Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe in the 3rd millennium BC: the question of urbanization

Nihan Naiboğlu a a Independent Archaeologist, 34538 Istanbul, Turkey; [email protected] ABSTRACT In the course of the 3rd millennium BC a higher social class differentiated itself for the first time in Western Ana- tolia and the Aegean islands from the rest of the society through the medium of settlement planning and the systematic use of personal luxury goods. Monumental architecture, specialized craftsmanship, administrative practices, regular caravan routes, and a wide range of trade goods were among the major innovations, which can be regarded as indications of an urbanization process in those regions, particularly during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. While Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands underwent such an urbanization process, settlement patterns in the Balkan Peninsula remained unaffected from those developments. Some ideo- logical elements, however, seem to have reached at least as far as the Thracian Plain in north-western direction, implying a connection between Aegeo-Anatolia and the Balkans, based upon individual groups rather than on regular caravan routes. Thus, the present paper deals with the similarities, as well as the differences of Western Anatolia, the Aegean islands, Thrace, and Western Balkans, regarding social patterns displayed on architecture, settlement layout, and personal wealth, with a special focus on the question of urbanization. KEYWORDS Third millennium BC, trade networks, social differentiation, urbanization

Introduction

The 3rd millennium BC was a time when the earliest urban civilizations of Mesopo- tamia, Egypt, and Harappa were fully established1. These cultures were characterized by a highly differentiated social hierarchy and by well-planned urban centres with monumental architecture, symbolizing the power of a central authority. The most characteristic feature of this period was a systematic long-distance trade network on an almost global scale, prob- ably stimulated by the urban centres of Mesopotamia and the Levant (Sherratt 1997a; Aruz 2003). Especially in Southern Mesopotamia where the earliest complex settlements with urban features are supposed to be found, there was a lack of vital resources, such as metals, stone, and timber (Adams, Nissen 1972). Thus, interregional trade has always been an es- sential component of Mesopotamian civilizations. However, during the 3rd millennium BC there appeared a new need which became vital in an ideological sense: the need for luxury. Exotic materials and products from long distances became a major part of the newly de- fined elite identity which required a continuous flow of status symbols to underline social

1 This paper is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Prehistory, Istanbul University in 2017. The research was supported by TÜBİTAK-Bideb 2211.

Be-JA Бе-СА Supplementa 7 (2019) 155–176 Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology Българско е-Списание за Археология http://be-ja.org ISSN 2603-3216 Nihan Naiboğlu

Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text Обр. 1. Карта на обектите, споменати в текста differences in a systematic way2. The fact that non-essential exotic materials and precious items, such as jewels, had the widest distribution among all the trade goods (Aruz 2003) demonstrates that the network was stimulated mainly to respond to the luxury demands of elites. What attracted Near Eastern traders to Aegeo-Anatolia must have been the advanced metallurgy and textile industry, as well as archaeologically undetectable products, such as olive oil, wine, and honey (Özdoğan 2006, 573). During the second half of the 3rd millen- nium BC we can speak of an organized trade network, traditionally called The Great Caravan Route (Efe 2007) or The Anatolian Trade Network (Şahoğlu 2005), operating between Cilicia in the southeast and the Anatolian Aegean coast in the northwest (Efe 2007, fig. 17a)3. As a result, both the maritime and overland trade routes reached as far as Western Anatolia, the Aegean islands, and some parts of the Thracian Plain in the western direction, causing social progress in the respective regions (fig. 1). One of the most crucial effects of this interaction can be observed in the re-definition of social hierarchy in Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands. Circulation of ideas and products influenced the way how social asymmetries were expressed between different classes of society. Eventually, new settlement patterns were formed, both in Western Ana- tolia and the Aegean islands, sharing some characteristic elements considering the social structure. Monumental architecture, specialized craftsmanship, administrative practices, and a wide range of trade goods were among the fundamental innovations of this period which should be considered as the onset of an urbanization process. The organized trade route, and therefore also the urban features reached as far as

2 Mesopotamia, and later also Syria were divided into city states, competing against each other during the 3rd millennium BC. Even after the union under the Akkadian Empire in the 24th century BC the competition did not come to an end. The empire fell apart after a relatively short period of time and the region was divided again into small political units until the foundation of the Third Dynasty of Ur at the end of the 22nd century BC. The continuous state of rivalry between mighty city states seems to have given rise to the demand for exotic status symbols to legitimate the sovereignty of competing rulers. 3 The main problem concerning the origins of the trade route is the lack of information from Central Anatolia, especially during the earlier and middle centuries of the 3rd millennium BC.

