on three feet were a feature of this period,
many with lids to keep out dust and insects. At Troy, incised and
white-filled decoration was more common than any other; at
Poliochni white paint survived the previous period, but its use was
more restricted. Typical were horns on rims, horizontally placed
and perforated tubular lugs on bowl rims (in the previous period they
were set below the rims). There are, however, marked local varia-
tions in the pottery of Troy I, Poliochni and Thermi, showing the
potters’ great originality. Some of the vessels undoubtedly copied
metal prototypes, but no metal vessels of this period have yet come to
light. Such negative evidence is far from conclusive, for corroded
silver or bronze was not likely to be salvaged by tomb robbers.
The Early Bronze Age culture of Macedonia seems to derive
directly from Early Troy I and may represent an offshoot of sea-
faring Anatolians. Its earliest pottery is very close to that of Troy I,
while later layers show distinct local peculiarities. This is not the
only direction in which we see an expansion of this culture. At a
site called Mikhalits, just inside the Bulgarian border, within the
circle of hills that frame the great plain of Turkish Thrace, a site
has been found with a culture so close to that of Troy I that it might
be called “Thracian Troy I’’. More pottery of the same nature has
been found by the Greeks on the Maritsa River at Pythion. The
Mikhalits ware also reveals a number of local peculiarities in shapes
and decoration, some of which have parallels at Karaagactepe on
the Dardanelles across from Troy or in Macedonia. The frequent
rope impressed patterns filled with white chalk were a simple form
of incision. The ornamentation was richer than at Troy I, with
much pointillé decoration, ribbed lugs and handles. The expansion
of Troy I culture into Thrace and Macedonia was no doubt re-
sponsible for the stimulus that led to the formation of local Early
Bronze Age cultures in Southeastern Europe (e.g. Cernavoda,
Ezero, Karanovo VII). All these contain Kumtepe Ib and early
Troy I derivations and the influence may have been in the form of

127
Bronze Ages — 9
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
a metal trade with finished products from Anatolia being exchanged
for raw ore from the Balkans. The earliest metal objects in these
cultures have clearly been influenced by the Trojan school of metal-
work,
There is much less evidence for contact of this culture with
Greece and the Cyclades. Some Cycladic objects of the Syros cul-
ture have been found in Poliochni III, but Thermi was devoid of
southern imports. Troy I may have traded with the south, but the
few definitely imported sherds do not establish close chronological
relations with Greece or the Cyclades as has recently been shown.
The publication of the Poliochni and Emporio excavations may
throw more light on this obscure subject.
Closely related to the Troy I culture is that of its inland neigh-
bour, the Yortan culture, which centres on the plain of Balikesir
and the drainage basin of the Simav Qay, the classical Makestos.
Until a few years ago the settlements of this culture were unknown,
but not its cemeteries. These have been ruthlessly destroyed by the
peasants searching for whole pots, which accompanied the dead
as grave gifts and which are highly prized in the market for their
great artistic quality.
Every archaeological museum in Europe has some Yortan
pottery, but to date it and provide its associations is another matter.
It used to be considered contemporary with the Troy I culture,
but the graves of Ovabayindir, Dorak and the appearance of Yortan
pottery in later levels at Beycesultan now show conclusively that
it lasted through the Troy II period as well; a span of nearly a
millennium. The question is, what is early and what is late?
Only thorough excavations, not typological studies, can establish
this important point. To sort out the thousand or more Yortan pots,
in museums and private collections throughout the world without
proper provenance and association, would be an impossible
task.
The Yortan cemeteries lay well away from the settlement and

128
 Early Bronze Age I
were composed of row upon row of neatly arranged jar-burials, each
with a stone-marker projecting above the ground. Some cemeteries
must have contained hundreds of burials, but sometimes the graves
were contained in cists, made of slabs of stone as at Kusura and at
Tasos (Fig.37). It is likely that the cemeteries of the Troy I culture,
not yet discovered, were of similar nature. Pots, stone vessels and
metal objects such as daggers, a battle axe, pins, wire bracelets,
cosmetic sets, etc., were put with the’ dead in or outside the large
jar (up to five feet or more in height), or wherever there was
room. To fit into the jar or cist, the bodies were contracted and
only rarely were they placed on their backs. Most of the graves
contain the dead of the common people, but graves equipped
with rich daggers or fine marble bowls evidently housed the remains
of the more influential. Lacking the excavations of settlements, a
small sounding at Ovabayindir contributes little to our knowledge
of the social organisation of the Yortan people. However, their art-
istic sense was well-developed and their pottery, whether made for
the grave or for ordinary use, is superior to that of their western
neighbours, both in shape and decoration (Fig.39), where white-
painted and white-filled incised fashions prevailed. Less common
are plastic ribs, grooving and fluting, mainly on beak-spouted jugs
and bird vases. Until recently the Yortan pottery was dominated
by jugs with beak-spouts (Fig.39:4, 10), jugs with cut-away necks
(Fig.39:1) and bird vases (Fig.39:11). There was also a third
form of jug, tall collar-necked jars with lids (Fig.39:7) and smaller
jars on three feet, also with lids (Fig.39:12). Most of the grave
groups of the Yortan cemetery, at the head of the Caicus Valley,
consisted of these containers with liquid and solid food for the dead.
Other groups from that valley revealed the same pattern. The
pottery from the Dorak graves, or the robbed-out Babakéy ceme-
tery, showed the same apparent dearth of shapes. The cemeteries
of the Balikesir Plain, however, have greatly increased this
repertoire. Large and small bowls (Fig.39:2, 3, 6), cups, juglets,

129
 XY

(x)
Uy
 ayeatid

wiorj

[Te
4) pue

‘oTeos

03
ION

“(II-I

“q’a)

Asoyod

uvjyzox

—
6
aunory

*SUOT}I9][09
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
feeding bottles, miniature jars with lids and pedestals (Fig.39:8),
boxes and pyxides are common there.
A number of vessels were almost certainly for ritual purposes,
among these the jugs ornamented with a bull’s head and two horns
stuck on the body, and the pedestalled goblet with two pairs of horns
in the rim and a partition in the centre of the bowl. Smaller bowls
with partitions, a strange vessel with peculiar lid and, most frequent
of all, phallus-like libation vessels called “horns”, (Fig.39:5) were
also religious objects. One of these (Fig.39:9) is ornamented with
a sign in low-relief that closely resembles the Egyptian hieroglyph
ankh, “Life”, and this is found again on the body of a jug (Fig.39:10).
In the later Anatolian hieroglyphs the same sign occurs with the
Same meaning. Its early use on funerary pottery in this culture is
highly appropriate. The thinness of this pottery is often regarded
as a sign that it was made for funerary use, and it must be admitted
that many sherds from the settlements show a stouter fabric. Until
this point can be proved by excavation, it should not be overempha-
sised, for the contemporary E.B.1 pottery of Southwest Anatolia
was just as thin, but was used for ordinary domestic purposes.
An interesting feature of this Yortan pottery is the bird vessels,
and the exaggerated spouted jugs which, with their “‘“Adam’s apple’’,
really remind one of ducks and geese, respectively. The rich bird
life of the region may have inspired the artists, for the great fresh-
water lakes south of the Marmora are still a paradise for the orni-
thologist. Perhaps these people, like the Egyptians, learned to
domesticate the duck and goose, and were thus surrounded by
these birds as are the present-day Anatolian villages. Naturalistic
elements in Northwest Anatolian pottery are elsewhere attested ;
some pots have animal claws (Fig.39:11) or human feet while
others have bird tails, bulls’ or pigs’ heads (Troy II and Boziiyiik).
Such tendencies are particularly marked in the metal-work from
the next period in the Dorak tombs, and the Troy II “trea-
sures

132
 Early Bronze Age I
New finds have accentuated the differences between Troy I
and Yortan cultures; the one coastal, the other inland, but both
evidently descended from the same Kumtepe Ib ancestor. Further
south, in the centre of ancient Lydia, on the fertile plain of Manisa-
Akhisar, we find a related culture which was signs of both, and is
again distinguished by its rich decoration. This is also notable at
the Troy I site of Emporio in Chios. This site seems to share a fair
number of Yortan elements, probably the result of its more south-
ern position and closer trade relations with the Manisa-Akhisar
culture. Conditions during this period are not yet clear south of
the Izmir. Late Troy I pottery has been found in Heraion on Samos,
and other indeterminate vessels come from the opposite coast. The
Iasos cemetery may have continued to be used subsequently as is
shown by Tomb 12 which is later than the rest. It contained
several vessels showing contact with the new Syros culture of the
Cyclades. Here also beak-spouted jugs with very short spouts have
been found, a type which soon after turned into the so-called
““duck-vase’’.
Quite different pottery distinguishes the E.B.1 culture of
southwestern Anatolia. Little is known of its architecture during
this period. A shrine at Beycesultan XVII, burned and filled with
objects, had a plan which is a variant on the northwestern “‘mega-
ron’. Miniature votive copper daggers, segmented beads, small
marble bowls with rock-crystal pestles, necklaces of clay and stone
beads, and a group of thirteen flat marble figurines (Fig.40:10-13)
were found there, also much pottery. This pottery is some of the
finest found in Anatolia (Fig.41). Handmade and exceedingly
thin, in orange-red, pink, buff, grey or jet black, it shows globular
shapes, long necks, long strap handles and fluted or ribbed orna-
ments. This was evidently inspired by metallic prototypes (cf. Fig.
48). It shows a development in shapes from its Late Chalcolithic
ancestor, and the new features of beak-spouts or tubular lugs,
pedestals, etc. are rare. It is possible that this reflects an earlier date.

133
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

086
SOE)
‘

'9 20

mot To Seas’

“7 ‘8

FicurE 40 — Marble figurines from Western Anatolia (E.B. I and II periods).

1. Thermi
2. Kailiya (Gallipoli)
3-6. Yortan cemetery
7. Sarilar (Phrygia)
8-9. Kusura
10-13. Beycesultan, E.B. I
14. Beycesultan, E.B. II
15-16. Karaca Ahmet (Afyon)
17. Sancakli Bozkéy (Manisa)
18-19. Kusura
20. Karaca H. (Cal).
(after W. Lams, in Archaeologia, 86-87 (1936-37); H. BossERt, Ailtanatolien ;
S. Lroyp and J. Mexuaart, Beycesultan, I, 1962; and AS, I v, 1954.)

134
 Early Bronze Age I

Ficure 41 — Early Bronze Age I pottery from Beycesultan and Eskisehir (left,
middle row).
(after S. Ltoyp and J. MELLAART, Beycesultan, I 1962.)

135
Bronze Ages — 10
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
There are links with the Yortan culture, its northwestern
neighbour, but these are not as strong as in the succeeding period.
Vessels decorated with fish-scale patterns are particularly strange,
unique throughout the history of Anatolian pottery (Fig. 41 centre),
and remote ancestors of the pilgrim-flask. Here, also, we find minia-
ture feeding bottles in infant burials in pots.
In the centre of highland Lycia, a contemporary culture in
the plain of Elmali is known only from surface finds and a rifled
cemetery of pot-burials. The pottery is of particular interest because
dark wares are extremely rare. Instead we find a prevailing salmon
pink, buff and grey, decorated only with white in patterns of loops
and garlands, chevrons etc. These are absent further north, but
numerous beak-spout jugs, tubular lugs and other elements of the
northwestern repertoire are included. It is difficult to determine
how they arrived in such a remote area, unless this culture extended
up to the precipitous Mediterranean coast. The Elmali culture
warrants investigations, not only for its own sake, but because it is
at the moment the only culture which might show connections
with the white-on-red painted wares of Early Minoan (I) Crete.
The beginning of the Early Bronze Age in that island is marked
among other features by the first appearance of beak-spouted jugs,
which could only have derived from Anatolia. The direction from
which this influence came and its strength among local adaptations
would make a most interesting study.
Not enough is known of the Early Bronze Age cultures in the
Phrygian area or the lowlands of the Sea of Marmora to deserve
mention here. The strong cultural focus in the Konya plain is more
important. This area is thickly covered with Early Bronze Age 1-2
sites, and it is from here that the Calycadnus Valley and the plain
of Cilicia obtained new elements introducing the Early Bronze Age
culture. Thick deposits of this culture were found in a sounding
at Tarsus, showing that the E.B.1 period was of considerable
length. A stratified pottery sequence and some bronze fragments

136
 Early Bronze Age I
were obtained, but little else. The architecture of the period
in both plains awaits the excavator’s pick. The pottery is highly
distinct and unrelated to that of the surrounding cultures. Fine
burnished wares with a minimum of decoration prevail (incised
only in Cilicia) and in the smaller bowls the interior is often black
and the outside red. White-painted ornament seems to have dis-
appeared except as coarse stripes, sometimes combined with red
on a different ware, pink or reddish in colour and unburnished. The
standard shape is a tall beak-spouted jug with incised signs, pos-
sibly potters’ marks, on the handle. A coarser form of this pottery,
called “scored ware”, was common on the Konya plain and in
Cilicia, and has been found also on the Aegean coast and at Troy
where it appeared during Troy I, possibly as an import. It seems
clear that nobody would import this ware for its own sake so the
jars must have contained something marketable, perhaps olive oil,
grape syrup, wine, mustard or other condiments. Many of the
bowls of this culture look like metal and the fashion for red and grey
may reflect the exploitation of the silver and copper mines in the
Taurus which were controlled from the plateau.
To round off this rapid survey of E.B.1 cultures, it is necessary
to cross the line that divides the peninsula into somewhat unequal
halves. The only culture which would seem to fall in this period is
the so-called “Late Chalcolithic’ of Aligsar (19-15) and Alaca
Hiiyiik, in Central Anatolia within the bend of the “Red River’,
or Kizil Irmak. At these sites, which became famous for their
Cappadocian pottery and royal tombs, only soundings have reached
the Early Bronze Age I levels, locally known as “Late Chalcolithic’’.
The discoveries at Alaca Hiiyiik are still unpublished and only
a few pots and sherds from Alisar have been illustrated. Most
of the pottery is black-burnished, but there is also grey. Red-slipped
wares were found there and some pots with a reddish interior
and a black exterior, a feature shared with the East Anatolian
Early Bronze Age. The predominant impression is one of Late

137
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Chalcolithic conservatism, in which certain bold but rather heavy
shapes such as the tall fruitstands (Fig.59:2) are characteristic.
These are frequently ornamented with excised decoration filled
with a white-and-red substance which makes the pattern stand
out on the black background. This technique was evidently borrow-
ed from wood-carving, but the shapes themselves were boldly
metallic as was the feature of cutting parts out of the hollow stem
so as to leave “windows”, similar to the Ghassulian and Late Chal-
colithic fruitstands of Palestine. Jugs in this culture still had horizon-
tal mouths, while the beak-spout had already appeared in the south
and west. Pedestals were found on jars of tall and elegant shapes
and a number of superb black and red vessels with sharp metallic
profiles come from Alaca. These have fine incised lines and are
fair predecessors of the remarkable metal-work of the following
period. The potential of this period should not be underestimated,
since it has hardly been touched by excavation. No metal or burials
have been found so far in this culture, but they appeared immedi-
ately afterwards, so this may be mere coincidence.

