Monograph 33 of Archaeology California, Los Angeles GI I I I a HALAFIA SITE I SOUTHEASTER TUR EY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Monograph 33 of Archaeology California, Los Angeles GI I I I A HALAFIA SITE I SOUTHEASTER TUR EY Patty Jo Watson Steven A. LeBlanc Monograph 33 Institute of Archaeology University of California, Los Angeles 1990 UCLA Institute of Archaeology Editorial Board: Jeanne Arnold, Marilyn P. Beaudry, Giorgio Buccellati, Timothy K. Earle, Ernestine S. Elster, Richard H. Leventhal, James R. Sackett. Library of Congress Cataloging·in·Publication Data Watson, Patty Jo, 1932- Girikihaciyan : a Halafian site in southeastern Turkey I Pany Jo Watson, Steven A. LeB!anc. p. cm. - (Monograph I Institute of Archaeology, University of California) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN: 0-917956-69-9 1. Girikihaciyan Site (Turkey) 2. Halaf culture-Turkey. 3. Excavations (Archaeology}--Turkey. I. LeB!anc, Steven A. II. Title. III. Series: Monograph (University of California. Los Angeles. Institute of Archaeology) ; 33. GN776.3.H34W38 1990 956.67-<lc20 90-47928 CIP Copyright 1990. Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Robert J. Braidwood and Halet <;ambel, and incomparable drafting skills. We are thankful to Willem directors of the Turkish Prehistoric Project (Istanbul/Chicago) van Zeist for the time and effort he devoted to the botanical for enabling us to undertake research at Girikihaciyan in 1968 remains from Girikihaciyan and for expediting the three ra and 1970. Much of the Project's work in those seasons was diocarbon determinations. We acknowledge the interest and supported by funds from the Anthropology Program of the cooperation of Dr. T. Waterbolk, Director of the Natuurkundig National Science Foundation. Laboratorium at the Rijks-Universiteit, Gronigen, Netherlands, We also thank the other Project staff members of the where the radiocarbon determinations were obtained. 1968 and 1970 seasons for help, advice, and moral support: We are especially grateful to the trench supervisors who Behin Aksoy, Linda Braidwood, Geoffrey Clark, Valerie worked with us at Girikihaci yan: Behin Aksoy, llknur Kiic;iik, Clark, Michael Davis, Michael Hoffman, James Knudstad, Michael Hoffman, and Hiisnii Yildirim. Ilknur Kiic;iik, Charles Redman,LindaRedman, Anna Watson, During the period of writing the site report, Ismail Hijara Richard Watson, David Webster, Jinx Webster, Carolyn and Thomas Davidson kindly made their dissertations avail Wright, Gary Wright, Willem vanZeist, andHiisnii Yildirim. able to us. Peter M. M. G. Akkermans, Robert J. Braidwood, We owe a debt of gratitude to those inhabitants of Lorraine Copeland, Elizabeth Henrickson, Sandra Olsen, Ekinciyan, the village adjacent to the site, who worked with Helga Seeden, and Mary Voigt drew our attention to refer us on the mound and, like the Girikihaciyan supervisors, ences and other important information we would have cheerfully endured mud, cold weather, and the recalcitrant missed without their guidance. site matrix: Abduri Altinta§, Abdurrahman Altin~, Kerim We are very grateful to the Graquate School at Washing Al tin ta§, Askeri Asian, MehmetAslan, Mehmet Aytac;, Eyup ton University and to successive deans of the faculty Richard Bic;er,HasanBic;er,HusainBic;er,EyupDemir,HasanDemir, Rossett and Martin Israel for making available to the senior Rustem Demir, Ziya Demir, Mahmud Ekin, Resul Ekin, author research grant support for prepublication expenses. SemmuzEkin,ZillfiiEkin,AskeriGiller,FahriGiller,Ibrahim We are also much indebted to the following people at Wash Giller, Ismail Giller, Nurettin Giller, Tahir Giller, Zillfii ington University who materially aided the completion of the Giller, Bedri lpek, Fahri Ipek, Ilfan Ipek, Ilham Ipek, Mehmet manuscript: Michael Emrick, Adria LaViolette, Christine Ipek, Muzafer Ipek, Necate Ipek,Rafatipek, Saidipek, Veysi Hensley, Jeff Kaufman, Sonia Wolf, and Mary Kennedy for Ipek, Zilkar Ipek, Zillfii Ipek, Jalal Khan, Eyup Kan, Harun drafting many of the figures; Christine Hensley and Mary Karaka§, SerifKiliq, Hasan Koc;, Mukhtar, Hayretin Sim§ek, Kennedy for word processing the text and tables; Mary Ahmet Sogan, Hasan Sogan, Askeri Tune;, Daries Tune;, Kennedy for overseeing the completion of many of the Mustafa Tune;, Tadel Tune;, Mehmet Yaman. During the illustrations and for acting as production-editor for the final 1968 season, Charles Redman was the Girikihaciyan field revision and coordination of text, tables, and illustrations. assistant, and we are grateful to him for his continued interest Finally, we thank Ernestine S. Elster, Carol Leyba, and and assistance. During both seasons and after the fieldwork the editorial staff (Andrew Funk, Beverly Godwin, Pat period, Jam es Knudstad devoted many hours of his time and Campbell Healy, Pattie Rechtman and Tim Seymour) of the expertise to documenting the architectural remains at UCLA Institute of Archaeology for their patience and assis Girikihaciyan; we gratefully acknowledge his invaluable aid tance with the publication of this monograph. Contents Acknowledgments iii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THE 1968 AND 1970 FIELD SEASONS 5 3. ARCfllTECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY 31 4. p AINTED POTTERY 41 5. UNPAINTED POTTERY 68 6. THE CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRY AND 0rnER STONE CATEGORIES 81 7. fAUNAL REMAINS 109 8. BURIALS 121 9. STATISTICAL ANALYSES 123 10. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 134 REFRENCES 140 1. Introduction This rtport presents the results of excava in part because of favorable logistic con tions undertaken at the site of Girikiha siderations and in particular because it ciyan in southeastern Turkey (figs. 1.1, was not overlain by late deposits. Such a 1.2) during 1968 and 1970 by the Joint selection criterion ensures that limited Prehistoric Project, Istanbul-Chicago un resources will produce maximum data der the overall direction of Professor Halet recovery from the period under investiga <;ambel, University of Istanbul, and Pro tion. It also means, however, that the fessor Robert J. Braidwood, Oriental In settlement was probably not in an opti stitute, University of Chicago. Work on mum location because well-situated set the site was canied out under Patty Jo tlements tend to be repeatedly occupied. Watson's supervision. The primary com There were several research goals. Of mitment of the Joint Prehistoric Project's primary concern was the recovery of ade efforts is to the earlier nearby site of quate representative samples of architec <;ayonil where research is continuing ture, artifacts, and ecofacts so that com (Braidwood and Braidwood 1982; <;am parisons could be made with Halafian bel and Braidwood 1980, 1983; Braid sites in other areas and with earlier and wood, <;ambel, and Schirmer 1981; later sites in the same area. In particular, Schirmer 1983). systematic recovery of botanical remains Girikihaciyan is a Halafian village site (via flotation) and·of faunal remains was without significant later components. It emphasized. Because most previous work was selected for study because of continu at Halafian sites had consisted of small ing interest in the Halaf period initiated by sondages, little information was available work at the site of Banahilk in Iraq during in 1968 about community layout and vari the 1950s (Watson 1955, 1956, 1983a, ability, yet these are important considera 1983b), again under Watson's direction tions in interpreting settlement size and and as part of an Oriental Institute-Univer complexity. Hence, it was hoped that the sity of Chicago research program de absence of later deposits at Girikihaciyan signed by Robert J. Braidwood. would enable the opening of areas large It was clear from previous surveys, enough to provide some community lay the survey conducted by the Joint Prehis out information. Disruptive activities by toric Project, and various scattered finds the Halafian inhabitants, however, includ that Halafian settlements extended well ing the dismantling of various structures, into the northern foothills above the Fer made our broad-scale excavations less tile Crescent, yet no Halafian site in this productive than they might have been. area had been systematically studied. During the course of the Girikiha Girikihaciyan was selected for such study ci yan project, the painted ceramics recov- 2 GIRIKIHACIYAN: A HALAFIAN SITE ( ? Asian Tepe.a. •KIRKUK DEIR-EZ ZOR e JEBAL HAMRIN KERMANSHAH o . j Ard Tlalli / MANDALI~ •• <?-· • .! ·~ / •CITY ll; A Site {,"-. f-·1· 50 100 150 200 Kilometers . ~ / J ·-w ·""--./. ered were compared to collections from published (Copeland and Hours 1987a, Figure 1.1. Distribu the Halafian sites of Arpachiyah, Ba 1987b; von Wickede 1986; Watkins and tion of currently nahilk, Chagar Bazar, Tell Halaf, Campbell 1987) or are in preparation known Halafian sites. Tilkitepe, and Turlu (Le Blanc 1971; (chapters by Mellink, Porada, and Dun (No attempt has been LeBlanc and Watson 1973). Charles Red ham; Voigt and Dyson; Weiss and made to include all man (then a University of Chicago gradu Schwartz; and Hanson in the new edition the sites where ate student), Watson's field assistant, of Chronologies in Old World Archaeol Halafian pottery has been reported; the aim undertook a methodological study of sys ogy [Ehrich, ed., forthcoming]); hence, is, rather, to show the tematic surface collection based on only a brief discussion is included here extent of Halafian fieldwork at both <;ayonil and Girikiha (see also Frankel 1979). pottery distribution.) ciyan (Redman 1971). The results of that Garstang (1908) referred to the dis pioneering effort