Settlement mound Tepecik and the Karaz culture in Eastern Anatolia

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 262-285
Author(s):  
Hatice Gönül Yalçin
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Near East ◽  
Distribution Area ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Architectural Features ◽  
Late Chalcolithic ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
Prehistoric Settlements ◽  
Small Finds

The longevity of the Kura-Araxes culture is an archaeological phenomenon in the Caucasus and Near East. Over the course of a millennium, this culture spread from its origins in Eastern Anatolia, the Transcaucasia and northwest Iran to Southeastern Anatolia, northern Syria, Palestine and Israel. Named after the settlement mound Karaz near Erzurum, the Karaz culture is a widely established Turkish term for the Kura-Araxes culture. In Palestine and Israel, this culture is called Khirbet-Kerak. Apart from the striking small finds and special architectural features, it has a special pottery with characteristics that remained almost uniform in its area of distribution. Situated in the Altınova plain in Eastern Anatolia, Tepecik was also home for this significant culture. Today, this settlement mound lies under the waters of the Keban Dam in Elazığ. Yet its strategic location on a tributary of the Euphrates enabled the emergence and development of various cultures. At this settlement, archaeologists documented the Karaz culture that occurred in an almost unbroken cultural sequence from the Late Chalcolithic up to the beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age. Thus, Tepecik is one of the most significant prehistoric settlements within the distribution area of the Kura-Araxes/Karaz/Khirbet Kerak culture in the Near East. This paper presents the Karaz pottery from Tepecik as well as the possible development of the Karaz culture in the course of the Early Bronze Age at this settlement. .

Urartian Irrigation Works.

1972 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 179-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Burney
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Near East ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Archaeological Survey ◽  
Space And Time ◽  
The Bronze Age

If there is one aspect of life in the ancient Near East which may be taken as a common factor between lands and cities so far removed in space and time as Sumer and Urartu, Eridu and Van, it is irrigation. This is a subject crying out for more research, especially on the ground. Here too is a link between Seton Lloyd's excavations at Eridu and in the Diyala region, his publication of Sennacherib's acqueduct and his later interest in Urartu. The writer can claim first-hand knowledge only of the last. Without Seton Lloyd's encouragement in the Institute at Ankara and likewise during the weeks spent as an assistant during the first season's excavations at Beycesultan, the writer would scarcely have set out on his first archaeological survey in northern Anatolia, followed by that in the Pontic region of Tokat and Amasya (1955). These two surveys were but the prelude to those of 1956 and 1957 in eastern Anatolia. These, undertaken initially in the expectation of discovering mounds of the Bronze Age and earlier periods, became instead largely a revelation of the great number of Urartian sites, including numerous fortresses recognizable as such from their surface remains.

Architecture: Building Dynamics at the Micro-Scale

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quentin Letesson ◽  
Carl Knappett
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Micro Scale ◽  
Archaeological Data ◽  
Construction Techniques ◽  
Architectural Features ◽  
Great Debate ◽  
Data Resolution ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
Roofing Material