156 ai ad h Dnb i te ot, h Wsen akn hrord aiu subsistence various strategies duringthe3 harboured Balkans Western the north, the in Danube the and Basin flected in material culture. Stretching from Greek Macedonia in the south to the Carpathian of interregionalcontacts. nature the determined which luxury for need wasthe it again, Once 240). 1996, Leshtakov jewelsas such symbols status of merely consistedThrace 2005; (Hristov cups drinking and Westernin imports Aegeo-Anatolian that remarkable though, is, It urbanization. towards architecture nor settlement patterns reveal any sign of a non-egalitarian society on the path 3 the of half second the during Thrace Western in adopted ties novel only the be to seem imitations, local their as well as origin, Aegean and Anatolian of goods imported “movementsome Indeed, 242). 1996, (Leshtakov “trade” and goods” of between difference the stresses Leshtakov direction. north-western the in Thrace Eastern differentComparing modelsofcomplexsettlementsin AnatoliaWestern Southeast andEurope ... seem to have circulated within the entire region. Drinking cups in form of tankards and tankards of form in cups Drinking region. entire someinnovations the cultures, within circulated have local to seem of the diversity Despite locations. settlement different the among were 244) 2000, (Bailey caveseven and 120), 2014: (Bulatović, plateaus inclined slightly 17), 2012, Bulatović (Kapuran, valleys stream controlling slopes steep 2002), chais able that these fashions appeared simultaneously with Aegeo-Anatolian with simultaneously appeared fashions these that able only cultural elements to spread throughout the whole of the Western Balkans. It is remark two-handled cups (Gori 2015), as well as metal shaft-hole axes (Chernykh 1992, 54) were the Infrastructure Open spaces Permanent occupation Long-distance trade differentiationSocial Fortification Таблица 1.Урбанистичнипараметриотизбраниселищапърватаполовина Western Balkans, on the other hand, yield no evidence of social differentiation re differentiation social of evidence no yield hand, other the on Balkans, Western Table 1.Urbanparametersachievedbyselectedsettlementsduringthefirsthalf I measurement Common unitsof goods Imported Craft Sealing materials Elite control of Monopolized architectureMonumental Citadel andlower town Ditch Rampart Gate Tower Defensive rd millennium BC. Fertile lowlands (Renfrew et al. 1986; Lera, Tou Lera, 1986; al. et (Renfrew lowlands Fertile BC. millennium specialization and wall wealth products raw raw на IIIхилядолетиепр.Хр of the3 rd millenniumBC X X X X X X X X X Bademağacı X X X X X Troy X X X X X X X Liman Tepe X X X X X X X X X X X X rd Thermi millennium BC. Neither BC. millennium X X X X X X X X X X X X X Poliochni depa amphikypella X Kanlıgeçit X X X X ? Yunatsite 157 X X Sitagroi - - - -

Nihan Naiboğlu n vja Troia So Sitagroi Yunatsite Poliochni Kanlıgeçit Seyitömer Liman Tepe Bademağacı Defensive wall X X X X X X Tower X X X X Fortification Gate X X X X Rampart X X X Ditch Citadel and lower town X X X X Monumental architecture X X X X X X Monopolized wealth X X X X X Social differentiation Elite control of raw materials X X X X X X X and products Sealing X X X X X X ? Craft specialization X X X X X Imported goods X X X X X X X X Long-distance trade Common units of X measurement Permanent occupation X X X X X ? X X X Open spaces X X X X X X X Infrastructure X X ?

Table 2. Urban parameters achieved by selected settlements during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC Таблица 2. Урбанистични параметри от избрани селища от втората половина на III хилядолетие пр. Хр.

(Şahoğlu 2014) and bronze daggers (Gernez 2011) which might point to a common cultural background using similar symbols to create an elite image. Thus, it is arguable that wide- ranging interactions of the 3rd millennium BC caused an interregional social progress, lead- ing to urbanization in Aegeo-Anatolia, but weakening in the north-western direction to merely affect the abstract image of an elite identity.