138
 CHAPTER XI

THE SECOND PHASE OF THE ANATOLIAN

EARLY BRONZE AGE (E.B. 2) ca. 2750-2300 B.C.
THE AGE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Approximately contemporary with the Old Kingdom in

Egypt, and with the Old Sumerian Period in Mesopotamia, the
second phase of the Early Bronze Age marked the height of Anato-
lian civilisation during this period. This was the ultimate flourish-
ing of the seed sown at the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic
Period, which marked the greatest prosperity of Early Bronze Age
Byblos and of the Khirbet Kerak culture of Syria and Palestine.
The rich tombs of eastern and southern Crete, the finest Cycladic
culture and the first manifestation of Early Bronze Age cultures in
mainland Greece and Cyprus appeared at this time. Trade routes
opened in the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean;
and Anatolian and Cycladic ships may even have passed Gibraltar,
as certain new finds from the Iberian Peninsula seem to indicate
(Map XI).
The entire Near East went through a period of great prosperity,
and though empires did not yet exist, there is ample evidence in
the form of royal tombs, treasures and great cities to show that
even in Anatolia and Greece kingdoms were well established.
The transition from E.B.1 to E.B.2 appears to have been
peaceful in most of Anatolia except in the west. It is here that a
number of events can be traced that seem to be interrelated. There
was, first of all, the sudden end of the Troy I culture, both on the

59
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
mainland and in the islands. The introduction of northwest Anato-
lian pottery all over southwestern Anatolia and the introduction
of Early Helladic I pottery in Greece via the Cyclades seem to
have been connected.
The last phase of Troy I ended in destruction, and though it
was soon rebuilt the first settlement of Troy Ila was also burned.
From level IIb onwards we see a gradual change of culture, espe-
cially in the pottery. Wheelmade plain wares appeared for the first
time outside Cilicia, but most of the finer ware with new shapes,
such as the two-handled drinking cup or depas (Fig.51:3, 9), were
red-slipped and burnished. The tubular lugs on bowls and the dark
wares of Troy I (and Ila) disappeared entirely and from this fact
other sites of the culture can be dated. At Poliochni the change came
after level IV, early in Troy II, and the desertion of Thermi dates
from the same period. Emporio on Chios was burned and the same
changes occurred here and at Heraion on Samos.
The almost wholesale desertion of the coast from Troy to Izmir
is far more eloquent, a desertion shared by the Caicus Valley and
the island of Lesbos opposite. Comparing fifty settlements with
Troy I remains, there are at most a dozen known to contain Troy
II pottery (cf. Maps VIII and IX). The populace presumably fled
coastwards where coastal elements made their appearance in the
E.B.2 pottery of the Manisa-Akhisar plain. The Yortan area
appears to have been unaffected by these disturbances as far as
can now be seen. However fertile, the Manisa plain could probably
not support so many refugees; and it is therefore likely that many
travelled up the Hermus and Cogamus valleys to the east. It is here,
on the edge of the plateau, that traces of these refugecs have been
found in the form of numerous settlements in the Usak region and,
after destruction by fire, at Beycesultan itself.
This movement did not stop in the Upper Maeander Valley;
refugees also appeared in the area south of Denizli, introducing the
same northwest Anatolian wares, the rich use of white paint, Yortan

140
 Early Bronze Age 2
types and grooved decoration. All of these are similar to the wares
in the Manisa plain. As a result of this immigration, the number of
sites in southwestern Anatolia naturally increased.
The typical red-slipped ware of Early Helladic I which intro-
duced the Early Bronze Age in Greece is generally thought to come
from the east, that is, Anatolia. Until recently too little was known
about the country to lend substance’to this reasonable claim. Some
of the earliest Early Helladic I pottery from Eutresis in Boeotia has
recently been dated by radio-carbon to ca. 2670 B.C., which sug-
gests that the period may have begun ca. 2700 B.C. Rounded bowls,
small jugs and jars were characteristic, but there were no beak-
spouts. Decorative lugs were common and also vertical-ribbed jars.
All these are types that can be matched either in the E.B.1 pottery
of S.W. Anatolia or in the very first phase of the next period, around
2750 B.C. This was roughly at the time of the disturbances to
which we have already referred. Perhaps elements from the Anato-
lian southwest made their way down the Maeander Valley to the
coast and from there across the Aegean to found new settlements
abroad. Their first settlements on the mainland of Greece are found
on the east coast or in those plains that are easily accessible from
the east: Boeotia and Thessaly. Further movement westward did
not occur until the next (E.H. II) period, when either land-hunger
or the arrival of more newcomers made expansion imperative.
The cause of these migrations and the scare in the northern
Aegean which precipitated these events remain a mystery. The
enemy who appeared at this time must have come from the sea,
for both the Anatolian mainland and the islands felt its force. Effects
of this catastrophe were so far-reaching that they could not have
been simple acts of piracy or brigandage. In view of similar occur-
rences at theend of the next period, ca. 2300 B.C., there was proba-
bly an inroad of barbarians from the north (i.e. the Balkans)
that caused this temporary disruption. No archaeological material
gives any Clue to their identity, but since the barbarians usually

141
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
assumed the superior culture of their subjects, a new dynasty or
upper class is hard to distinguish in the absence of literary evidence.
The marks of vigorous dynasts are soon shown in the great fortresses
that rose, one after another, on the windswept side of the royal
castle of Troy, mistress of the Straits and guardian of the land-route
leading from Anatolia into Europe. From the heights above Troy
on the foothills of Mt. Ida the entire northern Aegean is visible
(Fig.42) on a clear day. This easily explains the spread of Trojan
trade.
It seems likely that Troy was the royal fortress of a kingdom
that extended over the Troad, the plain of Edremit, the Gallipoli
peninsula and the islands of Tenedos, Imbros and Lemnos. Here
the site of Poliochni is nestled in a fine bay on the eastern side of
the island and this was probably the main city of the kingdom.
The great fortress of Troy IIc (Fig.43) is probably the best
known of the eleven building phases of Troy II; here it is shown
tentatively restored. A little over a hundred metres in diameter, it
was surrounded by powerful stone-built walls with a pronounced
batter, topped by a vertical mud-brick wall. Two main gates led
into the fort and the left (southwest) gate was approached by a
magnificent stone ramp. This gave access to a group of buildings of
secondary nature, behind which was a small postern gate. The
southeast gate was evidently the ceremonial one and led across an
open area to a small gate in the colonnaded courtyard, in front
of the main buildings. These consisted of an enormous “‘megaron”’,
thirty-five metres long, which was the great hall of the palace,
flanked by two similar buildings with two rooms each behind a
porch. In the centre of the great hall was a raised circular hearth.
A similar set of rooms, the “eastern complex’, appears to date
from a slightly earlier phase, but remained in use with possible
alterations. A smaller building, IIF, may have served a different
purpose and could have been a shrine; if so it differed considerably
from contemporary temples (up to 17.5 metres long) at Beycesultan

142
 Early Bronze Age 2
Dar. atHos Venenos
. Samotueace MELitt tone
Lemnas

Poriocunt HANTepe BEpiKA SUEUR =BEGIKTWPE GOBANTErE

Ficure 42 — Sketch of the west coast of the Troad and the offshore islands with
early sites.

in southwest Anatolia. These were built on the “‘megaron’”’ plan

and show elaborate ritual furnishing.
At Beycesultan, temples were built in pairs, it is thought for
the cult of a female and a male deity, evidently the Great Goddess
and her son. Entering the shrine from the open courtyard in front
of the portico, a door led into the main room facing an elaborate
construction of brick and plaster (Fig.44 male shrine of Beyce-
sultan XIV). This consisted of two stelae with containers behind
them, one for solid, the second for liquid offerings. In front of the
gap between the stelae stood a pair of “‘horns of consecration”’ with
one or two “‘magic”’ circles in front. In the “male’’ shrines a post
or pillar (possibly the symbol of the god) stood on the outer ring
on the same axis. In the “‘female’’ shrines a raised blood-altar with
provision for draining off the blood, stood against the left wall.
It is thought that offerings were brought by the worshippers who
entered the circles and passed the offerings to a priest or priestess
over the horns and between the stelae to be deposited in the bins
behind them.
A screen of columns and matting, or textiles, partly hid the
back of the room which was used for storage of offerings. In the
back wall a door gave access to a further room for the use of the
priest or priestess. The floors of these buildings were covered with

143
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
felt and matting and the “altar’’ and lower part of the walls were
painted a greyish blue. There does not appear to have been any
other decoration. Grain-bins filled with wheat and barley were
placed on the side of the room near the portico, and ovens for
baking bread have been found in the courtyards. No cult statues
were discovered, but one or two marble figurines came from the
“female shrines”. As far as we can see, the offerings consisted of
food and drink — wheat, barley, bitter vetch, peas, lentils, and
bunches of grapes, brought in pottery containers to be left on the
floor of the building. The blood-altars in the ‘female’ shrines
suggest the sacrifice of small animals, perhaps kids, lambs or birds,
but no bones have survived. The Beycesultan temples started in
the E.B.1 Period and continued to be built on the same site during
the next period, showing that the cult did not suffer any interrup-
tion after the destruction by the newcomers from the north. As
they are the only known Anatolian temples dating from the Early
Bronze Age, their evidence is unique and extremely valuable. It
is unfortunate that so little is known of the settlements to which
they belonged.
Fortunately, part of the city-plan of Poliochni has been pub-
lished (Fig. 45) so that we have a vivid glimpse of town life of this
period. The wealthy citizens of Poliochni, probably merchants,
lived in spacious houses, often of some complexity, which were
arranged in blocks on either side of a main street. This was some
two hundred metres long and ran from north to south, forming
the main artery of the city. Other streets intersected this main
thoroughfare at right angles, and where they met small squares
with stone-lined wells and drains provided the public water supply.
In the excavated area, no trace of a palace has come to light, but
an isolated building of “megaron’” plan stood in the northern
square. ‘This may have been the town-hall or court of assizes of this
settlement. In a doorless room nearby two skeletons were found,
suggesting that this may have been the prison of Poliochni.

144
 Early Bronze Age 2

POSTERN

PROPYLON
sige

a) | ~ eo
GATE FO

FicurE 43 — The Fortress and palace of Troy IIc (restored by J.M.).

(after AS, IX, 1959.)

145
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

= BEYCESULTAN. 1957, ee
> SSS were,
ere,
<= i

UAL
SAE
SR

FicurE 44 — Reconstruction of the main room of the “male” temple of

Beycesultan XIV.
(after S. Ltoyp, in AS, VIII, 1958.)
 Early Bronze Age 2
The settlement was originally laid out on a more rectangular
plan than is shown here. As time went on, large rooms were divided
up, streets were blocked by additional rooms and smaller houses
encroached on the main squares. The site became a warren of small
rooms, similar to that of Troy Ilg-where the same process was
repeated.
At Poliochni only the poorest houses are of the ‘‘megaron”’
plan, consisting of only a hall and porch. Nearly every sizeable
house contained this unit as its core, enlarged by a courtyard in
front and at least one row of secondary rooms along the side. Party-
walls were common, an advancement of the free-standing buildings
of earlier times, regularly used at Troy. These walls may have been
devised for greater protection in the earthquake-ridden area.
The use of a wooden framework for the brick superstructure of
buildings, which first appears in the great Hall of Troy IIc and at
Heraion on Samos, may have been developed for the same pur-
pose — preventing immediate collapse during earth tremors.
The “hall and porch”’ type of building is the most character-
istic feature of west Anatolian architecture during the entire Early
Bronze Age, while different forms of houses are found at Tarsus in
the E.B.2 Period (Fig.46). These seem to have been arranged in
rows along streets in a tidy pattern. Pilasters and buttresses are a
feature of these houses which vary slightly in plan. Some have an
open portico facing the street, while others use the portico or a
narrow ante-room as an entrance. The main room of most houses
contained an elaborately constructed hearth. This was either topped
by two bricks or by a horn-shaped structure, reminiscent of the
horns of consecration in the Beycesultan shrines. Next to the hearth
there frequently appears a sort of backed armchair and footstool,
made of brick. Sometimes a screen of brick shelters the hearth and
chair from draughts through the doorway. Square windows have
been preserved intact. Doorways lead into the back rooms, which
often contained a bench; and there are traces of an upper storey

147
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

over the back rooms, which was approached by brick or wooden

steps, or by a ladder from the main room.
One of these buildings is regarded by the excavators as a
tavern because of finds within the building and the cosy backroom
with benches on all sides. Somewhat later in the period, ca. 2600
B.C., many of the houses of this settlement were burnt, demolished
and filled-in to make space for a fortification wall, which was
apparently built in a hurry. It consisted of short stretches of mud-
brick walls with an L-shaped gate approached by a long ramp lead-
ing up to the southern side of the mound. Here we find the use of
wooden beams as a framework for mud-brick construction as well
as in the foundations of the gate. These structures at Tarsus give
a tantalising glimpse of south Anatolian architecture. One can hope
that more will be found, both here and in the Konya plain where
great cities with citadels await future excavation. The violence of
the conflagration, seen at many of the latter sites, shows that wood
must have been liberally used in the mudbrick walls which, alone,
are not easily inflammable.
The buildings of central Anatolia during this period are not
well known. Houses are neatly built of mudbrick on stone founda-
tions, with rectangular plans. Several rooms are stuck against each
other, quite different from the typical hall and porch type of the
west. It is not known how they were grouped, for most excavations
have been restricted in size. However, at the large scale excavation
of Alaca Hiiyiik, the burnt building-level V, which overlies the
graves according to the plans, is so badly preserved that it contri-
butes nothing to town-planning. Archaeologists are eagerly watch-
ing the excavations of the Kiiltepe city-mound to see if this will
reveal a well-preserved urban plan. From Alisar and Karaoglan,
south of Ankara, defensive walls were almost the only feature of
the period. Only at Ahlitlibel, which standson the wind-swept ridge
above Ankara, commanding the north-south trade route, has the
entire fort been excavated. This measures 40 by 30 metres, but

148
 Early Bronze Age 2

tsoraTo V

tsorato VI

HyovatoIX

HSOLATO X

}SOLATO XX

(soraTo XXI

Ficure 45 — Part of the city plan of Poliochni V (end of Troy II period).

(after L.B. Brea, in Bulletino d’Arte, 1957-)
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

FicurE 46 — Houses of the early E.B. II period at Tarsus.

(after H. GoLpMAN, Excavations at Gézlii Kule, Tarsus, II, 1956.)

FicuRE 47 — Two iron daggers with gold plated handles from Alaca Hiiyiik.
(after H.Z. Kosay, Alacahéyiik kazisi, Ankara, 1951.)

150
 Early Bronze Age 2
only the basement plan is preserved, and it would be premature
to attempt the reconstruction of an upper storey from the know-
ledge at hand.
Further north at Diindartepe, on the Black Sea coast, and at
most sites in this forested area, the local form of building required
large amounts of timber, laths and plaster. Such buildings leave
the excavator only post-holes and burnt pieces of roof and daub,
whether they were once hovels or palaces. Building remains are
often a poor guide to the real achievement of a culture. This is
particularly true where excavations are incomplete, as in Central
and Pontic Anatolia. The metallurgic wealth, artistic sense and
technological development attested by the royal graves at Alaca
Hitiyiik, Mahmatlar and Horoztepe has as yet no parallel in
the architectural remains.

Buriat Customs.

There was no change in burial customs during this period in

Anatolia. Extramural burials continued in the west and intramural
burials in the centre and east. Nothing is known about graves in
the plains of Konya or Cilicia. At Tekkekoy, east of Samsun on
the Pontic coast, a series of burials in several layers was rich in
offerings, a novelty. The normal form of burial was in pots or cists,
the latter stone-built or constructed of wood, and sometimes plain
graves were dug in the earth without any lining. For the first time
in Anatolian prehistory we have evidence of royal tombs. Thirteen
were found at the site of Alaca Hiiyiik, possibly in an extramural
cemetery, or at least in an open space not far from the edge of the
mound. Two royal tombs at Dorak belonged to the Yortan culture.
They rested on a hill overlooking the island-studded Lake of Apo-
lyont, a scenic region south of the Sea of Marmora. One more
“royal” grave has been found near Troy, belonging to Troy II
culture. Other rich, but evidently not royal tombs, were found
at Ovabayindir in the plain of Balikesir (Yortan culture), in the

151
Bronze Ages — II
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
fortress of Ahlitlibel near Ankara and the above-mentioned site
of Tekkekéy on the Black Sea coast. Many commoners’ graves have
been found throughout the west and north, but like many of the
richer tombs they had been discovered and robbed by peasants.
While the kings of Egypt built pyramid tombs and those of
Sumer constructed the great death-pits of Ur, the Anatolian royal
tombs differed from those of their subjects only in size and contents,
and were often nearly as rich as their southern contemporaries.
The tombs themselves are exceedingly simple; the Dorak cists
measured 1.8 by .83 and 3.1 by 2 metres. The Alaca Hiiyiik tombs,
dug into the soil and occasionally lined with stone, were much
larger, about 3.5 metres wide and up to six or eight metres in
length. The Dorak cists were covered with stone slabs, as were the
Tasos cists. The Alaca Hiiyiik tombs contained wooden beams on
which were ranged rows of ox heads and feet, the remains of a
funerary feast. In these tombs the corpse occupied the northwest
corner of the grave and was buried in a contracted position lying
on its right side, head towards the west and facing south. In the
Dorak tombs, the dead lay either extended on their backs (as at
Tekkek6y) or in a crouched position on their right sides (P1. XVII)
with the heads oriented to the east. This followed the normal Yortan
practice. The king in tomb I lay on a decayed woollen kilim rug
(Pl. XVIIIb), the king and queen in tomb II on rush matting.
Textiles have also been found in a few pot and cist graves at Alisar
(level 14), together with reed matting and animal skin, and at
Tekkekoy. In the damp graves at Alaca Hiiyiik, these materials
have perished along with the wooden furniture, of which only the
copper-sheathed legs remain. Nothing remains of the wood of an
armchair or throne, overlaid with gold, which was undoubtedly
sent to the ruler buried in tomb I at Dorak. It bears the name and
titles, in hieroglyphs, of the Egyptian pharaoh Sahure, the second
king of the Fifth Dynasty (ca. 2494-2345 B.C.). The great empty
areas in the Alaca Hiiyiik tombs suggest massive deposits of