In this section we tackle individual buildings. For domestic structures, the scale is that of the household, whereas for more monumental buildings—such as the palaces or the so-called ‘villas’—the association with a particular social group is still a matter of great debate, although the term ‘corporate group’ has been recently put forward (Driessen 2010; Schoep and Tomkins 2012). Bronze Age Crete presents an extremely rich architectural landscape; indeed, many buildings are sufficiently well preserved to allow detailed studies not only of their layout but also of their construction techniques (Devolder 2014; Shaw 2009). The discovery of the town of Akrotiri, buried under metres of tephra, has also provided plenty of evidence for architectural features—most notably perishable elements such as timber and roofing material—that have only left scant traces on Crete (Palyvou 2005; Tsakanika-Theochari 2006). Nevertheless, as for any other scale (see chapters 6 and 11), gaps in our archaeological data necessarily impede some analyses at the micro-scale. Often, in Minoan archaeology, the built environment has been partially recorded, and data collection varies from extremely detailed at some sites to almost non-existent for the large-scale early excavations of the beginning of the twentieth century. Furthermore, in terms of data resolution, Neopalatial architectural remains outweigh by far those of other periods, both in terms of quantity and quality. With the exception of the small settlements of Myrtos Fournou Korifi (Sanders 1990; Warren 1972) and Vasiliki (Zois 1992), Early Minoan architectural remains are relatively scarce. The situation is even more problematic for Middle Minoan buildings. Although Malia produced incredibly well-preserved remains of a Middle Bronze Age town, with buildings like Quartier Mu (Poursat 1978, 1996), the Bâtiment Dessenne (Devolder, Déderix, and Fadin 2012–13; Devolder, Caloi, and Gomrée forthcoming), the Agora (van Effenterre and van Effenterre 1969), and the Crypte Hypostyle (Amouretti 1970), we are not as fortunate with other sites. Middle Bronze Age remains were nonetheless excavated in many areas of the island, but later constructions often make detailed investigations almost impossible.

Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Laneri ◽  
Mark Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Eastern Anatolia ◽  
Urban Centers ◽  
Local Networks ◽  
Euphrates River ◽  
Third Millennium Bce ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
City States ◽  
Dry Farming ◽  
Further Development

This article presents data on the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) of southeastern and eastern Anatolia, which were more resilient than northern Mesopotamia and never endured the collapse suffered there at the end of the third millennium BCE. On the contrary, the mixed subsistence economy and the relatively lower levels of urbanism and reliance on intensive dry farming made these Anatolian societies more resilient and less prone to ecological disaster. Thus, the climatic catastrophe that devastated numerous urban centers of northern Mesopotamia did not affect the Anatolian regions, which instead show clear signs of continuity between the Early and the Middle Bronze Age periods. In addition, interregional exchange between these regions and northern Mesopotamia played an important part in the further development of these communities during the MBA and in creating the framework for the creation of important city-states, especially along the Upper Euphrates River Valley, and for strengthening local networks of chiefly estates, primarily in the Upper Tigris region.

Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and possible connexions with the Minoan “Horns of Consecration”

1969 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 147-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Diamant ◽  
Jeremy Rutter
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Near East ◽  
The Other ◽  
Late Bronze Age ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
The Past ◽  
North East ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
East Anatolia

Numerous interpretations of the meaning, function, and derivation of the Minoan “horns of consecration” have been put forward since Evans discovered the first object of this kind in his excavations at Knossos. As yet, not one of the various theories proposed has been universally accepted. Consequently, the authors of this article would prefer not to be so presumptuous as to claim that they have indeed solved the problem of the usage and origins of the Minoan “horns”; on the other hand they believe that excavations in the past twenty years have strongly suggested that the Minoan “horns” have their origins in Anatolia and that the object's function, originally at least, was a pot-support in a hearth.In Anatolia, horned objects which we consider served as precursors of the Minoan “horns of consecration” fall into three classes. Examples of the first of these classes have been found in EB II hearths at Beycesultan and at Tarsus. Survivals of this type of “horns” are also found in Late Bronze Age [hereafter LB] Kusura C and Beycesultan III–II. The second class consists of the pot-stands or andirons connected with Khirbet Kerak ware in the 'Amuq, Palestine, north-east Anatolia, and the Caucasus.