Urban Parameters

The concept of “urbanization” may have many different definitions depending on the region and time discussed (For archaeological and historical definitions of urbanization see Childe 1950; Mumford 1961; Huot et al. 1990. For the urbanization processes in Mesopota- mia, the Levant, Anatolia, and the Balkans see Özdoğan 2006; Nissen 2003a, 2003b; Fran- gipane 2016; Oates et al. 2007; Sherratt 1997a; Çevik 2007; Gogâltan 2010; Chapman 2010). A consideration of local conditions is required to distinguish a city from other kinds of set- tlements (Sitterding 1962). Compared to the highly developed cities of Mesopotamia and Syria, the newly established towns of Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands appear to be relatively small and underdeveloped. However, it should be taken into consideration that the new settlement model was somewhat complex in itself and definitely different from the earlier centuries of the respective regions (Özdoğan 2006). Finding a systematic solution for the question of urbanization and tracking its expansion in the western direction requires a detailed definition of urban parameters, specific to the respective regions and period of time (Table 1; Table 2). Innovations of the 3rd millennium BC suggesting an urbanization

158 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ... process in Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands can be summarized as follows: 1) Forti- fication (defensive wall, tower, gate, rampart, ditch); 2) Social differentiation (monumental architecture, citadel and lower town, monopolized wealth, elite control of goods and cen- tral storage facilities, sealing, craft specialization); 3) Long-distance trade (imported goods, common units of measurement); 4) Permanent occupation; 5) Open spaces and streets; and 6) Infrastructure. These parameters are not necessarily achieved by all the settlements of Western Ana- tolia and the Aegean islands. Trailing their frequency in different settlements during dif- ferent periods of the 3rd millennium BC would be therefore an important step in order to understand the beginning of urbanization in those regions. Bademağacı and Seyitömer in Inland Western Anatolia, Troy and Liman Tepe on the Anatolian Aegean coast, Thermi and Poliochni on Aegean islands, Yunatsite and Kanlıgeçit in Thrace, and Sitagroi and Sovjan in Western Balkans are selected as key sites corresponding the first and the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, respectively4. The size and the population of a settlement, as one can expect from a list of urban parameters, do not seem to have played a significant role in Western Anatolian and Aegean towns of the 3rd millennium BC. As Mumford suggested, “it is not the numbers of people in a limited area alone, but the number that can be brought under unified control to form a highly differentiated community, serving purposes that transcend nurture and survival, that have decisive urban significance” (Mumford 1961, 61). Thus, even a settlement with a modest size of 0,4 ha, like Kanlıgeçit in Turkish Thrace, might cover almost all the para­ meters listed above, and can be described as an urban centre. Fortification Architecture appears as a symbol of social hierarchy as early as the Neolithic in the Near East. But it is the 3rd millennium BC when social differences affected the entire settle- ment patterns for the first time and changed the way of life of every single member of so- ciety in Western Anatolia and the Aegean. During this process, tell settlements, established on trade routes, developed their own way of complexity and evolved into regional centres with some urban character. A common feature of all the settlement mounds in Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands is a constantly evolving fortification system. A monumen- tal appearance seems to be the most important aspect of such structures. As the most visible feature of a town, they did not only provide protection against enemy attacks and flood, but also served as symbols of a powerful central authority (Maran 2009). The traditional fortification system of Inner Western Anatolia, the so-called “Anatolian settlement plan”, consisted of rectangular dwellings built adjacent to each other with shared side walls (Korf- mann 1983)5, as it was the case in Bademağacı (fig. 2) and Seyitömer (fig. 3; Duru, Umurtak 2011, fig. 3; Bilgen 2015, fig. 140). However, settlements on the Anatolian Aegean coast, such as Troy (fig. 4), usually possessed a freestanding defensive wall since the earliest stages of

4 Due to the large number of sites in the vast area of Western Anatolia, the Aegean islands, and the Balkans, it was necessary to base the problem on a few selected sites which cover a long period of time during the 3rd millennium BC, and reveal relevant information about the question of urbanization. For further informa- tion about some other important excavations of the region, see Küllüoba (Efe 2003; Fidan 2012), Çukuriçi Höyük (Horejs, Weninger 2016), Emporio and Heraion (Kouka 2002), Ezero (Georgiev et al. 1979), and Maliq (Prendi 1966). 5 The “Anatolian settlement plan” has its roots in Chalcolithic Anatolia. By the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, it was a tradition dating back nearly as far as two millennia. Although Inner Western Anatolia ap- pears to be the major distribution area of the “Anatolian settlement plan”, it can be observed in a much wider area, stretching from Western to Eastern Anatolia. See Korfmann 1983; Fidan 2013, 117.