152
 Early Bronze Age 2
perishable gifts of which no trace remains. A number of gold and
silver casings and other objects, however, have been found in each
tomb, but no really satisfactory explanation has yet been offered
for these.
The interpretation of these objects depends upon the way in
which one imagines the ruler was conveyed to the tomb. Since
there is no evidence of a coffin, the corpse must have been placed
on a bier, and the ribbed casings may have covered the four handles.
They are usually described as covering the posts of a canopy or
baldaquin, which is certainly a possibility.It is obviously based on
the canopy suggested by the excavator of the great tomb at Mai-
kop, north of the Caucasus, which is roughly the same date, i.e.
somewhere between the 24th and 22nd century B.C. Equally
characteristic of these tombs are the magnificent statues of bulls
and stags in bronze and frequently plated or inlaid with silver,
gold or electrum (Pl. XIX, XX). These figures stand on very
thick, heavy, spurred tangs, which were presumably fixed in a slot
in a wooden beam or pole. The thickness and heaviness of the tang
seems to preclude the possibility that they were carried on the end
ofa pole as standards or totems. A single bull or stag figure is found
in each tomb, but the number of “standards or sun-discs”’ (Pl. XXT)
varies from six in grave D to only one in grave H, and they are often
placed in a row before the dead. Most of these standards are round,
semi-circular and rhomboid in shape and are ornamented with
geometric patterns in open-work. Frequently they have projections
and pendants worked in the same way, which bang against it when
moved, making a metallic sound. Another group consists of open
circles, fashioned in different ways, out of which appears the fully
plastic figure of a wild ass (Pl. XXIb), a stag between two bulls
(Pl. XXIa) or a stag flanked by two leopards. Buds and birds
sometimes are placed on the edge of the discs and many are decora-
ted witha pair of bull’s horns. All have broad tangs of various kinds
for attachment.

ike
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
These objects are undoubtedly of a religious nature; the bull
and stag symbolise fertility, domesticated and wild, and are sacred
to the ‘‘Weather God of Hatti” and the “Protective Deity” (both
male) in the Hattic and, subsequently, in the Hittite pantheon.
Leopards and birds, on the other hand, are associated with the
“Great Goddess’’, the supreme deity of Anatolia. It is surprising
to find that she herself does not appear among the “‘standards’’,
unless she is represented by a semicircular disc with openwork
geometric decoration, bearing one or more heads on top. The pro-
jecting neads are similar to the more naturalistic representations
of the goddess in the next period (Fig. 57) from Kiiltepe, which
have circular bodies with one or more heads. The few figurines
from the Alaca Hiiyiik tombs, found only in queens’ graves, are less
schematic than the standards, though the heads are still stylised
and triangular. The interpretation of these “‘standards” as sun
discs seems far-fetched and is not supported by any other evidence
from Early Bronze Age Anatolia. As with the animal statues, the
massive tangs suggest that they were fastened onto something more
solid than poles and therefore their interpretation as standards is
somewhat unconvincing. The larger copper or bronze hooks fre-
quently found with them offer no explanation as to how they were
used. Some scholars regard these as still other ritual objects. The
rest of the finds from the Alaca Hiiyiik graves are easily explained
as personal possessions of the dead or as funerary offerings contain-
ing food and drink.
The strange and undoubtedly ritual objects described
above, lend a special character to the Alaca graves. The archaeolo-
gist wonders why religious objects of this nature should be buried
with the dead, and why only here. Normally all objects found in
graves were the personal property of the person interred. They in-
cluded his weapons, trinkets, wives, concubines, slaves, favourite
dogs, horses, etc. The Alaca burial rite might be the exception.
Many scholars have thought thus and attempted to explain it by

ae
 Early Bronze Age 2
assuming these rulers to be a foreign dynasty with affinities in the
steppe territories, north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea. The
round skulls of the ruling class buried in the Alaca graves suggest
a strain different from that of the local long-headed population.
Alaca produces a strong case for brachycephaly, but round-headed
elements are attested in Anatolia since the Early Neolithic
Period among a predominantly long-headed population, which
since the Neolithic Period has shown two major strains: Eurafrican
and proto-Mediterranean man. The Alaca Hiiyiik rulers may have
been a foreign element there, but that does not necessarily imply
that they came from the Pontic steppe or that they spoke an
Indo-European language.
The similarities between the Alaca Hiiyiik tombs and those
of the Pontic steppe, such as the tomb at Maikop, are probably
not due to the migration of northern elements into Anatolia. North-
ern barbarians presumably copied the funerary ritual of the Pontic
and Central Anatolian rulers during the Early Bronze Age, a con-
tact stimulated by trade.
The Alaca tombs are most likely those of local rulers. The
presence of the many religious emblems can be explained in this
way, and it seems safe to assume that they were part of the decora-
tion of some object belonging to the buried rulers. There are numer-
ous parallels between the Late Bronze Age chieftain burials from
Lechashen, near Ordaklu on Lake Sevan, and those of Alaca, a
thousand years earlier. Thus the rich religious paraphernalia of
the Alaca tombs may have adorned ox-drawn wooden carts on
which the priest-kings (and queens) were conveyed to their graves.
As the property of the ruler, the cart could then have been disman-
tled to fit into the shallow grave. All the animals which served to
draw the cart during the ruler’s life were then sacrificed and their
inedible parts (heads and hoofs) arranged on the log roof of the
tomb. Such bullock-drawn carts, with solid wheels and a square or
rectangular body, are still a familiar feature of this region. With a

t95
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
bull or stag statue perched high on the pole of the cart and “‘sun
side of
discs” on the yokes of the bullocks, or decorating front and
the cart, and a driver goading the beasts with the copper-pointed
goads so common in the tombs, the cumbersome vehicle may be
pictured carrying a king stretched on a bier in full panoply, pro-
tected by the emblems of the Great Goddess, her Son and other
deities, on his last journey.
The religious objects are beyond any doubt the most spec-
tacular and, technically, the most advanced products of the Alaca
metal workshops. Many of the other funerary offerings are of great
beauty and interest, particularly three small bronze statues, well
modelled and cast in the round. Two iron daggers (Fig.47) with
gold-plated handles, and others, perhaps inspired by Mesopotamian
forerunners in the royal graves at Ur, are handsomely made, as
are the first great swords and fine maces with gold plated handles.
Crowns of sheet gold with open-work patterns have been found, as
well as 8-shaped brooches, a great variety of pins, gold bracelets,
silver and bronze combs, bronze mirrors and thousands of gold
beads of many shapes. These formed necklaces and were often
combined with pendants of stones, and faience, which are among
the more outstanding articles of personal use and are most plentiful
in the women’s graves. However, side by side with exquisite crafts-
manship, there are many pieces carelessly fashioned out of sheet-
gold and pierced for sewing onto garments. These may have been
intended only for use in the grave. There is also a unique collection
of lavishly decorated vessels made of copper, bronze, electrum, silver
and gold (Fig.48). Some of these are evidently of local workman-
ship, but many show their foreign origin by shape and decoration.
In Anatolia such vessels were widely copied in pottery (cf. Fig. 52)
but metal vessels were far more common than pottery in the Alaca
tombs. The latter was, on the whole, undistinguished, as were the
wares from the settlement. Remnants of spouted vessels with basket
handles are most interesting. They were of a northwest Anatolian

156
 Early Bronze Age 2

LEE

Ficure 48— Gold and silver vessels from the Royal tombs of Alaca and
Mahmatlar.
(after H.Z. Kogsay, in Belleten, 55 and Alacahéyiik kazisi, 1951; Ausgrabungen von Alaca
Hiiyiik (1944) and R.O. Arik, Les fouilles d’Alaca Hoyiik, Ankara, 1937. Bull. Metrop.
Mus. of Arts, 1957.)

157
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
type (see Fig.59:8), but locally copied, and one silver specimen is
lavishly decorated with embossed snakes.
The armoury of the Alaca Hiiyiik rulers was well equipped with
swords and daggers. It contained maces, spears with slotted blades
of West Anatolian type and a silver battle-axe with a gold-
plated handle, not unlike the stone axes from Troy and Dorak
(Pl. XXIIa), evidently a ceremonial weapon. No bows and arrows,
nor any objects of perishable materials, such as shields, scabbards,
belts, etc., have hitherto been found.
An entire publication could scarcely do justice to the royal
cemetery at Alaca Hiiyiik. These few pages merely serve to
emphasize its extraordinary interest and importance. The discovery
of royal tombs can completely change previous conceptions of
a culture.
The products of the northwest Anatolian metal workshops
are fairly well-known from the finds in the Dorak tombs (which
belong to the Yortan culture), a robbed-out tomb in the Troad
and the ruins of Troy II and Poliochni V. Although there are marked
differences between the coastal and inland provinces, they are less
pronounced in weapons and metal vessels than in pottery which
has a much narrower range and distribution. The strongest contrast
is that between central and northwestern Anatolia. In the north-
west there is no trace of the animal statue, the disc, or any of the
other specialised ritual equipment found at Alaca Hiiyiik, or
later at Mahmatlar and Horoztepe. All objects buried with the
dead were personal possessions and these tell nothing of the local
cult. Weapons and jewellery are commonly found with vessels of
precious metal. The quality of the jewellery and the ornamentation
of the weapons has no parallels at Alaca Hiiyiik. The use of semi-
precious stones, not uncommon at Alaca, reaches a higher develop-
ment in the west. Stones are often combined with granulation and
filigree-work which lend the jewellery a refined touch missing at
Alaca. Animals are freely used in the ornamentation; birds appear

158
 Early Bronze Age 2
on pins (Fig.49) singly or in pairs, as a pendant (Fig.49) or as
gold and silver vases. Swords and daggers have hilts embellished
with rock-crystal and obsidian, or with paired lion and leopard
heads of ivory (Pl. XXIIb). A small silver lion was found at
Poliochni, wild asses at Dorak; and a dagger from Troy is sur-
mounted by a realistically modelled bull. The dolphin was a popular
motif at Dorak, south of the Sea of Marmora, which was once a
favourite haunt of this intelligent and playful animal. Other motifs
were derived from nature: rosettes, petalled flowers and double
spirals like the curling petals of iris and lily were favourite motifs
on bracelets, pins, basket-shaped earrings, and even on the hilts
of swords and daggers. The human figure was rarely used, and
then always in a schematized form, reminiscent of the marble idols
from western Anatolia (Fig.40) or of the discs with heads and
geometric ornament from Alaca. Necklaces of gold double-spiral
beads were common and at Poliochni twenty-five different types
of gold beads were found. Gold rosettes were sewed onto clothing,
which was then fastened by pins or by a metal-plated belt. Women
wore aprons over flounced dresses. Nothing is known of male attire,
except what can be gathered from a rough graffito of a man from
Troy, helmeted, belted and armed with a sword hanging from a
bandolier. A bronze belt was discovered in the Troadic tomb.
Cosmetics were kept in small silver tubes or in pottery and
stone vessels. Silver mirrors and ivory combs were used by the
ladies of the royal house. Diadems of leaves or plain circlets alter-
nate with what looks like either a high tiara or a hat of the type
still worn by peasant women in Anatolia today.
The rulers’ weapons were sumptuous and many of the battle-
axes and sceptres had heads of semi-precious stone, and gold or
silver-covered handles. The great iron sword found at Dorak can
only have been used on state occasions. An astounding variety of
rich swords and daggers has been unearthed at this site, but at Troy
only the pommels in semi-precious stone have survived. Most of

159
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
these are made of copper and bronze, but there are a few silver
daggers (PI. XXIIb), just as at Alaca, or in the Aegean. The hilts
were of wood covered with sheet metal. Besides swords, daggers
and battle-axes, there are spears, occasionally made of silver,
but this weapon was only fully developed in the following period.
No traces have been found of helmets or shields, but they must
have existed.
In western Anatolia there is also a wealth of metal vessels
in copper, gold, silver and electrum. Most of these are different
in both shape and decoration from those found at Alaca. From the
tomb in the Troad came the fragments of five bronze pans (Fig.
50:1) which are similar to one bronze and one silver example from
Troy Ilg (Fig.50:2). A silver bowl from the same place is also
identical with those at Troy and Dorak. Six spouted vessels with
volutes on the rim, and a basket handle (Fig.59:8) had been depos-
ited in the Troad tomb. This type was also known at Troy II and
Alaca, and was widely imitated in pottery throughout western
Anatolia (Fig.59:7)
The only other vessel that might have originated there is a
silver depas, a kind of cup or bowl, usually with two handles, now
in the British Museum. At Troy itself, this vessel has only been
found in pottery, which is undoubtedly a coincidence, since it
almost certainly originated here (Fig.51:9). In its pottery version,
the depas was exported far and wide, reaching Poliochni (Fig.51:3),
Bagdere in Bulgaria (Fig.51:6), the Cyclades and Greece. A silver
depas from Dorak (Fig.51:10) resembles the grey pottery ones from
Boziiytik, and an example in gold, from the same place, has pottery
parallels near Afyon and at Tarsus. The more elaborate versions
have all been found inland and are presumably copies of metal
vessels. In Samos (Fig. 51:4,2), at Tarsus and in central Anatolia
(Fig.51:5, 7), less attractive forms have been found and other late
examples show local aberrations (Fig. 51:8 from Troy) or painted
designs (Fig.51:1 from Beycesultan). The wide distribution of this

160
 Early Bronze Age 2

FicurE 49 — Gold jewellery from the Troy II culture. Pins, top row, left Poliochni V
(Lemnos), others from Troy. Bottom: bird from Troy, earrings from Poliochni.
(after H. Scuiremann. Ilios, 1890 and L.B. Brea, in Bulletino d’Arte, 1957.)

shape and its many varieties certify its popularity which lasted
from Troy IIc until the end of Troy V, i.e. half a millennium or
more. It was without doubt a drinking cup with two handles for
passing around, but it is not known whether the drink was wine
or beer.
Troy produced many other metal vessels; a fine sauce-boat,
two tall pedestalled vessels with cylindrical necks; a series of fluted
electrum cups (also found at Dorak); a silver vase with tubular
vertical lugs on a pedestal base and more. None of these gold, elec-
trum or silver vessels showed much decoration, contrasting with
those from Dorak, which are richly ornamented. Some are pure
Yortan shapes (Fig.39) like the silver bowls, the gold jug with cut-
away neck and the bird-vessels. Others are probably imports from
neighbouring areas, such as the cup with high loop-handle, the

161
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

Oo

Figure 50 — Bronze and silver pans from the Troad and Troy II and bronze
knife from Denizli area.
(after K. Brrrex, in JDAI, 1959, Ilios, and T. Ozcisg, Kiiltepe-Kanesh, Ankara, 1959.)

small silver juglet and the diagonally fluted jar which have their
pottery counterparts in north or southwest Anatolia. In the
southwest the pottery is blatantly metallic in inspiration during
this period (Fig.52), with its grooved and fluted ornament and its
silvery grey, golden buff and coppery red colours:
With the Beycesultan cemeteries unknown, not a single metal
vessel has yet been discovered in this rich and prominent area. It is
perfectly clear that during the Early Bronze Age nearly all pottery
shapes in Anatolia were either inspired by metal prototypes or
copied in metal, showing the country must have been rich in metal
products.