New Evidence from Dalma and Kura-Araxes Culture at Tapeh Qal‘e-ye-Sarsakhti

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akbar Abedi ◽  
Nasir Eskandari ◽  
Hamid Khatib Shahidi ◽  
Ismail Sharahi ◽  
Gholam Shirzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Zagros Mountains ◽  
Late Neolithic ◽  
Iranian Plateau ◽  
East Central ◽  
Culture Influence ◽  
Late Chalcolithic ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
New Evidence

Tapeh Qal‘eh-ye-Sarsakhti is located between the Central Iranian Plateau and the Zagros Mountains, specifically in the entrance threshold to the Central Iranian Plateau from the eastern part of Central Zagros. It is a rich site including several periods: late Neolithic, Middle and Late Chalcolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age, Parthian and eventually the Seljuk era. According to surveys conducted in the Central Zagros and in the Central Iranian Plateau, Tapeh Qal‘eh-ye-Sarsakhti appears to be one of the southeastern-most extensions of the Kura-Araxes and the eastern sphere of Dalma Culture influence in the Central Iranian Plateau and East Central Zagros. Here, we trace the nature of the arrival of these cultures to the East Central Zagros and Central Iranian Plateau, as well as the role this area played in transferring of these cultures from east to west, north to south and vice versa.

The formation of collective, political and cultural memory in the Middle Bronze Age: foundation and termination rituals at Toprakhisar Höyük

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 77-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Akar ◽  
Demet Kara
Keyword(s):  
Collective Memory ◽  
Bronze Age ◽  
Rural Community ◽  
Cultural Memory ◽  
Near East ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Community Living ◽  
The Political ◽  
Administrative Structure ◽  
Middle Bronze Age

AbstractConstructing and deconstructing public spaces in second-millennium BC Anatolia, the Near East and the Levant was not only a collaborative physical act but also involved deeply embodied ritual symbolism. This symbolism is materialised in the practice of conducting public foundation and termination rituals that unified individual memories in space and time, transforming the physical act into a collective memory: a process that contributed to the formation of political and cultural memory. The recent rescue excavations conducted by the Hatay Archaeological Museum at the hinterland site of Toprakhisar Höyük in Altinözü (in the foothills above the Amuq valley) add to the understanding of the practice of foundation and termination rituals during the Middle Bronze Age and how these moments may have contributed to the political and cultural memory of a rural community living away from the centre. The practice of foundation/termination rituals is archaeologically documented by caches of artefacts from votive contexts stratigraphically linked to the construction and termination of a Middle Bronze Age administrative structure.

The Earliest Cremation Burials in the South-Eastern Alpine Region from the Middle Bronze Age – Signs of Intercultural Connections with the Northern Carpathian Basin

2020 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-490
Author(s):  
Brina Škvor Jernejčič
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
Alpine Region ◽  
Carpathian Basin ◽  
Distribution Area ◽  
The South ◽  
Burial Practices ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Middle Bronze Age ◽  
Tisza River ◽  
The Bronze Age

AbstractThe article considers cremation graves from the site of Podsmreka near Višnja Gora (Slovenia). Based on the analysis of their pottery, it could be shown that the graves can be dated to the Middle Bronze Age period (Br B2/C1) and thus represent one of the oldest cremation burials of the Bronze Age in Slovenia. First, the ceramic finds from the radiocarbon dated settlement contexts are discussed in order to reach a more exact chronological framework for the vessel forms from graves. A synthesis of all Middle Bronze Age graves, both inhumations and cremations, from central and eastern Slovenia allows us to get a better understanding of when the change in burial practices occurred. Surprisingly, the best analogies for the vessels from graves at Podsmreka near Višnja Gora can be found in the northern Carpathian Basin, where we observe a long-standing tradition of cremation burials. The analysis of radiocarbon samples from two graves from Šafárikovo in Slovakia allowed us to verify the absolute chronology of urn amphorae vessels with particular form and decoration, which we can date between the second half of the 16th and the first half of the 15th century BC. Such astonishing correspondences in the pottery between the northern Carpathian Basin and the south-eastern Alpine region seem to indicate that the very area of the Upper Tisza river, and the territory of the Piliny Culture, played a crucial role in the transmission of new burial practices, not only to Slovenia, but also across wider areas along the Sava and Drava rivers on the distribution area of the Virovitica group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document