159 Nihan Naiboğlu

Fig. 2. Bademağacı. The “multi-roomed complex” (in blue) and the “Anatolian settlement plan” (in red) with adjacent buildings encircling the settlement mound (after Duru, Umurtak 2011, fig. 3) Обр. 2. Bademağacı. “Многостаен комплекс” (в синьо) и “Анатолийски план на селище” (в червено) с прилежащи сгради, обграждащи селищната могила (по Duru, Umurtak 2011, fig. 3)

the 3rd millennium BC (Ivanova 2013)6. On the Aegean islands, Thermi on Lesbos was protected by a row of parallel and freestanding defensive walls by the middle of the 3rd millennium BC (fig. 5). Poliochni on Lemnos (fig. 6) had a defensive wall during the entire millennium, which achieved its lat- est and most impressive appearance by the middle of the millennium (Bernabò-Brea 1964, 313; Kouka 2002, Plan 8). The monumentality of the fortifications was often increased by a monumental gate, a tower, a rampart, and a glacis which were to be found both in Western Anatolian and Aegean island settlements during the second half of the rd3 millennium BC. Kanlıgeçit in Turkish Thrace remains the north-westernmost town providing the aforementioned elements of a fortification system (fig. 77) . Being a flat village during the first half of the rd3 millennium BC, Kanlıgeçit was destroyed and re-modelled into an arti- ficial settlement mound in the 24th century BC to become a small8, though complex town of Anatolian nature (Özdoğan, Parzinger 2012). Particularly the megara on the citadel and the sophisticated fortification system with a defensive wall, aglacis , a tower, and a rampart strongly resemble the early stages of Troy II (Özdoğan, Parzinger 2012, Appendix 1; Korf- mann 2001, fig. 403). Western parts of the Thracian Plain reveal a different picture regarding defensive measures. Despite the fact that there is little information about the origins of the 3rd millen-

6 There were, however, also coastal examples of the “Anatolian settlement plan”, such as Bakla Tepe in İzmir. See Erkanal 2011, 130. 7 For the question about the possible Anatolian influence in eastern Bulgaria regarding the architec- ture see Georgieva 1997; Stefanova 2003; 2004. 8 39 m in diameter.

160 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ...

Fig. 3. Seyitömer V-B. The “palace” in southwest, the “temple” at the center, and the buildings surrounding the settlement mound after the “Anatolian settlement plan” (after Bilgen 2015, fig. 140) Обр. 3. Seyitömer V-B. „Дворецът“ в югозападната част, „храмът“ в центъра и сградите около селищната могила според „Анадолския план за селище“ (по Bilgen 2015, fig. 140) nium BC Thracian settlements9, the architectural difference from Aegeo-Anatolian towns is undeniable. Not only in Thracian settlements like Yunatsite (fig. 8), but also in the -en tire Balkan Peninsula, the most favoured defensive structure seems to be the ditch. Dating back to the 6th millennium BC, ditches were widely spread from northern Danube Basin to Northern Greece during the 3rd millennium BC (Aslanis 2015, 398; Bailey 2000, 160)10. How- ever, they were far from being monumental structures indicating social differentiation. Social Differentiation Monumentality is an essential part of urbanism. A building whose “scale and elabo- ration exceed the requirements of any practical functions that [it] is intended to perform”

9 In Thrace, there is an archaeologically undefinable “dark age”, lasting nearly 800 years during the 4th millennium BC. See Nikolova 2000, 4; Russian Academy of Science 2007, 238. 10 During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods ditches were in use on Anatolian sites, as well. See Karul 2017.

161 Nihan Naiboğlu

Fig. 4. Troy II a-d. Megaron IIA at the centre of the citadel and the fortification wall with two monumental gates (after Korfmann 2001, fig. 403) Обр. 4. Троя II a-d. Мегарон IIА в центъра на крепостта и крепостната стена с две монументални порти (по Korfmann 2001, фиг. 403) can be classified as monumental (Trigger 1990, 119). As the “embodiment of large amounts of human energy” (ibid. 125), monumental architecture is an obvious symbol of power, expressing the ability of the rulers to control such energy (Mumford 1961, 571). Earliest monumental structures of Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands date back to the 3rd millennium BC. Beside the defensive structures, a new medium of expressing monumentality appeared during the second half of the millennium, namely administrative buildings. The palace at Seyitömer, the multi-roomed complex at Bademağacı, the Megaron IIA at Troy, the building Θ1 at Thermi, the building 317 at Poliochni, and the Megaron L at Kanlıgeçit represent rather dissimilar layouts regarding the plan, size, and interior (Bil- gen et al. 2014, 244.; Duru, Umurtak 2011; Ünlüsoy 2006, 140; Kouka 2002, 231; Bernabò- Brea, 1964, 63.; Özdoğan, Parzinger 2012, 34.). However, their outstanding nature within the respective sites, as well as their nearly simultaneous formations from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC onwards, indicate a social relationship between those regions. Again, in comparison to the contemporaneous monumental structures of Mesopotamia and Syr- ia, the public buildings of Aegeo-Anatolia may seem small and unremarkable. However, considering local architectural traditions, they were doubtlessly regarded as monumental structures, producing “respectful terror” (Mumford 1961, 65) by inhabitants, as well as by enemies. The most prominent architectural pattern on the Aegean islands during the rd3 mil-

162 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ...