162
 Early Bronze Age 2

Trape. (Map XI)

The extraordinary degree of development and prosperity in
this period was evidently not only based on full-scale exploitation
of natural resources, but also on widespread trade. Anatolia could
produce any amount of copper, iron, arsenic, antimony, silver and
electrum and a fair amount of gold. Some of the gold, and certainly
such metals as tin, were imported. Anatolia also produced obsidian,
meerschaum, red jasper, rock-crystal, serpentine, diorite, marble,
limestones and perhaps carnelian, but not ivory, turquoise, lapis-
lazuli, amber or large lumps of nephrite (a form of jade). All these
materials were used at Troy or Dorak, but not at Alaca, so they
must have been brought either by land or sea.
Central Anatolians, possibly merchants, were installed at
Diindartepe on the Black Sea coast and lived with the natives.
Here, there are signs of contact with northwest Anatolia, with the
far shores of the Black Sea (Ukraine), the Sea of Azov and probably
with Ciscaucasia, north of the Caucasus. At Maikop, on the Kuban,
a number of features in the great chieftain’s tomb are almost cer-
tainly due to Central Anatolian influence. There are also links
with eastern Anatolia in the form of metal vases, with Ciscaspia
whose trade brought lapis-lazuli and Iranian carnelian, and with
northwestern Anatolia from where the meerschaum must have
come.
Trading contact with Maikop could therefore provide the
lapis-lazuli, which came from Badakhshan in the Pamir mountains,
the nephrite which came from the Kuen Lun mountains of Eastern
Turkestan, the turquoise mined near Nishapur in Khorasan and
perhaps some carnelian. From the mouth of the Kuban River,
Pontic and northwest Anatolian ships brought home those precious
materials. Traders may have coasted along the northern shore of the
Black Sea where, in the region of Odessa, the Usatova Early Bronze
culture arose, perhaps as a result of this trade. Only Anatolia

163
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
could have introduced copper smelting in that area. The semi-
nomads of this region commanded the southern end of another
trade route which, rounding the Carpathians, went through the
forest of Poland to the Baltic, where amber is found. This magic
material, charged with electricity, attractive in colour and easy to
carve, was exported to Troy and Dorak and probably picked up by
Anatolian ships in the region of Odessa. Other contacts were es-
tablished with the Cernavoda culture of the Lower Danube in
Rumania and eastern Bulgaria, and from the present Turkish
border to the region of Moscow. Typical northwest Anatolian
products such as pins with hammer and double-spiral beads are
found scattered there over a number of sites. The introduction of
the Anatolian battle-axe with drooping blade into the south Pontic
steppe from the Carpathians may date from the same time. Ana-
tolian metal types were probably exchanged in Rumania and Bul-
garia for raw materials; gold from Transylvania and Bulgaria,
and copper from the Bakir Dag, north of the present frontier,
Anatolian pots, flat-axes and pins were found at the site of Athana-
sovo near the harbour of Burgas, just north of this mountain. Gold
may have been obtained from Mt. Pangaion in Thrace, in or near
territory settled by Anatolians who produced the Macedonian
Early Bronze Age. Some of the gold may also have come from the
Kalekag mines in the Troad behind Canakkale.
Since tin is not found in Anatolia, the source is still disputed,
and the Anatolian tin may have come from Bohemia or still further
west. Alaca Hiiyiik probably got its tin from Troy, and it is note-
worthy that arsenic was used to alloy copper in the Yortan culture.
No analyses of the Dorak metal are available. It is unlikely that
Alaca should have obtained tin from West Iran via Mesopotamia,
for it was exactly at this period (that of the Akkadian or Sargonid
dynasty) that bronze in Mesopotamia gave place to pure copper,
suggesting that access to tin supplies had been cut off. Further
evidence for the closing of the trade-route to the east was the short-

164
 Early Bronze Age 2

Ficure 51 — Variations on the two-handled beaker or depas amphikypellon. Centre

and right, typical northwest Anatolian forms; on left, later and other Anatolian
adaptations.
1. Beycesultan VI a (goth century); 2. Heraion (Samos); 3. Poliochni V; 4. He-
raion; 5. Tarsus E.B. III; 6. Bagdere (Svilengrad, Bulgaria); 7. Kiltepe E.B. III;
8. Troy; 9. Troy II; 10. Dorak. Troy II period (silver).
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

~~ @

ors
Ss.

SAR
ae
AREA
Ficure 52 — Grooved and fluted pottery of metallic origins from south west
Anatolia. E.B. II period.
(after S. Ltoyp and J. MELLAaRT, Beycesultan, I, 1962.)
 Early Bronze Age 2
age of lapis-lazuli during this time. Tin oxide occurs in great
quantities near Kermanshah: and it was exactly in this area, com-
manding the one easy route into Iran, that the Sargonid accounts
mention considerable trouble with the native mountaineers. It may
be that this caused the trade-route to shift to the north, leading,
incidentally, to the enrichment of the tribes north of the Caucasus.
Further south, Anatolian ships from the northwest plied their
trade, competing with their Cycladic neighbours in the Aegean
and the eastern Mediterranean. Cilician and Cretan products
reached Troy and Heraion on Samos and as far as Egypt, where
Cilician pottery has been found in tombs at Giza dating from the
reign of Cheops (ca. 2640 B.C.) in the Fourth Dynasty. Anatolian
silver was probably exported to Byblos and perhaps thence to
Egypt. Egyptian stone vessels, as well as ivory and gold, appear in
the Early Minoan II of Crete. A vessel with the name of the sun-
temple of Userkaf, the first king of the Fifth Dynasty, was found at
Cythera, an island west of Crete, and objects of both his successors
have been found at Dorak. The gift of a throne or armchair suggests
that Sahure entered into trade relations with the nameless king
buried in tomb I at Dorak. The discovery of ivory at Troy and
Dorak, Poliochni and Tarsus emphasize such relations with Egypt.
The appearance of the Egyptian ankh sign, meaning “‘life’’, on
Yortan pottery, plus the discovery at Ovabayindir of a crescentic
axe of a type known in Fifth Dynasty Egypt, could be more than
a coincidence.
In this age of searching and trade it is not surprising to find
the first pictures of ships. In Fig.53 are shown a number of ships,
from a Dorak sword (N° 1-3), contemporary examples from the
Cyclades (N°s 7-8) and somewhat later ones from Crete (N°8 4-6),
and later Middle Bronze Age ships from Iolkos, in Thessaly
(N° 9), the port famous in legend from which the Argonauts set
out. In each case we see a prow with a distinct beak, a high stern,
a paddle for steering in the Yortan and Iolkos ships and occasionally

167
Bronze Ages — 12
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
a mast with a sail. All ships show numerous oars. It is interesting to
note that although man had taken to the sea and colonised islands
s
since the Neolithic Age, at least 3500 years earlier, the first picture
a
of ships in this area appear only in the Early Bronze Age, and as
result of the first great maritime expansion. However, much of
the trade must have been by land, by ox-carts or donkey
caravans.
From a late Mesopotamia source we learn how Sargon of
Accad went on an expedition to help the (presumably Mesopota-
mian) merchants established in the Central Anatolian city of Purus-
khanda. Sargon was the founder of a new dynasty which extended
its sway from the Amanus mountains (the “Cedar Mountain’’)
to the Persian Gulf. It is not known whether this story is apocryphal
or not. There is as yet no evidence to confirm the presence of
Accadian merchants in Anatolia at this date (24th century B.C.).
However, it illustrates clearly how trade was conducted in those
days and the hazards to which foreign merchants were sometimes
exposed. The repeated mention of numerous Anatolian kings in
these semi-legendary accounts fits the picture reconstructed from
archaeological evidence for this period. By 2000 B.C., we find Assyr-
ian merchants established in numerous Anatolian towns, ruled by
greater and lesser native Anatolian kings. The numerous references
in Accadian texts to the Amanus (“Cedar Mountain’) and the
Taurus (the “Silver Mountains’) as well as the first marked Mesopo-
tamian influence on Cilicia, Central and Eastern Anatolia, after
2300 B.C., show that Sargon and Naram-Sin’s claims of conquest
were no idle boast. This has been confirmed in an even more spec-
tacular way by archaeology; for it is at this very period that the
sea route to India was opened. In Sargon’s own words, “‘the ships
of Meluhha (the Indus Valley), the ships of Magan (the Oman
coast, a source of copper), the ships of Dilmun (the island of Bah-
rain) he moored at the quay in front of Agade (his capital near
Bagdad)”’. Recent Danish excavations at Failaka, Bahrain and on

168
 Early Bronze Age 2
the Oman coast confirm that these were the steps by which Mesopo-
tamian ships, during the Accadian period, made contact with the
Indus Valley civilisation. Seals with representations of Indian
humped cattle and water buffaloes, unknown before in Mesopo-
tamia, occur in Accadian deposits. It was undoubtedly from Meso-
potamia that they were later introduced into Anatolia. Such scraps
of archaeological evidence accidentally show that ancient trade
did not confine itself to the import and export of raw materials and
luxury goods. Trade also brought new and exotic animals, and,
most precious of all, slaves. Traces of these are impossible to detect
in the absence of written texts. It is almost customary to interpret
the appearance of unusual skulls, however few, as “invaders’’, but
they may have been foreign slaves. An unorthodox map is drawn
of the known world of this period (Map XI), simply to illustrate
the scope of trade.
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

a
a ee
a

ee Ag

Ficure 53 — Drawings of ships of Northwest Anatolian (1-3), Cretan (4-6), Cy-

cladic (7-9) types.
(1-3 from sword, Dorak (E.B. II); 4-5 from seals, Platanos and Knossos (Early Mi-
noan3 / Middle Minoan 1); 6, model of boat same place (E.M. 1-2), Cycladic ships
(Syros? and Orchomenos — E.B.2 and Middle Cycladic mat painted sherd from
Tolkos).
(after Evans, Palace of Minos, 11; E. Kunze, Orchomenos, II, and Archaeology, 1958.)

170
 Early Bronze Age 2

HALF SCALE

Ficure 54 — Typical Southwest Anatolian E.B.3 pottery.

(after S. Ltoyp and J. MELLAART, Beycesultan, I, 1962.)

171
am : ety ps peg me
vation © Hl oalaeas Samaria
2

wee.
 CHAPTER XII

THE THIRD PHASE OF THE ANATOLIAN

EARLY BRONZE AGE (ca. 2300-1900 B.C.).
INDO-EUROPEAN INVADERS FROM THE
NORTH. CATASTROPHE AND RECOVERY

The third and last phase of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia
is of particular interest. It saw the arrival of newcomers, barbarians
from the north, who spoke Indo-European languages. Some of
these caused havoc and destruction hitherto unparalleled in Ana-
tolia, whereas others immigrated or infiltrated with only the average
amount of disturbance. Once again the old diagonal line marks
the boundary between west and south on one hand, centre and east
on the other, as well as the easternmost limit of a great invasion.
In the west, this period lasted about four centuries before
imperceptibly merging into a Middle Bronze Age. In Cilicia
it was cut short by the arrival of new elements, probably
Hurrians, ca. 2100 B.C., who introduced a local Middle Bronze
Age, distinguished by painted pottery with some Syrian affinities.
In Central Anatolia the previous period, that of the prosperous
Alaca Hiiyiik cemetery, lasted at least until 2200 B.C. Two
centuries later, Central Anatolia emerged from the mists of pre-
history with the arrival of Assyrian merchants, at the beginning of
the Middle Bronze Age. In the Pontic regions the old cultures
continued at least throughout the twenty-second century and their
end is shrouded in mystery. Finally, in Eastern Anatolia, significant
changes took place, the full implications of which are still unde-
termined.

na
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

DESTRUCTION IN THE WEST.

Since that day, late in May, 1873, when Schliemann first found
the treasures in the red, burned ruins of Troy II destroyed around
2300 B.C., scholars have wondered who destroyed that windswept
site. Schliemann believed that this was the city of Priam sacked by
the Greeks under Agamemnon. The claim to be the Homeric city
was transferred to Troy VI by W. Dorpfeld and to Troy VIIa by
C.W. Blegen, after the American excavations in the nineteen-
thirties. Latest research shows that this also is impossible and that
Troy may never have been destroyed by the Greeks at all. As
archaeological research progressed, no one seemed interested in the
destruction of Troy II. The classical world had lost interest in this
““barbarous prehistoric site’, which was no longer the city of Priam.
The destruction of this fortress is actually of far greater interest
than proving Homer right or wrong and marks one of the most
important historical events in Anatolian prehistory. The E.B.2
kingdom of Troy commanded one of the natural routes from Europe
into Anatolia. Its destruction opened the gates to an invasion of
northern hordes which destroyed the prosperous E.B.2 kingdoms,
from the confines of Europe up to the Syrian border, with a ferocity
worthy of Huns or Mongols. They may even have left their echo
in the Mesopotamian records of the reign of Naram-Sin (2290-
2250 B.C.). These records mention demoniac hordes who destroyed
the city of Puruskhanda at the western end of that ruler’s empire.
It would have been unusual if the news of the vile destruction
wrought by these invasions had not penetrated beyond the Taurus
and Amanus. Excavations in western and southern Anatolia, sup-
plemented by field surveys, expose a picture of utmost horror. All
through western Anatolia the burned and destroyed sites, dated
by pottery to the end of the E.B.2 period, around 2300 B.C.,
stretch in a broad belt. They range from below the Sea of Marmora,
throughout northwest and southwest Anatolia, through the plains

174
 Early Bronze Age 3
of Konya and Cilicia to the Amanus mountains. Sites as far apart
as Poliochni and Tarsus, Beycesultan and Ahlitlibel, Heraion on
Samos and Polatli all show the same pattern of destruction. In the
Konya plain all the cities were destroyed and of a hundred E.B.
2 sites not more than six show signs of reoccupation in the period
that followed. In the southwest, less than a hundred out of three
hundred sites show reoccupation in the E.B.3 period and, as in the
Konya plain, whole areas lay waste for hundreds of years. In the
northwest the destruction was equally strong, but reoccupation
followed quickly in certain areas (see Map V1).
In Cilicia, the number of settlements decreased sharply after
the invasion. No theory of local wars between kingdoms could
possibly account for this devastation or desertion of settlements; it
was far too widespread, too intense, too violent, and too unexpected.
A theory of local wars, however internecine, cannot explain
the fact that the entire area should next show a culture derived
from the maritime province of late Troy II.
However, it is possible to connect this disaster, which over-
whelmed western Anatolia, with events further north. It coincides
with the end of the “Thracian Troy I’? culture in Turkish Thrace
which had endured during the Troy II period and the end of the
Cernavoda culture further north. According to a radiocarbon date,
there appeared in 2330 B.C., in the Cernavoda culture, new ele-
ments from the steppe. These people were buried under barrows
and their skeletons covered with red ochre. In this culture, known
as Cernavoda-Ezero, pastoralism was very marked and domesti-
cated horses appeared from the start. Their pottery was extremely
primitive, decorated with warts and coarse incision, and sometimes
with rope impressions. In eastern Bulgaria the southern form of
this culture, known as Karanovo VII, is already considerably more
civilised. People practised agriculture, with wheat, barley and
millet as the main crops. The horse was present among the domesti-
cated animals. Houses were built of thin wooden poles and apsidal

175
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
in form, with a large front room, and a small back room containing
hearth, place for the grindstone, food storage, etc. The pottery
was dark grey or black burnished, incised or cord impressed and
with numerous other shapes that had earlier local or Anatolian
origins. Their battle-axes were of a developed type. Copperworking
was known, but there was no bronze. This culture established itself
on the site after a pronounced hiatus and may have moved into
the area from the north, in the wake of a movement which broke
and destroyed the earlier culture pattern ca.2300 B.C. All this is
admittedly uncertain, but a sudden disruption of the earlier culture
pattern in the region is well established; just as it can be demon-
strated for the west of Anatolia.
We have nothing to identify the newcomers in Anatolia,
except thorough destruction, massacres and hundreds of deserted
sites. No barbarous pottery, no ochre burials, no tumuli, no new
weapons, and no trace of the horse have been found as in the
eastern Balkans. Instead, we find strong northwest Anatolian
influences in areas where before there had been none, including
“megaron”’ type houses, depata, wheel-made plates, new spindle
whorls, an increased use of wood in architecture and other features
first found in the late Troy II culture. These were diffused all
over the west and south up to the Amanus mountains, breaking
down the earlier cultural barriers and establishing a homogeneity
of culture, however mediocre, that has no earlier parallels. The
miserable Troy III settlement was evidently not the sort of place
that could exercise such a widespread influence, which even its
powerful predecessor was never able to do.
Thus it is clear that, whoever led this movement, the main
force was probably composed of landless refugees from the
northwestern coastal provinces; bearers of Troy II culture. Only
in this way could it have been diffused over such a vast area.
The leading element must have been strong enough to break
the Trojan kingdom, to command the allegiance of numerous

176
 Early Bronze Age 3
local followers and to provide the ruling class throughout the
conquered and devastated regions.
No other break in culture can be observed in western and
southern Anatolia between this time and that at which the first
speakers of Luvian are attested in the same region in the later
records. Therefore, it seems almost certain that it was the
“Luvians’, or to put it more precisely, the elements who were
responsible for the Indo-European language of Luvian, who led
the great invasion of ca.2300 B.C. Being culturally inferior, they
adopted the material culture of the native populations and must
have mixed with them. We can speak of a Luvian language,
Luvian deities, and perhaps of a Luvian ruling class. These
people may have had habits, customs, rituals, laws, etc. different
from those of the earlier population, but their material culture
was as Anatolian as that of their kinsmen the Hittites. *
After the disaster, survivors and newcomers began to rebuild
the destroyed settlements. The old prosperity, built on trade, had
now vanished and the architectural remains of the twenty-third
century throughout the devastated domains are, on the whole, a
pathetic reflection of their former glory. There is no evidence of
town walls, public buildings or formal planning. Troy III was
built of stone, evidently quarried from the ruins, and blocks of
small houses stood along narrow streets. At Beycesultan and ‘Tarsus
the new buildings also lacked character, and the temple area of
Beycesultan was abandoned.
A decline in culture is evident everywhere, but life went on
and gradually conditions improved again. Trade was resumed
with the Aegean and for the first time more contact was established
with Central Anatolia, and with Syria and Mesopotamia beyond.
Troy IV was built ca.2200 B.C. and contemporary buildings at
Heraion on Samos, Beycesultan and Tarsus are marked by new

* From whom they may not yet have been differentiated.