Fig. 5. Thermi V. Building Θ1 (yellow) and parallel defensive walls on the landside (after Kouka 2002, plan 32) Обр. 5. Терми V. Сграда (1 (жълто) и успоредни защитни стени на земята (по Kouka 2002, plan 32) lennium BC were insulae, divided by narrow streets (Stampolidis, Sotirakopoulou 2011b). The dense arrangement of such a settlement pattern would not allow any building to be- come significantly larger than the others. Hence, the communal buildings in Thermi and Poliochni gained their monumentality through the open spaces next to them rather than through their size. With a dimension of 25,5 x 5,5 m, the building Θ1 at Thermi was slightly larger than the other buildings of the site (Kouka 2002, 231). However, standing next to the largest open space11 of the settlement, it was definitely the most visible structure among all (fig. 5). Thebuilding 317 of Poliochni, on the other hand, was situated on the highest point of the settlement to be visible both from the sea and the land (Bernabò-Brea 1976, 63 ff; Kouka 2002, 125). Even though only 10 x 3,5 m in size, the building was the only freestanding struc- ture of the whole settlement, otherwise consisting of insulae (fig. 6). Its southeastern wall facing the sea was elaborately built of vertical stones to imitate a façade covered with stone slabs (Bernabò-Brea 1976, 67, fig. 37-39). Its visibility was additionally assured by the open space12 in front of the building. Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands developed distinct ways to express monu- mentality during the 3rd millennium BC. On the Aegean islands, monumentality was em- phasized through visibility and the elaboration of a building while in Western Anatolia, it was mainly the large size to show the importance of a building. It is, however, remarkable that both regions underwent a process towards monumentality at the same time from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC onwards. The concept of architectural monumentality does not seem to have reached the Bal-

11 “N2”. 12 Square “106”.

163 Nihan Naiboğlu

Fig. 6. Poliochni rosso. Building 317 (yellow) at the northeastern end and the monumental defensive wall on the western side (after Kouka 2002, plan 8) Обр. 6. Полиохни росо. Сграда 317 (жълто) в североизточния край и монументалната защитна стена от западната страна (по Kouka 2002, plan 8) kans, as it was the case for the majority of urban parameters. Neither Western Thracian set- tlement mounds, such as Yunatsite (Телль Юнаците, 2007), nor Western Balkan sites, such as Sitagroi and Sovjan (Renfrew et al. 1986; Lera, Touchais 2002) possessed any structure whose “scale and elaboration exceed the requirements of any practical functions”. A distinction between a citadel and a lower town, as one might expect for instance from Mesopotamian towns, was not significant for Western Anatolia and the Aegean is- lands. Lower towns were indeed detected at some Western Anatolian and Thracian sites, such as Troy, Liman Tepe, Kanlıgeçit, and possibly Yunatsite (Jablonka 2001, 391; Erkanal, Şahoğlu 2016, 162; Özdoğan et al. 2012, 26; Russian Academy of Science 2007, 116.). They give, however, a sparsely populated and unorganized appearance. Neither in Western Ana- tolia and the Aegean islands nor in the Balkans there was a distinctive duality within the settlements. A further aspect of social differentiation was the elite control of goods suggesting the existence of a central authority. In Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands there are two types of archaeological findings, which might indicate such a centralized system: Central

164 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ... storage facilities and the practice of sealing. In contrast to Mesopotamian towns where the subsistence depended on communal agriculture and the primary product to control was the grain (Adams, Nissen 1972; Nissen 2003a, b), the fertile lands of Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands did not require extensive protective measures against drought. Hence, the economic power relied on trade goods like metals and textiles rather than on foodstuffs. Storage facilities were accordingly different, that is to say smaller and less distinctive than their Mesopotamian counterparts. Such storerooms within public buildings were uncov- ered in Western Anatolian and Aegean sites of Bademağacı, Seyitömer, Liman Tepe, and Poliochni (Duru Umurtak 2010, 262; Bilgen 2015, 142; Erkanal 2011, 132; Şahoğlu 2008, 488; Bernabò-Brea 1964, 191; Kouka 2002, 49)13. In the Balkans, including Western Thrace, the goods were stored individually within the dwellings. The excavations at Yunatsite and Sitagroi revealed interior storage areas dur- ing the entire 3rd millennium BC (Russian Academy of Science 2007, 116.; Mazanova 1996, 189.; Elster, 2003, 194., fig. 5.35.). The second sign of an elite control of goods is the practice of sealing. Particularly after the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, the use of seals started to increase in Western Anatolia and the Aegean (Rahmstorf 2006, 62 ff.; Maran et al.2014). Even though in small quantities, cylinder seals of Near Eastern origin, as well as locally manufactured stamp seals were in use at Bademağacı, Seyitömer, Troy, Liman Tepe, Kanlıgeçit, and Poliochni, amongst others (Rahmstorf 2006, 62; Umurtak 2009; 2010; Bilgen et al. 2012, fig. 8; Şahoğlu 2011, Cat. Nr. 210; Bernabò-Brea 1964, 410, 653, 376, 663, 653; Kouka 2002, 111). In the Bal- kans, on the other hand, any evidence of administrative practices was lacking. The only seal to be found in the Balkans during the entire 3rd millennium BC came from Sitagroi. It is, however, an isolated find, probably from a mixed soil layer dating back to earlier millennia (Elster, Renfrew 2003, 403, fig. 10.6). An outstanding phenomenon of the 3rd millennium BC was a large number of “treas- ures”. As an obvious evidence of personal wealth and social differentiation, treasures and rich grave goods were unearthed in a vast area from Central Anatolia to mainland Greece and Thrace during the second half of the millennium (Koşay 1938; Koşay 1951; Özgüç, Akok 1958; Özgüç, Temizer 1993; Koşay, Akok 1950; Sazcı, Treister 2006; Lamb 1936, 170; Reinholdt 2008; Maran 2001; Tsintsov et al. 2009). The objects kept safe in those treasures display some of the most important finds to track the interregional contacts. Often lacking any practical function14, they were traded over long distances reaching as far as Central Asia in the east (Aruz 2003, 237). It is interesting to observe that such contexts visualizing the monopolized wealth were a common trend both in Aegeo-Anatolia and the Balkans. Status symbols, as those objects can be described, are not an urban parameter on their own. However, they are a crucial source to define the nature of social differentiation, as well as the expansion of trade routes. Long-distance trade Long-distance trade seems to have played a leading role in the urbanization process of Aegeo-Anatolia (Sherratt 1997a). The impetus of Mesopotamian and Levantine traders appears to be the main reason behind craft specialization in Western Anatolia and the Ae- gean islands during the 3rd millennium BC (Rahmstorf 2006; Efe 2007). In response to the

13 The function of the small rectangular buildings on the western side of Troy II is still debatable. See Ünlüsoy 2006, 141. 14 For example, the lapis lazuli axes from Troy II. See Korfmann 2001, fig. 391.

165 Nihan Naiboğlu

Fig. 7. Kanlıgeçit KG 1. Megara at the centre, surrounded by a defensive wall with glacis and a bastion (after Özdoğan et al. 2012, Annex 1) Обр. 7. Мегарони в центъра, заобиколен от защитна стена с гласис и бастион (по Özdoğan et al. 2012, Annex 1) increased demand, the production of a variety of goods was accelerated which, in turn, caused a pronounced division of labour and a rearrangement of social structure in those re- gions. Depa amphikypella, Syrian bottles, incised bone tubes, seals, tin, lapis lazuli, carnelian beads, as well as flat beads with tubular mid rib, and quadruple spirals made of precious metals were among the prominent trade goods of the respective period (Rahmstorf 2006; 2015). During this process, metal working, textile production, and pottery evolved into ma- jor professions in Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands (For metal working, see Keskin

166 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ...

Fig. 8. Yunatsite XIV. The ditch, separating the northern part of the mound from the rest of the settlement (after Телль Юнаците 2007, Illustration 8, fig. 122) Обр. 8. Юнаците XIV. Ров, разделящ северната част на могилата от останалата част на селището (по Телль Юнаците 2007, Illustration 8, fig. 122)

2011, 146; Sazcı 2016, 183; Kouka 2002, 64, 170, 208, 297; Bernabò-Brea 1964, Pl. LXXXIIIq-t; Stampolidis, Sotirakopoulou 2011a. For textile production, see Schoop 2014. For pottery, see Şahoğlu 2014; Efe, Türkteki 2011). The systematic division of labour must have required a centralized administration to organise and control the manpower. The emergence of an elite class was likely the result of this process. Despite numerous metal finds in the Balkans, no workshops could be detected so far (Ivanova 2008b, 33; Elster, Renfrew 2003, 305). Yet, it seems obvious that there was an inten-