177
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
groups of large “megara’’. Troy IV was refortified and covered
more ground than its predecessor and at Beycesultan the areas
deserted before were rebuilt and a fair amount of prosperity
returned. Metal objects reappeared and in the southwest the
pottery became more sophisticated (Fig.59). Local tendencies in
pottery and metal reaffirmed themselves and trade was re-establi-
shed with the Aegean.
It is now clear that Greece was also affected by the movements
from the north, although events there appear to have happened
a century after those in western Anatolia. There is widespread
evidence of destruction at the end of the prosperous E.H. II, not
only in Central Greece, but in Attica and the north-eastern Pele-
ponnese as well. Further south, the Cyclades appear to have been
unaffected by this movement, and no traces of disturbance have
been found in Crete. The new culture, Early Helladic III, is best
known from Lerna IV in the Argolid and was characterised by
apsidal and rectangular houses, often built in wood. A great tumu-
lus was built over the destroyed palace, the “house of tiles’’, and
new pottery made its appearance. Some of this was decorated with
painting in dark on light, whereas in Central Greece the decoration
was in white on dark. The origins of this pottery, and of the culture
in general, are obscure, although painted pottery was certainly
known earlier in the Cyclades. Troy IV pottery appeared at Lerna,
while painted ware (Early Helladic III) appeared at Troy. Cycla-
dic “duck vases”’ occurred in southwestern Anatolia, in Heraion,
at Troy, etc. and numerous Anatolian vessels were found in the
cemetery of Manika near Chalkis in Euboea. Ribbed depata like
those from Beycesultan have been found at Tiryns, but face-urns,
the pots decorated with human faces either on the neck of the vessel
or on the lid, have not yet been found outside the Troad.
At the same time, Cilicia renewed its relations with Syria and
the Trojan depata became transformed into North Syrian goblets,
often ribbed and indistinguishable from their southern counterparts,

178
 Early Bronze Age 3
for example at Ras Shamra. Here also are found the same metal
types as at Soli west of Mersin; spear-heads or pikes with solid
tangs, swords and daggers, and discs with knobbed handles. These
discs were also common in the later graves at Alaca Hiiyiik, and
have been found at Horoztepe. In metallurgy, Cilicia and North
Syria had much in common during this period. Indeed, it is not
surprising to find that the period ends with the arrival of a new wave
of Syrian influence which introduces the local Middle Bronze Age
ca. 2100 B.C,
Cilician trade was not confined to its eastern and southern
neighbours, for at both Kara Hiiyiik, near Konya and Kiiltepe,
near Kayseri, there is plentiful evidence of widespread contact
and commerce. Resumed in the E.B.3 period it continued through
the centuries that followed, deep into the second millennium B.C.
It probably reached its height during the beginning of the Middle
Bronze Age with the appearance of the Assyrian merchants. Al-
though their texts do not mention such places as Tarsus and Adana,
we know that the trading centre of Luhuzatiya, for example, lay
at the eastern end of the Cilician plain. Cups and goblets of local
shape but with Cilician affinities now occur in the Konya plain,
together with jugs with beak and cutaway spouts of an earlier
tradition. Moreover, a third and different element is supplied by
a simple red painted ware reminiscent of, but different from, that
of E.B.3 of Cappadocia. This is known as “Cappadocian ware”’.
Sheltered by mountain ranges and the wastes around the Salt
Lake from the “Luvian”’ invasions, Central Anatolia was apparently
unaffected by the events that took place further south and west.
The old E.B.2 cultures developed without a break through the
twenty-third century at the end of which the royal cemetery at Alaca
appears to have been abandoned and houses were built over it. In
the debris of these houses were found the first depata (Fig.51:7),
a sure sign of western influence. However, their shape betrays a
Cilician rather than a West Anatolian origin. This last settlement

179
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
of the period ended with a conflagration approximately at the
time that Cappadocian ware made its first appearance in these
western parts of the highland region, within the great bend of the
River Halys.
The origin of this pottery was obscure for a very long time. Re-
cently it has been established as a local development in the Kiiltepe
region, around the city of Kayseri which lies at the foot of that
beautiful Turkish mountain, the great volcano of Erciyes Dag. At
the time of the Alaca graves, a simple painted pottery was already
produced in this area. It appears to have developed ca. 2250 B.C.
into what is called Intermediate ware, painted with simple patterns
in red lines (Fig.55, top right). This pottery became gradually more
advanced; the patterns multiplied; the shapes became more refined
and finally polychromy triumphed and the late Cappadocian ware
became one of the finest products of Central Anatolia (Fig.55).
Nearly all its shapes were derived from the pottery that preceded
it and the fine patterns appear to have been strongly influenced by
colourful textiles. Its probable origin in the area, its limited distri-
bution and its lack of parallels elsewhere, seem to rule out the old
theory that it was brought by the Hittites.
Like all the more spectacular manifestations of culture in
Anatolia, it was not an import but of local origin. At Kiiltepe, in
a palace recently excavated and dating from about 2200 B.C.,
Early Cappadocian ware was found near imported wheel-made
Cilician pottery and with peculiar alabaster idols. This palace,
surprisingly enough, consists of a broad porch with sleeping plat-
forms, a large hall with a fine central hearth surrounded by four
columns which supported the roof and a series of secondary cham-
bers along one side (Fig.56). This is a plan indigenous to the
west of Anatolia (see Fig.43,45) and might have been copied
from Poliochni or Troy. Its presence in central Anatolia can only
be the result of contact with the western area, in this case probably
Cilicia or the Konya plain.

180
 Early Bronze Age 3

[5 Zl A\
2/| fy
\ Vi

Ficure 55 — Cappadocian painted ware from Kiiltepe and Alisar.

(after N. Ozctc, in Belleten, XXI; T. Ozctig, Kiiltepe-Kanesh (1959); N. and T.
Ozcig, Kiiltepe Kazi Raporu, 1949, Ankara, 1953; H. H. von per Osten, Alisar Hiiyiik,
TOPE; SOV LIT 19395)

181
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

—- —- - —

ism

Ficure 56 — Plan of the Early Cappadocian palace at Kiiltepe.

(after S. LLoyp, in Dawn of Civilization, ed. S. Piggott.)

182
 Early Bronze Age 3

3) @

CRN . ©
OK iN
~O\ OSE o) bo

~ -
-———

Ficure 57 — Early Cappadocian alabaster figurines from Kiiltepe.

(a) tentatively restored after N. Ozctig, in Belleten, XXI, fig. 12.
(b) after RHA, 1938.

However, the famous “‘Cappadocian idols” owe nothing to

western influence and are as typical of this region as the pottery.
Besides small statues seated on a throne, all the finest specimens
have a circular body with one to four necks (Fig.57). Some show
smaller similar figures placed on the mother’s body above a clearly
marked vulva, while others are plain and schematically incised
with lines, bands and dotted circles. A tentative reconstruction
(Fig. 57a) shows one of the most remarkable figures with four heads.
On the body, a young man is carved holding a lion on a leash.
Another battered body of such a figure, found at Zencidere, south-
east of Erciyes Dag, shows at least one bearded head and three
standing figures on the body. These objects are beyond doubt
statues of deities, but their meaning is unknown. The predominance

183
Bronze Ages — I3
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
of female deities is, however, clearly demonstrated and so is off-
spring in the form of twins. Conical hats, necklaces and long plaits
are shown on the figures, but no more. It is hoped that the continua-
tion of excavations will throw more light on what is certainly one
of the most intriguing cultures of Central Anatolia.
Further north, the contemporary culture of the Pontic region
has been illuminated by the investigation of partly plundered royal
tombs at Mahmatlar, near Amasya and Horoztepe on the south
bank of the Yesil Irmak, above the town of Erbaa. Other finds of
the same period came from still another, though not royal, tomb at
Karapinar, south of Tokat in the same region. The particular
interest in these finds lies in the fact that they continue the fine
tradition of metalwork seen at Alaca, but at a time that the Alaca
cemetery was no longer in use. The finds from the Mahmatlar tomb
(the location of which is unknown) may even overlap the latest
Alaca graves and the material recovered from it is no less magnifi-
cent. T'wo gold jugs (Fig.48), one gold and one silver cup are in
the Alaca tradition, but the bronze battle-axes, socketed with
a
spiked edge form a link with Horoztepe and are unknown at Alaca.
Numerous lumps of silver were also found, and it is possible that
the fine inlaid silver statue of a bull, like that from tomb B at Alaca,
and now in an American museum, came from this grave.
The Horoztepe cemetery lay well away from the settlement.
By sheer chance the digging of graves in the modern cemeter
y of
Erbaa led to its discovery and to the robbing of at least
two
tombs. Fortunately part of one tomb was intact and the
finds
presented many resemblances to the material from Alaca.
There
was a fine statue of a bull on a detachable pedestal, and
a single
crude “‘sun-disc”’, with geometric open-work. Among several
smaller
statues, one of a woman holding a child as if feeding
it, is the
most remarkable. It was made of copper or bronze and
its large
hollow eyes were filled with white paste surrounding
a black
pupil.

184.
 Early Bronze Age 3
Even more remarkable is the thin silver figure of a female
deity (Pl. XXIII) with the head encased in sheet-gold, on which
the features and the hair were clearly traced. Crossed straps of
gold-foil were applied to the upper part of the body above the
folded hands. It is likely that they might have once held a robe
which is no longer preserved. The figures wear bracelets and
anklets, and the fingers and toes are well modelled. This figure
probably came from Horoztepe, and its alleged provenance of
Hasanoglan near Ankara seems unlikely. When it is compared to
the other Horoztepe figure, the differences are most striking and it
shows many similarities to the Dorak figures or even those from
Tell Judeideh (Fig.24).
Two small bull statues were covered with lead, in one case
only the front half of the animal, in the other the hind-quarters.
Silver inlay filled the triangle on the head, while the muzzle, horn-
tips and tail of the large bull were coated in electrum. One bronze
figure is of a small stag, highly stylized and the forerunner of many
similar figures from eastern Anatolia, Transcaucasia and north-
west Iran. The pair of yoked bulls on a single stand is in the Alaca
tradition, but the rendering is quite different, almost flamboyant
in the exaggerated horns, the strange pedestal and the lack of inlay.
i
|
The small stag is not unlike those that decorate the sistrum
(Pl. XXIVa), a musical instrument which was another innovation
j
:q
of the period. A stag and doe are followed by mountain goats with
i two lions in pursuit. Two other sistra, shaped like large tuning
j
forks, are ornamented with mountain goats and birds (Fig.58) or
with a bird flapping its wings between two buds, and rows of horns
down the sides (Pl. XXIVb).
Two copper or bronze tables (Fig.59:3,4), supported by
human legs wearing short boots, were found bent double, containing
between them a mass of copper vessels, bent and folded for magico-
religious reasons. The bending or breaking was believed to make
the object “harmless” to the dead. Furniture was frequently taken

185
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

aie
Ficure 58 — Sistrum of copper (or bronze) from Horoztepe.
(after T. Ozctig, Horoztepe, 1958.)

186
 Early Bronze Age 3

go-tt SS

.
NX ’
) ‘¢
CEA
Eaceee

Ficure 59 — Furniture and metal vessels from Horoztepe, the Troad (N° 8), and
Karapinar (N° 5); pottery imitations (2, from Alisar; 7, from Beycesultan VII.)
(after T. Ozciic, Horoztepe, 1958; OIP, XXVIII; K. Birrex, in JDAL, 1958, and
Beycesultan, I, 1962.)

187
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
to pieces, swords bent or broken, and vessels crushed as at Dorak
to make sure that the dead were not disturbed.
Among the vessels was a fine fruitstand (Fig.59: 1), the first
metal one of a type common in Centra] Anatolia and Pontus since the
“Tate Chalcolithic’”’ Period (Fig.59:2). There were numerous bowls
and jars, dippers, a mirror, and a fine kettle with basket handle
(Fig.59:6) of a shape more advanced than one from nearby Kara-
pinar (Fig.59:5) or the earlier ones from the Troadic tomb (Fig.
59:8). A western form in pottery, contemporary with the Horoztepe
example, is shown in Fig.59:7. Other fragments of casings of fur-
niture were found in this grave, the dimensions of which (8.5x
3.0 x 1.25 metres) correspond to the largest of the Alaca tombs.
There were no traces of wood and the skeletons of its occupants
had been crushed. No signs were found of how the grave had been
roofed, or whether any funerary feasts had been held after the
burial. Little personal jewellery has survived except for a small
gold cap, crudely cut in sheet metal, a belt-buckle, and a charming
sceptre-head on which perch four little birds.
The weapons of this period show the same change as in the
other items from the graves. Swords with flanged edges (Fig.60:1-2),
a dagger of the same type (Fig.60:3), the old slotted (Fig.60:5-6)
and the new poker-butted spearheads (Fig.60:4) are found next
to elaborate knobbed and spiked halberds (Fig.60:7 and 8).
Crescentic axes (Fig.60:9) continued, together with other forms
of battle-axes (Fig.60:10). In general it seems that the heavy
spear and the battle-axe or halberd were gaining in popularity at
the expense of the sword, but the implications of these changes in
armoury are still far from clear. It may have reflected the equip-
ment of the well-trained armies of Sargonid times. Or else fighting
from carts could have been making its initial appearance in Ana-
tolia. The first alternative does not seem likely, for the Naram-Sin
stele shows the king and his followers armed with bows and arrows:
articles of war strangely missing in Early Bronze Age Anatolia.

188
 Early Bronze Age 3

Ficure 60 — Copper or bronze weapons from Horoztepe.

(after T. Ozctic, Horoztepe 1958.)

The development of the halberd, battle-axe, or the crescentic axe

could well be the answer to the heavy spear. The halberd, mounted
on a long pole, would keep the enemy at bay and could be used for
killing a man after breaking his spear. History provides numerous
parallels for the use of axe against spear.
The pottery of this Horoztepe culture is of the Pontic type and
not very well known. Cappadocian ware never penetrated these
northern regions. Remembering the conflicts between the central
Anatolian Hittites and the Pontic Kaskaeans in the following
millennium it is not impossible that the geographical division was
also an ethnic one. In any case, metal types show clearly that some
trade and contact were maintained and new inventions adopted.
Probably the Pontic culture transmitted such influences to the
areas still further afield. In ancient Colchis, below the Caucasus,
these same metal types now make their first appearance. A sea-
route from Samsun would have been the easiest avenue for trade.