167 Nihan Naiboğlu sive production of metal, particularly of copper (Maran 2001). Shaft-hole axes, as the most common metal objects of the region, were distributed in northern Caucasia, the northern Black Sea, the Danube Basin, the Carpathian Basin, and the Balkans (Chernykh 1992, 54). In Anatolia and the Aegean islands, on the other hand, it seems to be the dagger to have the widest distribution (Gernez 2011). Even though the fashions and raw materials did not resemble each other, metallurgy seems to have gained importance during the 3rd millenni- um BC, simultaneously both in Aegeo-Anatolia and the Balkans (Yener 2000, 67; Chernykh 1992, 54; Rahmstorf 2008, 155). Metal finds in Thrace, particularly grave goods, were both locally manufactured and imported from Aegeo-Anatolia (Hristov 2005; 2011; Tsintsov et al. 2009; Heyd et al. 2016, 172; Ivanova 2008a, 151). In addition to metal objects, also some pottery types were imported from Aegeo-Ana- tolia to Thrace, such as depas amphikypellon and the Syrian bottle (Leshtakov 1996, 240). As luxury drinking and cosmetic cups, they indicate an admiration for Aegeo-Anatolian elite behaviours during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC (Spanos 1972; Rahmstorf 2006). The farthest find spot of Aegeo-Anatolian pottery in western direction was Greek Macedo- nia (Andreou 2010, 649). Further west, however, another pottery tradition appeared during the second half of the 3rd millennium, reaching from Greek Macedonia to the Carpathian Basin: Tankards with globular body and cylindrical neck, as well as two-handled cups with globular body attest the emergence of a new drinking behaviour in those regions. The fact that these two wares were the only pottery types to spread through the entire Western Bal- kans underlines their social importance (Gori 2015). Usually found in tumuli15, these cups were not traded over long distances, but manufactured locally in each region instead (Gori 2015, 188).

Conclusion

The contemporaneous appearance of specific drinking cups and metal weapons in a vast area covering Mesopotamia16, Syria, Anatolia, the Aegean, and the Balkans indicate a mutual progress in those regions. The “international spirit” of the 3rd millennium BC (Renfrew 1972) influenced a wide range of cultural elements. A new elite image appeared in all the mentioned regions sharing some key elements, such as metals, drinking cups, jewels, weapons, and woollen textiles (Sherratt 1997b; Rahmstorf 2008). Even though the techniques and shapes differed essentially from each other, the simultaneous emergence of status symbols is remarkable. In sum, the complex networks of the 3rd millennium BC caused a social progress along the trade routes. Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands which were the sphere of interest of Near Eastern traders took an active part in the interaction and underwent funda- mental changes with regard to their social structure. Particularly the second half of the 3rd millennium BC was characterized by social differentiation reflected on settlement patterns, architecture, and personal appearance in Aegeo-Anatolia. The Balkans, however, remained beyond the reach of systematic trade networks. The innovations which presumably reached those regions were restricted to a limited number of status symbols, such as drinking cups

15 For further information on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age tumuli in the Balkans, see Borgna and Müller Celka 2011. 16 Drinking scenes became popular in Mesopotamian iconography during the 3rd millennium BC. See Pinnock 1994.

168 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ... and weapons. Settlement patterns in the Balkans, on the other hand, displayed an egalitar- ian nature without any indication of urbanization. Considering the 3rd millennium BC on an interregional scale, the following conclu- sions can be drawn about the social development of Western Anatolia, the Aegean islands, and the Balkans: ―― The systematic trade network with Mesopotamia and the Levant required the division of labour and craft specialization in Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands which, in turn, caused an administrative centralization and social differ- entiation in those regions; ―― Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands developed their own way of urbaniza- tion during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC; ―― Elites of Western Anatolia and the Aegean islands started to distinguish them- selves from the society through the medium of architecture and luxury goods; ―― Imitations of Aegeo-Anatolian elite behaviour, as can be seen in jewels and drink- ing cups, can be observed in the Thracian Plain; ―― There is no sign of an urbanization process in the Balkans, including the Thracian Plain; ―― The only trait to reach the Western Balkans seems to have been the very idea of an elite image in terms of personal luxury goods, such as drinking cups and weap- ons.