189
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
The end of the Horoztepe culture has not yet been defined
and what followed is still unknown. It may have ended about 2100
B.C., perhaps later. Meanwhile important changes were taking
place in the surrounding lands. Strangers from the east and west
appeared in the fertile acres of Cappadocia. At this time it was
surrounded by hills and wooded mountains, rich in streams and
animals, as well as in silver, copper, iron and gold.
Traders from many regions of Anatolia came to Kiiltepe, the
site of the ancient Hattic town of Kanesh, which was steadily
growing in importance during this period. Placed at a ganglion of
trade-routes leading in all directions of the compass, any ancient
caravan was easily guided to Kanesh by its 13,000 foot landmark,
the snowcapped Mt. Erciyes, the ‘“‘White Mountain’. Great
ramparts encircled the already ancient mound, protecting within
their sweep the royal palace, public buildings, both religious and
secular, and probably the dwellings of court officials and the
rich.
In the very last phase of the Early Bronze Age, which began
ca. 2100 B.C., a great walled suburb was laid out on its northeastern
side. This was to accommodate a surplus of population or the steady
inflow of native and foreign merchants. From tablets discovered
in the third building level on this site, it is known that, by 2000
B.C., Assyrian merchants had settled in Kanesh. The personal
names recorded on those tablets included besides Assyrians and
local Hattic (i.e. non-Indo-European) names, those of a majority
who spoke Indo-European languages such as Luvian and
Hittite.
In this new suburb a new wheel-made pottery also appeared
for the first time. It was covered with a slip and brilliantly bur-
nished, with new and metallic shapes in sharp contrast to the gaily
painted wares of the Late Cappadocian types, and was evidently
not derived from them. This pottery, the ancestor of the splendid
Middle Bronze Age wares of Central Anatolia, and of Kiiltepe in

190
 Early Bronze Age 3
particular, appeared quite suddenly. The new suburbs, new pottery
and new people can hardly be explained away as a series of
coincidences.
How this ware arrived at Kiiltepe is not known. The texts
suggest two alternatives: Hittites or Luvians, the latter not yet
well-established, but both newcomers. The problem is difficult to
solve, for Kiiltepe is not the only site where new wares suddenly
occurred in central Anatolia. At the famous sites of Alaca Hiiyiik and
Bogazkéy (the latter destined to become the later Hittite capital) clo-
sely related though not identical pottery appeared, again sud-
denly, and associated with local wares which were still handmade.
Further west, at the same period, a similar phenomenon can be
observed in the Ankara region and at Kara Hiiyiik near Konya,
but the associated local pottery was west Anatolian in type and
well-defined. The red-cross bowls (Fig.54) date it to the period
of Troy V, ca.2100-1900 B.C. Strangely enough, the best paral-
lels for the pottery brought by the earliest occupants at the site of
Bogazkoéy are found at Beycesultan VIA in the southwest, where
this pottery is represented. It consists of red wash-ware and rich
black, grey, red and cream ware, frequently ornamented with in-
cisions, made on the wheel and brilliantly burnished. Here, too,
it appears suddenly and rather late in the period. From surface
exploration it appears that it originated in inland western Anatolia,
somewhat further north, in the region of Kiitahya. There it is
mixed with red, black and grey wares, often ornamented with
pattern burnish (Fig.61), which originated in the lowlands south-
east of the Sea of Marmora. It also extended inland, further west
to the plains of Balikesir and Manisa, but not as yet represented on
the Aegean coast. In the Troy V culture, the pattern-burnished
ware was known, but not the more specific forms ornamented with
rows of dashes, W-shaped handles in relief, or the cups and bowls
in wheel-made plain ware. The coast seems to have been relatively
backward at this period, and did not appear to have shared in the

IgI
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
events further inland until the next period which was the beginning
of the Middle Bronze Age.
This pottery, then, marked the end of the Early Bronze Age
and represented the final wedding of the old burnished techniques
with the new fashion of throwing pottery on the wheel. Except in
the hinterland of northwest Anatolia, it was always accompanied
by local elements of earlier tradition. Its shapes were frequently
metallic and the predominance of grey ware suggests silver proto-
types. This may have been a luxury ware distributed by merchants
along the trade-route, perhaps together with its metal prototypes.
A northwest Anatolian origin is almost certain and there are other
indications of the prosperity of this area just before the end of the
Early Bronze Age. West Anatolian metal types such as curved
knives (Fig.50), have been found at Kiiltepe, Troy V, and ““Den-
izli’’. These sites were surrounded by powerful walls and new
settlements sprang up everywhere in the region. Poliochni and
Thermi were resettled and the widespread occurrence of the red-
cross bowl demonstrates the vast scope of trade.
Once again, this short period of prosperity was disturbed,
about 1900 B.C., at the turn of the Early to the Middle Bronze
Age in the west. Compared to the “‘Luvian’’ invasion, some four
centuries before, the destruction was geographically limited to the
north of Anatolia, and does not appear to have had such a lasting
effect. Once again similar events took place in Greece, which
suggests that the invasions are somehow interconnected. What
actually happened is exceedingly obscure; there is substantial
evidence for destruction. This was followed by a change in culture
in Macedonia, Thessaly, Central Greece and perhaps part of the
Argolis, except at Lerna, where the transition was peaceful, but
nevertheless felt. New elements with a habit of intramural burial
in cist graves appeared, bringing with them the technique of fashion-
ing a highly distinctive pottery called Grey Minyan, which was
thrown on the wheel. Their houses were often apsidal, as were

192
 Early Bronze Age 3
those of Lerna in the previous period, when forerunners of Grey
Minyan had appeared. On the northwest coast of Anatolia, from
Troy to Samos, this same pottery now appeared with the beginning
of Troy VI, which, as in Greece, marks the beginning of the Middle
Bronze Age. The two events were evidently related, but it should
be noted that the Cyclades, just as before, seem to have been un-
affected by this movement. Both movements into Greece (that at the
end of E.H. IJ and the second at the end of E.H. III) are thought
to be connected with the arrival of the speakers of the Indo-Euro-
pean tongue which ultimately led to the formation of the Greek lan-
guage during the second millennium B.C. Their characteristic grey
Minyan pottery is based on Anatolian prototypes, possibly in metal.
It occurs simultaneously in the Anatolian maritime province on
the Aegean, in Macedonia, in Central and South Greece, whereas
the Thessalian pottery looks like a barbarous form of Troy V types.
Contact by sea between these areas is therefore evident, and it
would seem that the invaders, if not native to northwest Anatolia,
had passed through that area on their way to Greece. However,
they may have come from Turkish Thrace, north of the Marmora,
a region in close contact with that of Bursa which now appears to
have furnished the ancestors of Grey Minyan ware in the E.B.3
period. Incidentally, this is early enough to have influenced a
previous version at Lerna.
Around 1900 B.C. there was widespread destruction in the
Bursa-Iznik region and the prosperous upland areas which look
as if they bore the brunt of an attack. As a result, grey wares, etc.,
spread west to the Aegean coast. The origin of the grey ware is still
difficult to discern, especially as no site has yet been excavated in
this area. The presence of horse bones in Troy VI, after 1900 B.C.,
suggests a northern origin, but we know now that horses (and per-
haps chariots) existed in Central Anatolia during the 20th century
at Kiiltepe. There are then two main possibilities: either a thrust
from Europe across the Marmora, or one from the Anatolian

193
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East

FicurE 61 — Pattern-burnished jug of Marmora (E.B. 3) type from

Beycesultan VI A.
(after Beycesultan, I, 1962.)

plateau to the east. Either one might account for the destruction
of numerous sites in the Ankara region around 1900 B.C., and the
depopulation of the Sakarya river basin.
It is tempting to connect these events with the arrival of the
Hittites from Europe, along the line from Marmora through
Eskisehir, Ankara and Central Anatolia. This route from the
west, preferred by many scholars to the eastern path, clashes
with the known chronology. The western troubles can be dated
to about 1900 B.C. with some reasonable certainty. However,
the Kiiltepe texts show Hittite elements as peaceful citizens
established at Kanesh and other cities during the previous
century, rather than as barbarians fresh from the steppe.

194
 Early Bronze Age 3
Numerous Assyrian accounts of continuous and undisturbed
trade and travel during the twentieth century in central Anatolia,
(and probably beyond) cannot be equated with the period of
troubles around 1900 B.C. But these are in accord with the end of
the first phase of the Assyrian trade and the fifty or more years of
interlude before it was resumed in the reign of Shamshi-Adad,
ca. 1850 B.C. It was hardly surprising that after the destruction of
western influence in the Ankara region, the next settlements should
come under strong central Anatolian influence emanating from the
Hattic commercial centres of Bogazkéy and Kiiltepe.
It would seem then as if the troubles of the end of the Early
Bronze Age were confined to the north of the vast area of western
cultures, and did not seriously affect Central Anatolia except,
perhaps, to contribute to a temporary cessation in trade.
The balance of the evidence suggests that the western disturb-
ances were the result of a movement of people from Europe into
and through provinces south of the Marmora to the Aegean coast
and beyond. An eastern route into the country still seems the most
likely for the entrance of the Hittites *, but the date of arrival
must be put forward to the 21st century B.C. Only future exca-
vations can confirm the suggestion that their arrival was in some
way connected with the end of the various Early Bronze Age
cultures in eastern Anatolia.

EPILOGUE.

The beginning of the second millennium in Anatolia roughly

corresponds to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age and the
beginnings of writing and history. The first evidence of literacy is
there, whether we are dealing with the tablets from Kiiltepe
written in Assyrian, or an obelisk set up by an expatriate Luvian
at Byblos and written in Egyptian hieroglyphs; or the first

* But only if at this early date they can be differentiated from Luvians.

195
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Anatolian hieroglyphs themselves from seals at Beycesultan
(Pl. XVIb), Kara Hiiyiik-Konya or written in paint on pots from
Kiiltepe Ib.
Writing was the latest acquisition among Anatolian peoples,
for reasons that are unknown to us. It did not spread all over the
country until the Late Bronze Age. By then it was too late to record
anything about the Early Bronze Age peoples of Anatolia, except
obscure rituals and incantations. Only the Cappadocian tablets
written in Assyrian from Kiiltepe, Alisar and Bogazkéy date from a
period when, at least in some places, non-Indo-European rulers
still held sway. We have no tablets of that date written in the
native languages. All later texts are written in Indo-European;
Hittite, Luvian, Palaite, and the earlier tongues are almost irrevoca-
bly lost. Actually there are some religious texts in Hattic, the lan-
guage of Early Bronze Age Central Anatolia. The few Luvian texts
contain numerous pre-Indo-European words, derived from earlier
languages which were different from Hattic, as could be expected.
Although it is fascinating to know that anni, tatti, ziti and muwa
mean “mother, father, man and son”’ respectively, and were adopt-
ed into Luvian (supplanting Indo-European words), one would
like to know where these words originated. They might belong,
for example, to the language of the people who made the gold
of Troy, who traded with the king of Egypt, built the shrines at
Beycesultan, and got drunk in the Tarsus tavern, all in the E.B.2
period before the Luvians arrived. There might be still earlier
elements involved, acquired en route in Eastern Europe.
How many strata of languages were still current, or at least
remembered, when the first speakers of Indo-European arrived?
What was the Great Goddess called, and what was the name of
her son? Questions such as these, and many others, make one regret
that writing came so late to Anatolia. Whatever the archaeologist
discovers about ancient civilisations is only a minute fragment
of the life of the peoples who made them.

196
 ABBREVIATIONS

AA Archdologische Anzeiger
AS Anatolian Studies
Belleten Tiirk Tarth Kurumu Biilteni
OIP St. Oriental Institute Publications, Studies
PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
RHA Revue Hittite et Asratique
SA Sovetskaya Arkeologiya (Russian)
TAD Tiirk Arkeoloji Dergist
TTAED = Tiirk Tarih Arkeoloji Etnografia Dergisi.
 Sagiiheny. tanen tk aed win
_ he eee thacare’ SY
vei A
seioury woul tar Lage ae
xnything «Sout We seein. nistebor.
Swink Ares eetwthaaiperecin Heer The Cpe
wirlinesnsotAndyrion Samy Vitae, Aljauy 29% ma
periefey ot Tee ie naanA, ULC MAaE
el ESA We have ng stl
enive leaping te
Stierite ‘Lusend
iy lon on ates
page ofE
SE RES <n
Jamming whieh damm), eee
al *
Althea Wa te — ys pe

Sane
oO LS
eeO
age we
eeaR,
S ner ere sce | Ee |, et
ier th: ae moteve ste twee erieagi Ttayv ragth! ue

ws coals Meet iueunee af cle pextetehs made hee

Troy. aay dpmeieybuwik: the kbag of iy) pe baity the ebrlnnd A
% AR, aS “rope i. Ge gare ier02 i ee &
” t : 4TriSD Fi vetct.. j“w .¢ Taig hes re Pats —_

giAtca “s =), Bw fruipe! 4 @sey 1 baat liwape,

at ime sir ‘ bagasse were eS) Aare, oF a

en aittal, tex; ¢ wt spelen of Inia Garis
Vink: “ce he Sheek Gottiies Patil and Sted wel Ve nema j
aves a al Uy cod orb whet, wikke Gal RE
q(t vs wad oS Lare Teel vite preci Wis Utley CP aves see 7

= ane ‘ Husieqy om Gol) @ galwete ies ae z

SS ti oy With. (adap MeN, ;
a —
 KEY
@ DARK BURNISHED
PATTERN BURNISHED
m 1T.KURDU (AMU Q) WARE
AND SHUNA (1) WARE
VV YARMUKIAN
A WADI RABAH WARE
X JERICHO A (IX) PAINTED
a. T. JUDEIDEH WARE
iy % GHRUBBA PAINTED

A KPFARGILADI
Y HAGOSARIM
) AIN MALLAHA

!
ae |
ABU USPA BA CIC.70ASH-ALI'
avy \
\ @SHAAR HAGOLAN Broek T.ESH SHUNA (1)
ABU ZUREIQ SS-SOnA’V EL MUNHATA BEISAN (XVIII)
MEGIDDO v Wy MAGIDDO m T.ABU HABIL
T. FARAH
T. FARAH Vv T.ES SAIDIYEH ma * AIN DUQ
v SALIHI 5
* @ GHRUBBA
Ye! JERICHO JERICHO (VIII OR B)
ABU /GHOSH x
GHRUBBA AND IX (X)
Av ATASHI y
T. BATASHI
oN MURABAAT e

T. DUWEIR

MAP I
.
Distribution of the various groups of Neolithic pottery in Syria and Palestine
 ‘1,2 ARSLANTEPE @ A
fe \ FURUNCU
Sv

AS & fitvtix i = yen’

\)WA Say
TTANS
ae ‘ins,
IS Mi |
SS 2 T, HALAF
ebdase”
2
MERSIN XV aa
ws a t|
NSATARSUS®
SHE ee

\ IT. ESH SHEIKH

TR LAINAT
Me
ng AKE
?JEBEL JA BBUL
HASS

LNOUO
Sa

A HAMA | WIA IO ee
at =

— ('we
= (\
: asst! | UNNI
\W

Sy
&
aw ° NEBK
saat
75
v ve

* DAMASCUS

T. GHASSUL

ENGEDI
UBAID CULTURE
Bd N. MISHMAR ANATOLIAN CULTURES
BEERSHEBA CULTURE
(ONLY BEERSHEBA AREA)
GHASSULIAN CULTURE
CO
Op
(REST OF PALESTINE)

MAP Ii

Distribution of Ubaid painted pottery in Syria and southeast

Anatolia (early 4th millennium) and of the Beersheba-Ghassul-
ian Culture in Palestine (late 4th millennium).
& ESDRAELON WARE 4 GELAL EN NOMUS
@ £.B. 1A WARE
T. 94 = TOMB 94
T. 3 = TOMB 3 Q\ AIN MALLAHA
}) LAKE HULEH

LAKE TIBERIAS
eae
Ry YARMUK
@ ARGUB EL DHAHR
A T. ESH SHUNA II
T, ABU ZEREIK &
MEGIDDO & :
AT. ARA BEISAN(,
L ASAWIR @ A
KH, MAZAR
KH, MEISER

JORDAN
T, EL FARAH
& R.
T. MISQA A i
> 4 n pos 9 ei

RAS EL 'AIN WADI ZERKA

@-~T. UMM HAMAD ESH SHERQI
A T. MAFALIQ

® GEZER
JERUSALEM, ®
© OPHEL
@ Tans
T. EN NASBEH

ENGEDI®

LP a IS

MAP III

Distribution of Late Chalcolithic sites in Palestine and southern

Lebanon (triangles indicate Esdraelon ware and related fabrics;
circles indicate the painted E.B. Ia ware).
 @ LARSLANTERE |
UU
\s

‘ATILMEN*

‘
{ JABBUL

S:, HAMA

T. SIMIRIYA
'. N

1 A SYRO- PALESTINIAN Wigley, ED

S&S A CILICIAN (MERSIN AND
TARSUS) E.B, 1-2
MODERN PLACE NAMES
(MARA, ADIYAMAN)
ie E.B. 1A WARES

KHIRB I 4 \RGUB EL DHAHR

me ._ 444 T. T. ESH
MEGIppo4 ) SHUNA
AANAK & or BEISAN

200 KMS
OPHEL

0 100
Fr
200 MILES
pn

MAP IV
Location of main Early Bronze Age I-II sites in Syria and Palestin
e
(sites in Beqaa omitted for chronological incertainty)
 °
SLIT
°

VHMIIV
NOIHLAd
@ INILOINOM

9 NOJIZUAN
: Vv VAAN MAOATINO
soqana
Vg?! Lan ada TdaRVZVd
XQ) IIMVUAVE
© W VOVIV Natl
MNANH
adaimisad ’
ys
uinguda
Y VIOAUHd UVSIHIMAIS
~~
;
A UIZVASY
QU“~
I
8
ee
@ INGSAVN
NA OINO
y d
a.

717), /206 ane

VANOY INIVId

INVOIL
3° M1lywarnd Ul
€ NyO NVSVH seria Jf

>
oe)
.
,
4, ~ NVIOITIO
SASUVL
i
yyw
>. } NISUAW NIVTd
lo i
i

Du)
ye One
yd

cc. ay
2)
SH

ALVI OIHLITOOTVHD
VITOLVYNYV
uvon
\\ vuMVD
“OS dYNALINO

y:

dvw IIA

LT, IU I1e'T STYATPOoTey")

9IN{[N9 seoreJO “eljo}euyy
 POLIOCHNI © ote TROY I 4
YORTAN CULTURE
KUMTEPE }® BALIKESIR LATER
om’
CONTEMPORARY
OF TROY I

AKHISAR-MANISA
ULTURE LATER

NAXOS,
le NISOS*
2 36 AMORGOS

RHODES

@ KUMTEPE
( PRE TROY F)
TROY 1
CONTEMPORARY
CULTURES NOT
MARKED )
B IASOS
OQUNDETERMINED

MAP VIII

Diffusion of final Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I cultures

in the Aegean.
 8 “NM
@ VE EAOQ
pp

avn XJ]

onewayog
dew suneuysnyt
oy} Suruutsaq
Jo 24} ‘GaII ZsZ AOUL

“HMA \
rs
UN
fvalley
vs Z
polag
UI 9} “UvasdV-YIeul ; INHOorI0d ' oy 4,
z
LO ee S
Sur oy} seoie eT peesap aS iS Semeny as
A 3S
;
VI VSIN NIVTd VSN (pyc:
» 4¥ saw a) nM
Jade IYI UONONAIsop
JO dy} WOOD a§ @
= -FOAG
é Au NVLTAS
AOIT,
J :94nqynd
oy} Ayes
jo 2 aS
LUT
“4
‘s Hee) OlS s : :
Tord GLO yy, .
Aory,
Ty soqzs pue sy} puvyur OS IN AF >
rR 5 2
JUITBAOW
JO usJO}sSaMYyIIOU
IINI~NIOJUT VY} JSIMYINOS UIaNVaN “-AYTIVAGF -
SOSVI oe
SUN[NsSoI
UT B JUITIVAOU
jo
saasnyos
0} 90901) YIM
popunoyj
oy2 Apeq dIpeTfaH
J ‘oINqND
aR daALYaASAd
SVauV
SALIS HLIM AOWL
II
Py AUALLOd

VUYAHHILA
\7 waiece
1
ALAYO “Wa
Il
 if
‘ rae
Y
fey
TX

x)
/
‘
22
Ca
~~,
IVOVVEVA ,
Fike Muy
UVILVNAVIN
Adal
" ¥ , ies
meer!

+
A **)¥axnz0d

e
© Ad IOUIN

SS
9 MNANH

3MAMH
ao

~SLae!
voviv
@
pS

Hy
%@+
qaqrt
uvSITv
e
e AddLTaAm

NVIQ0VUVN
OLYOdWNa

YOIVYGH

VINVYLOGOSAWN

XKUXK NYAHLAOS
ANGIAO NVIIOLYNY SAUNLTNO
UNV NOISIAIC NAAMLAA LSAM ANV TVULNAO VITOLVNV: dVW xa
--------- SVaUV
40 TVAGIAIGNI SAYNALTND
HOIHMAUV NAN Cauda
LSUM VITOLVNVY
uoNNqmysI
Jo sy}
C Uleut “q'y
% sainjyns
ur
OIGVOUL AOUL) (1 ~“L HLNOS LSGM VITOLVNV
NVLYOA AUNLIND ‘8 VUVUINV NOIDTY “eT[O}eUYy
FHALINO VSINVN-YVSIHYY ‘6 VANOM NIVId
NVIYVO dnNouwds ‘OT NVIOITIO NIVId
VYONUVIN AYALTINO ‘IT IVULNAO VITOLYNV
AYALTNO ANANH IOMINAG ‘zl NOIOAU OILNOd
(NIVId UIHASINSA ) ‘el VIIOLVNV NUALSVA
 GLOSSARY

Slip. Fairly thick coat offiner clay applied to surface of pot produced
by dipping pot in liquid clay.
Wash. Thinner than slip, produced by application with a brush.
Polished. All over shiny surface, without irregularities.
Burnished. Shiny but uneven surface treatment by means of a pebble, piece
of wood or bone, frequently streaky.
Pattern-burnished. Deliberate attempt to produce a streaky pattern, which
stands out in dark burnished lines on unburnished surface.
Reserve-slip; band slip. Slip applied in bands (with brush) leaving
other areas free (in reserve).
Grain-wash. A wash of paint resembling wood graining.
Incised decoration. Usually a linear pattern cut with a sharp tool in the
clay, while wet. Often filled with white paste.
Excised decoration. A variant of incision in which hole chunks have been
cut out of the surface of the pot.
White-painted. Decoration in white paint on a darker surface.
Pointillé decoration. Rows of incised or impressed dots.
Degraissant. Grit or straw temper added to the clay to give it cohesion and
prevent cracking of the clay.
Lug. Knob of clay, too small to form a handle. Usually perforated for
taking a string.
Tab-handle. Handle in the form of a slab of clay projecting above rim.
Strap-handle. Long thin and narrow handle, like a piece of leather or metal.
Loop handle. Handle in form of clay.Usually with round section.
Ledge handle. Plastic ledge on pot used for lifting.

Bronze Ages — 14
beiey
seis
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
General

W.F. Avsricut, Archaeology of Palestine. Pelican, Harmondsworth,

1949,
K.M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land. London, (1960, Benn)
E. Anati, Palestine before the Hebrews. London, 1963.
Seton Luioyp, Early Anatolia. Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1956.
A. Goetze, Kleinasien. 2nd ed., Munich, 1957.
JAMES MELLAART, Earliest civilizations of the Near East. Thames and
Hudson, London, 1965.
James MELLAart, “‘Anatolia before c. 4000 and Anatolia c. 2300-
1750”, in Cambridge Ancient History, 1964.
James MEtriaarrt, “Anatolia, c. 4000-2300 B.C.”’, in CAH, 1962.
C.J. Gapp, ““The dynasty of Agade and the Gutian invasion”’, in
CAH, 1963.
JEAN Perrot, ‘‘Palestine-Syria-Cilicia”, in Braidwood and Wil-
ley eds. Courses toward Urban Life. Viking Fund Publication,
Chicago, 1962.

Specialised: LEVANT

R.J. and L.S. Bramwwoop, “Excavations in the plain of Antioch”,

in OJP, LXI. Chicago, 1960.
C.F.A. ScuHaerFer ef al., Ugaritica, IV. Paris, 1960.
C.F.A. ScHAEFFER, Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de T’Asie occi-
dentale. Oxford, 1948.
E. Fucman, Hama. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques. Copen-
hagen, 1958 (not available at time of writing).

201
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
M. Dunanp, “Rapports préliminaires sur les fouilles de Byblos en
1950, etc.” in Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, XII, 1955, p. 7 ff.,
1952, ibid. p. 22 ff.; 1954 and 1955, ibid. XIII, 1956, p. 73 ff.
and 80 ff.
J. Cauvin, “Les industries lithiques du tell de Byblos’’, in L’ Anthro-
pologie,66, 1962, p. 488 ff.
J. Perrot, “Une tombe a ossuaires du [Ve millénaire 4 Azor, prés
de Tel Aviv’, in Atigot, III, 1961, p. 1 fff.
J. Perror, “The excavations at Tell Abu Matar near Beersheba”,
in Ley, D, Loos: TT ae
H. DE Contenson, “La céramique chalcolithique de Beersheba’’,
in fe F,°6; 1956) p. 163-226 4.
M. Dornan, “Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba)”’, in Atigot,
bes be ofa Me
M. Dornan, “Excavations at Meser”, in IEF, 7, 1957, pealss#:
and 9, 1959, p. 13 ff.
A. Matton, Teleilat Ghassul, I. Rome, 1934. Pontifical Institute.
P. Bar Avon, ““The treasure from the cave in Nahal Mishmar”’,
in JE F, 12;°1962)"p. 129 ff:

ANATOLIA

J. Garstane, Prehistoric Mersin. Oxford, 1953.

H. Gotpman, Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus, I. Princeton, 1956.
H. von DER Osten, The Alishar fiiyik, I. (OIP, XXVIII), Chi-
cago, 1940.
N. Ozciig, “Marble idols and statuettes from the excavations at
Kiiltepe”’, in Belleten, 21 (1957), p. 71 ff.
T. Ozetig, Excavations at Horoztepe. Ankara, 1958.
H.Z. Kogay and M. Axox, “Amasya Mahmutlar koyii_ definesi”’
in Belleten, 14 (1950), p. 481 ff.
R. Temizer, “Karapinar Hoyiigii buluntulari” in Belleten,
18
(1954), p. 317 ff.

202
 Bibliography
R.O. Ari, Les fouilles d’Alaca Héyiik. Ankara, 1937.
H.Z. Kogay, Ausgrabungen von Alaca Héyiik. Ankara, 1944.
H.Z. Kogay, Les fouilles d’Alaca Héyiik, 1937-39. Ankara, 1951.
T. Ozctic, Die Bestattungsgebrauche im vorgeschichtlichen Anatolien. An-
kara, 1948. ;
T. Ozctc, “Samsun hafriyatin 1941-42 yili neticelen’”, in Tiirk
Tarih Kongresi, 111. Ankara, 1948.
K.I. Koxren and T. Ozctg, “Tekekoy kazisi”, in Belleten, 9
(1945); p. 382 ff.
K.I. Kéxren, N. and T. Ozciic, “Samsun kazilari’”, in Belleten, 9
(1945), p. 382 ff.
T. Ozctig, Kiiltepe-Kanis. Ankara, 1959.
C.A. Burney, ‘‘Northern Anatolia before Classical times’’, in Ana-
tolian Studies, 6, 1956, p. 179 ff.
H.G. Gtrersock, ‘Kanes and Nesa”’, in EJ, 5 (1958), p. 46 ff.
H.Z. Kogay, ‘“‘Ahlatlibel Hafriyat’”’, in TTAED, 2 (1934).
R.O. Arik, “Le hiiyiik de Karaoglan’”, in Belleten, 3 (1939),
p. 43'ff.
S.A. Kansu, Etiyokusu hafriyati raporu. Ankara, 1940.
B. Tezcan, ‘‘Nallihan-Beypazari cevresinden getirilen kaplar hak-
kinda’”’, in Belleten, 20 (1956).
Seton Luioyp and N. G6xceE, “Excavations at Polatl’”’, in Anatolian
Studies, I (1951), p. 21 fff.
M.S.F. Hoop, “Excavations at Tabara el Akrad, 1948-49”, in
Anatolian Studies, I (1951), p. 113 ff.
C.A. Burney, “Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early
Bronze Ages”, in Anatolian Studies, 8 (1958), p. 157 ff.
C.A. Burney, ‘‘Excavations at Yanik Tepe, North-West Iran’’, in
Iraq, 24 (1962), p. 134 ff.
H.Z. Kogay and K. Turran, “Erzerum-Karaz kazisi raporu’’, in
Belleten, 23 (1959), p. 349 ff.
W. Lamp, “The culture of Northeastern Anatolia and its neigh-
bours”’, in Anatolian Studies, 4 (1954), p. 21 ff.

203
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Seton Lioyp and James MELLaart, Beycesultan, I. The Chalcolithic
and Early Bronze Age Levels. London, 1962.
L. BERNABO Brea, Poliochni, I. Rome, 1964.
H. Scuuremann, Ilios. London, 1880.
C.W. Biecen, J.L. Caskey and M. Rawson, Troy, I and II.
Princeton, 1950, 1951.
James MELiaart, “Notes on the architectural remains of Troy I
and IT’, in Anatolian Studies, 9 (1959), p. 131 ff.
James MELiaarr, “The Royal Treasure of Dorak’’, in ILN, 28 No-
vember 1959,
W. Lams, Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Cambridge, 1936.
J. Driznaus, ‘“Praehistorische Siedlungsfunde in der unteren Kai-
kosebene und an dem Golfe von Candarh’”’, in Istanbuler Mitt.,
d2( 1957), p, (Oot.
K. Brrrex, “Das Graberfeld von Babakéy”, in AFO, 13 (4939).
D.H. Frencu, “‘Late Chalcolithic pottery in Northwestern Turkey
and the Aegean’, in Anatolian Studies, 11 (1961), p. 99 ff.
D.B. Srronacu, “The development and diffusion of metal types
in Early Bronze Age Anatolia”, in Anatolian Studies, 7 (1957)
p. 89 ff.
James Mexraarrt, “Anatolian chronology of the Early and Middle
Bronze Ages’’, in Anatolian Studies, 7 (1957), p. 55 ff.
James MeELiaart, “The end of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia
and the Aegean”, in American Journal of Archaeology, 62 (1958),
PaSeth
K. Birret and H. Orro, Demirci Miyiik. Berlin, 1939,
K. Brrrex, Kileinasiatische Studien. Istanbul, 1942.
K. Birre., Grundziige zur Vorgeschichte Kleinasiens. 2nd ed., Tiibingen,
1950.

204
 INDEX

A rectangular, 32
ceremonial, 26
Abishemu, 72 Late Chalcolithic:
Abu Matar, 25, 28, 34 Byblos B, 44
Abydos, 67 Palestine, 45, 46
Accadians, 92 absidal, 44, 46, 52
Adiyaman, 5, 15 Early Bronze Age:
Afrin, R., 73 Byblos IV, 64
Afyon, 160 Byblos V, 64
Ahlatlibel, 148, 152, 175 Byblos VI, 68, 102
AWD? b2 Byblos VII, 94
Ain Mallaha (Eynan), 30 Palestine, E.B.I., 66
Akhisar, 112 Amuq H, 74
Alaca Hiiyiik, 118, 119, 122, 137, Palestine, E.B./M.B., 94
138, 148, 151, 152-5, 163, 164, 173 Temples: 33, 35, 52, 64, 68, 72,
Aleppo, 53 74-76
Alisar Hiiyiik, 100, 137, 148 City-walls: 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,
Amanus, Mt. 56, 100, 168 74,
amber, 164 architecture : Anatolia
Amorgos, 114, 115 houses:
Amorites, 93 East Anatolian, round and rec-
Amratian, 55 tangular, 86
Amugq (plain of Antioch), 17, 20, Late Chalcolithic:
21, 40, 43, 44, 45, 51, 56, 59, 63, Mersin XVI, 102
G75 6/45 17: XV, XIV, 105
Anatolia, passim Aegean islands, 118
ancestor worship, 30 Beycesultan, 110
andirons, 83 architecture (continued)
Ankara region, 193 Biiyuik Giilliicek, 118
ankh sign, 167 Early Bronze Age:
Antalya, 30 Troy I culture, 124, 125
Antioch, 73 Beycesultan, E.B2, 142-144
Araxes valley, 82 Troy IIc, 142
architecture: Levant Poliochni city, 144, 145, 147
houses: Tarsus E.B.2, 147, 148
Halaf (round), 16, 17 Central Anatolian, E.B.2,
Palestine (round), 20 148,151
Ghassulian: Karanovo VII, 175, 176
wood, 25, 33 Troy III, 176
subterranean, 26 Troy IV, 177

205
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
E.B.3 Kiiltepe, 180 Biiyiik Giilliicek, 100, 118, 119
city walls, 86, 92, 125, 142, 148, Bulgaria, 164
192 burial customs: Levant
shrines, 133, 142, 143 Beersheba culture, 22, 31
Argub el Dhahr, 52 funeral caves, 25
Arpachiyah, 16 ossuaries, 25
arsenic, 163, 164 secondary burial, 25
Arslantepe (Malatya), 63 Ghassulian, 34
asses (wild), 159 Byblos B, 44
Assur, 92 Jericho, Late Chalcolithic, 47
Assyrian merchants, 122, 168, 173, E.B.A. collective tombs, 67
179, 190, 194 Khirbet Kerak burials, 76
Athanasovo (Burgas), 164 E.B./M.B. tombs, 93
axes: see weapons. burial customs: Anatolia
Azerbaijan, 53 Late Chalcolithic: Tarsus,105
Beycesultan, Kusura, 111, 129
B cist graves:
Pelos, 115
Baalat Gebal, 64, 70 Tasos, 115, 121
Babakéy, 129 communal burial caves:
Badakhshan, 122, 163 Pyrgos, 117
Badarian culture, 54 Biiyiik Giilliicek, 118
Bagdere, 160 Early Bronze Age:
Bahrein, 168 East Anatolia, 86
Bakir Dag, 164 Yortan culture, 128, 129
Balikesir plain, 112, 129, 151, 191 Royal tombs, E.B.2, 151 ff.
Balikh, R., 40, 53, 92 ? ae 3 8.B.3 7184
Baltic, 164 burial customs : Southeast Europe :
barley, 25, 125, 144 red ochre burials, 175
baskets, 24, 111 butter, 25
Beersheba culture, 22 ff. Byblos, 10, 20, 43, 44, 45, 50, 52, 56,
Beisan, 47, 66, 67, 73 64, 68, 93, 167
Beldibi, 30
belt (copper), 159 Cc
Beshtasheni (Akhillar), 80
Besiktepe, 114 Calycadnus valley, 106
Beth Yerah (Khirbet Kerak), 66, 67, Calymnos, 115, 117
Uo WEE Canaanites, 93
Beycesultan, 109, 115, 133, 160, 175, Can Hasan, 99, 106, 108
177 Cappadocian ware: see pottery
bitter vetch, 144 Cappadocian “idols”, 180, 183
Black Sea, 139, 155, 163 Carchemish, 16
Bnei Braq, 33 Carians, 115
Bogazkéy, 191, 195 carts, 155, 156, 168
Bohemia, 126 cattle breeding, 79
bone work, 28 Catal Hiiyiik, 9, 99
Boziiyiik, 160 Caucasus, 2, 155, 167
brooches, 156 “Cedar Mountain’, 56, 168

206
 Index
Cernavoda-Ezero culture, 127, 164, Einkorn: see wheat
175 Elazig, 79, 82
Chefren, 70 Elbistan, 77
Cheops, 70 elephant, 33
Chios, 114, 115, 118 elephant tusk, 28, 31
churns, 25, 35 Emmer; see wheat
Cilicia, 10, 43, 53, 59, 173 Emporio (Chios), 133, 140
circular walled towns, 92 Engedi, 34, 35
“cire perdue’’, 62 Erivan, 86
Colchis, 82, 189 Ernis, 86
combs, 156,159 Erzerum plain, 83
copper; see metal Eutresis, 141
Cos, 117 eye paint, 28
cosmetics, 159 Eynan (Ain Mallaha), 30
covers (for pots), 27 exploration, 2-7, 123
Crete, 51, 116, 139, 167
crown, 35, 156 F
Cyclades, 115, 167
cylinder seals (bone), 65 Failaka, 168
e ”» impressions, 44, 62 famine, 94
cylindrical potstands, 77, 81 fauna, 4, 5, 25
Cyprus, 139 Fayum, 10, 54
Cythera, 72, 167 Fifth Dynasty (Egypt), 69, 70
figs, 125
D figures (animal, in metal), 153, 185
figurines, 28-29, 62-63, 133, 154,
Denizli, 140 184, 185
“depas’’, 160-161, 178, 179 filigree, 158
Dilmun (Bahrein), 168 First Dynasty (Egypt), 55
discs (sun-discs, standards), 153, 154, fishing, 125
184 flint9)525
Divrigi, 82 “Followers of Horus’’, 55
Diyarbakir, 53 foodstuffs: see wheat, barley, bitter
dolphins, 159 vetch, peas, lentils, olives, grapes,
domestic animals, 125, 132 figs.
Dorak, 72, 122,,129,0151,:152,°158, Fourth Dynasty (Egypt), 70
159, 160, 163, 164, 167 fruitstand, 114, 117, 138, 185
Diindartepe (samsun), 151, 163 furniture (metal), 152, 185

E G

Early Helladic I, 140, 141 garments, 28, 159

ae (amet Gelal en Nomus, 50
”? >
III, 178 geography, 2-7
economic units, 25 Geoy Tepe (Rizzayeh), 81, 82
Edremit, 126, 142 Gerzcean period, 55
Egypt, 3, 54 Gezer, 66
Eilar, 86 Ghassulian culture, 21, 22, 31, 32 ff.

207
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Ghrubba, 20, 21 Jebeleh, 63
Giza, 68, 70 Jebel Hass, 31
goads, 156 Jemdet Nasr, 44, 56, 62
gold, 5, 44, 67, 156 Jericho, 9, 15, 20, 46, 47, 51, 52, 66,
grain pits, 17, 25, 26, 125 G7 0730 915093
granulation, 158 Jerusalem, 46, 52
grapes, 144 jewellery, 28, 67, 133, 154, 156, 158,
159, 188
H
K
Hacilar, 99, 109, 110, 113, 116
Halaf, 15, 33, 99 Kakai, 70
Halys (Kizil Irmak), 79 Kalekas (Troad), 164
Hamadan, 79 Karaagactepe, 124
Hasanlu, 82 Karaca Sheikh Ali, 40
Hasanoglan, 185 ’ Kara Hiiyiik (Konya), 179, 196
hearths (E. Anatolian), 83 Karanovo VII, 175-176
Helwan, 54 Karaoglan, 148
hieroglyphs: Karapinar, 106
Egyptian, 71, 167, 195 Karapinar (Tokat), 184
Anatolian, 195 Karaz (Erzerum), 81, 82, 83
Hittites, 190, 193, 196 Kars, 82
“horns of consecration”, 143 Kermanshah (Iran), 167
Horoztepe (Erbaa), 122, 151, 179, Khasekhemwy, 70
184, 185 Kheti ITI, 71
horses, 175, 193 Khirbet Bitar, 25, 26
Hurrians, 80, 92, 173 Khirbet Kerak ware, 64, 66, 68,
Huwayiz (Ghab), 19 73-5, 91
kilim, 152
I kilis, 73
kilns, 17
Tasos, 115, 129, 133 Kinnereth, 67
Iberian peninsula, 139 Konya plain, 105, 106, 108 f, 136,
Ida (Mt.), 142 175
Idlib, 17 Kukun (Lukka man), 71
imports, 56, 68 Kuen-Lun Mts, 122, 163
Indian Ocean, 139 Kiltepe, 119, 154, 179, 190-191, 194,
Indo-Europeans, 122, 123, 155, 173, 195, 196
190, 192, 193, 195 Kumtepe Ib, 112, 114, 115, 118
Indus Valley, 168-169 Kusura, 111, 115
Iranians, 53, 54
iron, 121, 156, 159 L
Isesi, 70
Izmir, 112, 140 Labnan (Mt.), 3
lamps, 26
J lapis lazuli, 56, 163, 167
Lebanon, passim
Jabbul Lake, 53 Lebea, 50
 Index
Lemnos, 114, 118 daggers, 44, 93, 119, 126, 133, 158,
lentils, 25, 144 178
Lerna, 178, 192, 193 maces, 27, 34, 62, 126, 158
Lechashen (Ordaklu), 155 sceptre-heads, 35, 159, 188
lids, 27 spearheads (slotted), 126, 158, 178,
loincloths, 28 188
loomweights, 26 i (poker tanged), 188
Luhuzatiya, 179 swords, 158, 159, 178, 188
Luvians, 177, 190, 195, 196 knives, 126, 172
metal tools, 28
M migrations, 73 ff, 91; 122,173 fk
139 ff. 178, 192-3
Macedonia, 127 Mikhalits, 127
Magan (Oman coast), 168 mirrors, 156, 159
Mahmutlar (Amasya), 122, 151, 184 Mount Carmel, 70
Maikop, 82, 153, 163 Mus plain, 82
Malatya, 16, 63, 73 Mycerinus, 70
Manika (Chalkis), 178
Manisa, 112, 133, 140, 191 N
Maras, 77, 83
mat impressions, 26, 111, 152 Nahcevan, lugs, 82
meerschaum (Eskisehir), 163 Nahr el Kelb, 70
Megiddo, 35, 52, 66, 67, 73, 93 Naram Sin, 92, 168, 174
Meluhha (Indus Valley), 168 Natufian culture, 54
Melos, 115 natura] resources, 5, 7, 53, 163
Merimde, 54 Naxos, 114, 115
Mersin, 20, 101 Negeb, 25
metallic origins, 17, 82, 127, 137, nephrite, 163
162 Ninivite V, 63
metals: Nishapur, 163
bronze, 59, 121, 126, 156 Nisos, 114
copper, 5, 12, 28, 54, 101, 111, Niya, 31
EZ. JWAails aye: Niyuserre, 70
electrum, 153, 156 nomads, 3, 4, 94
gold, 5, 44, 67, 156
aron, 121 41565159 Oo
silver, 44, 51, 56, 111, 156
tin, 126, 164 obelisk, 71, 195
metallurgy, 28, 34, 59, 62, 76, 86, 94, obsidian, 9, 56, 115, 119, 125, 159
122, 126, 163 olives, 76
metal vessels, 156, 160, 161, 162, Oman, 168, 169
184, 188 Ophel, 52
metal weapons: ossuaries, 25
axes (flat), 35, 126, 164 Ovabayindir (Balikesir), 129, 167
” (socketed), 126
2”?
(crescentic), 167, 188 P
battle axes, 72, 126, 158, 164, 184,
188 Palaite, 196

209
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
palettes, 28 Sargonid, 92
Palu, 79 pottery: Anatolia
Pangaion, Mt. (Thrace), 164 Late Chalcolithic:
“pans” (metal), 160 Aegean pattern burnished, 114
Paros, 114, 115 Alaca and Biiyiik Gilliicek, 119
Pazaryeri, 118 Beycesultan L.Ch., 111
peas, 144 Can Hasan (M. Chalco.), 108
pebbles, 30 Cretan Late neolithic, 116, 117
pebble figurines, 10 Cretan neolithic, 116
pedestal-bowls, 27, 47, 48, 105, 138 Cretan Pyrgos group, 117
Pelos culture, 115 Konya L.Ch., 108-109
Pepi I, 70 Kumtepe Ib ware, 114, 118
Pepi II, 71, 93 Mersin XV-XIII, XII, 105
Persian Gulf, 139 Tarsus chevron ware, 105
Phaistos, 116 Mersin XVI, 101
pins, 28, 29, 126, 156, 159, 164 Early Bronze Age:
Pir Huseyin, 92 East Anatolian, 81 ff.
Poliochni (Lemnos), 124-127, 140 Troy I, 126-7
144, 145, 160, 175, 192 Mikhalits (Thrace), 127
Pontic region, 173, 184 ff. Yortan, 131-2
Pontic steppe, 155 Beycesultan E.B. I, 133-6
pottery: Levant Elmali Plain, 136
Byblos neolithic, 10, 11 Cilician and Konya Plain, 136
Yarmukian, 10, 15 Central Anat. E.B. I, 137-8
Jericho IX, 15 Troy II, 140
Jericho VIII, 20 EXBOLMIS 1785 179
Shuna I, 21, 31 Cappadocian and intermediate
Wadi Rabah, 40 ware, 179-80
Halaf, 15-17 E.B. III wheelmade wares, 190-
Syrian Halaf (Amuq C), 17 19]
Amuq D, 17, 20, 21 Pontic E.B. III, 189
Beersheba, 26, 27 Inland N.W.Anatolian E.B. III,
Ghassulian, 34 191-2
Late Chalcolithic, 34, 46-49 “Grey Minyan” ware, 192
Syrian Ubaid (Amuq E), 40, 41, Pulur, 86
43 Puruskhanda, 168
Byblos B, 43 Pyrgos group, 114, 117
E.B. Ia, 46, 52, 66 Pythion, 127
Amuq G, 60-61
Pal. E.B. I, 60, 66
Syrian bottles, 60
Q
Amugq H, 63-64 Qalat er Rus, 63, 73
Byblos E.B. 1-2, 65 Quseir, 56
Pal. E.B. 2, 67
Vay hy IP R
Kh. Kerak ware, 73 ff.
Amuq H, 77 racial types, 22, 31, 55, 56, 155
Caliciform, 70, 93 radiocarbon dating, 91, 121

210
 Index
Ras Shamra, 17, 19, 40, 73, 101, 178 snakes, 158
religion Snefru, 70
ancestor worship, 30 Soli, 178
figurines, 28, 29, 62, 63, 133, 154, spindle whorls, 26, 126
184, 185 spouted jugs (Mesopotamian), 51,
Cappadocian idols, 180, 183
ritual vessels, 132 stamp seals impressions, 44
cornets (rhytons), 27, 34, 36 stone industry, 9, 20
ritual objects, 154 Cananaean, 59, 62
bird vessels, 132 Anatolian, 125
animal statues (metal) 153, 185 stone vessels (Egyptian), 64, 70-72
discs, 153, 154, 184 Syria, passim
sistrum, 185 Syrian bears, 69
see also under: burial customs Syrian bottles, 48, 60, 61, 64, 67,
temples, shrines, 68
Rion valley (Colchis), 79 Syros culture, 133
rock crystal, 159 Sumerians, 54
rock engraving, 55
routes, 3, 5, 6, 7 T

Tabara el Akrad, 40
Tabriz, 79
Safadi, 25, 26 Tarsus, 51, 136, 147, 148, 160, 175
Sahure, 69, 70, 152, 167 1H
Sakarya, R., 193 . Abu Habil, 21, 22
Samos, 117 . Ajjul, 93
Saqqarah, 68 . Alayiq, 47
Sargon, 92, 168 . Aviv, 33
Sargonid, 122, 164 . Batashi, 66
Second Dynasty (Egypt), 70 Farah, 47, 51, 52, 66
semi-nomads, 21, 25, 30, 164 Ghassul, 30, 31
Semitic, 54, 57, 92, 93 Hamid, 67
Sevan, Lake, 79 Huwera, 92
Shamshi-Adad, 195 Judeideh, 19, 40, 60
Sharyan (Anti-Lebanon), 3 Kazel, 63
shells (Red Sea, Nile valley), 28, 56 Kurdu, 19
Shengavit, 86 Nasbeh, 52
ships, 55, 69, 70, 122, 167, 168 esh Sheikh, 40
shrines (Anatolian), 133, 142, 143 . Shuna, 66, 67, 74, 91
sickles, 25, 125 Sukas, 73
sieves, 25, 158 . Taanach, 72
silver, 44, 51, 56, 111, 156 . Tabayiq, 73
“Silver Mountain” (Taurus), 168 sisletsletsiciciciclstsletcicicicicl<
. Turlu (Nizib), 17
Simiriyan, 63 Tenth Dynasty (Egypt), 71
Sinai peninsula, 54, 56 Tepe Gawra, 16, 40
Sixth Dynasty (Egypt), 70, 71 Tekkekéy (Samsun), 151, 152
slaves, 169 Retials /0
sling, 102 textiles, 180

ie
 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East
Thermi (lesbos), 124, 125, 126, 127, Vv
140, 192
Third Dynasty (Egypt), 68, 70 Van (Lake), 16, 79
Tiflis, 79 vegetation, 4
Tigani (samos), 114, 115 votive bowl, 43
Tilkitepe (Van), 16
tin, 126, 164 Ww
Tiryns, 178
trade 945g oSnitsn09.8605, 05, 715 Wadi el Azeimeh, 34
1281425163 1677 Wadi Feinan, 28
Transylvania, 164 Wadi Hammamat, 56
Trialeti, 81, 86 Wadi Mishmar, 25
Troy I, 112, 124 ff. 126, 136, 139, Wadi Rabah, 15, 20, 21
163, 164 Wadi Tumilat, 56
Troy II, 140, 151, 174 wall-paintings, 30, 33, 34
Troy III, 176 Warka (Uruk), 44
Troy IV, 177 water buffaloes, 169
Troy V, 191, 192 wheat, 125, 144
Troy VI, 192 Einkorn (Tr. monococcum), 25
tumulus, 34, 178 Emmer (Tr. dicoccum), 25
turquoise, 28, 163 woodcarving, 81, 138
wooden vessels, 9
U wool combs, 26

Ubaid, 20, 39, 53, 105 Y

Umm Hamad esh Sherqi, 46, 51, 52
Unas, 69, 70 Yanik tepe (Tabriz), 81, 83, 86
Uni, 70 Yazir (Sivrihisar), 118
Ur, 156 Yazur, 33
urbanisation, 59, 65, 66 Yortan culture, 126, 128, 129, 167
Urmia (lake), 79
Uruk-Gawra culture, 43, 53, 57 Z
Usatova culture, 163
Usak, 140 Zencidere, 183
Userkaf, 167. Ler, ol
ad , “>
| teeta te1 _— ,
shhllade"
tbat) Chat) a orn
>

PyleHa
pe
Aleve a f
Ah y : a.
iby ;

: hi + voi
Wi
777 Mellaart
MA The chalcolithic and
early bronze ages in
the Near East. and
~. Anabolia ae
ts — Date Due

LIBRARY
NEW HAVEN
COLLEGE
West Haven, Connecticut
 UNIVERSITY

3 5380
‘iii000623160

;
 reer
a

elereeers
retires
TRL