References

Телль Юнаците 2007. Эпоха бронзы, Том II, Часть первая, Mосква: Издательская фирма “Восточная литература”. Adams, R. McC., Nissen, H. J. 1972. The Uruk Countryside – The Natural Settings of Urban Societies. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Andreou, S. 2010. Northern Aegean. In Cline, E. H. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 643-658. Aruz, J. 2003. Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Aslanis, I. 2015. Settlement Patterns in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age: The Case of the Prehistoric Settlement of Yunatsite, Bulgaria. In Hansen, S., Raczky, P., Anders, A., Reingruber, A. (eds), Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to 4th Millenium BC. International Workshop Bu- dapest 2012. Bonn: Habelt, 395-402. Bailey, D.W. 2000. Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity. London and New York: Routledge. Bernabò-Brea, L. 1964. Poliochni I, 1-2. Città Preistorica nell’Isola di Lemnos. Roma: Bretsch- neider. Bernabò-Brea, L. 1976. Poliochni II, 1. Città Preistorica Nell’Isola Di Lemnos. Roma: Bretschnei- der. Bilgen, N. 2015. Seyitömer Höyük I. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

169 Nihan Naiboğlu

Bilgen, N., Coşkun, G., Bilgen, Z., Kuru, A., Yüzbaşıoğlu, N., Özcan, F. Ç., Çırakoğlu, S., Silek, S. 2012. Seyitömer Höyük 2010 Yılı Kazısı. 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 1, 23 – 28 Mayıs 2011, Malatya, 233-254. Bilgen, N., Coşkun, G., Bilgen, Z., Ünan, N., Silek, S., Çırakoğlu, S., Kuru, A., Erdinç, Z. 2014. Seyitömer Höyüğü 2012 Yılı Kazısı. 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 27-31 Mayıs 2013 Muğla, 349-360. Borgna, E., Müller Celka, S. (eds). 2011. Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Bulatović, A. 2014. Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change? Journal of Indo-European Studies 42, 101-143. Çevik, Ö. 2007. The Emergence of Different Social Systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia: Urbanisation vs. Centralisation. In Fletcher, A., Greaves, A. M. (eds), Transanatolia: Pro- ceedings of the Conference Held at the British Museum, 31 March to 1 April 2006, Anatolian Studies 57, 131-140. Chapman, J. 2010. Houses, Households, Villages, and Proto-Cities in Southeastern Europe. In Anthony, W., Chi, J. Y. (eds), The Lost World of Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000 – 3500 BC. Princeton / Oxford: Princeton University Press, 75-89. Chernykh, E. N. 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Childe, G. 1950. The Urban Revolution. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 21, No. 1 (April 1950), 3-17. Duru, R., Umurtak, G. 2010. Bademağacı Kazıları, 2008. 31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, 25– 29 Mayıs 2009 Denizli, 261-268. Duru, R., Umurtak, G. 2011. Bademağacı Höyüğü’nde (Antalya) Yapılan Tarihöncesi Kazıları Sona Erdi – II. Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği 307, Ocak 2011, 30-37. Efe, T. 2003. Küllüoba and the Initial Stages of Urbanism in Western Anatolia. Özdoğan, M., Hauptmann, H., Başgelen, N. (eds), From Village to Cities, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 265-282. Efe, T. 2007. The theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’ between Cilicia and Troy: the Early Bronze Age III period in inland western Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 27, 47-64. Efe, T., Türkteki, M. 2011. Early Bronze Age Pottery in the Inland Western Anatolian Region. In Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopoulou, P. (eds) Across: The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millenium BC. Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 214-222. Elster, E. 2003. Grindstones, Polished Edge-Tools, and Other Stone Artifacts. In Elster, E., Renfrew, C. (eds) Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968 – 1970, Volume 2: The Final Report. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, 175-227. Elster, E., Renfrew, C. (eds) 2003. Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968– 1970, Volume 2: The Final Report. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at Univer- sity of California, Los Angeles. Erkanal, H. 2011. Early Bronze Age Settlement Models and Domestic Architecture in the Coastal Regions of Western Anatolia. In Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopoulou, P. (eds) Across: the Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC. Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 130-135. Erkanal, H., Şahoğlu, V. 2016. Liman Tepe, an Early Bronze Age Trade Center in Western Anatolia: Recent Investigations. In Pernicka, E., Ünlüsoy, S., Blum, S.W.E. (eds) Early

170 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ...

Bronze Age Troy. Chronology, Cultural Development, and Interregional Contacts. Bonn: Ha- belt, 157-166. Fidan, E. 2012. Küllüoba İlk Tunç Çağı Mimarisi. In Ekinci, O., Baykan, D. (eds) Küllüoba Kazıları ve Batı Anadolu Tunç Çağları Üzerine Yapılan Araştırmalar. MASROP E-DERGİ 7, Mayıs 2012, 1-44. Fidan, E. 2013. Anadolu Yerleşim Planı Üzerine Yeni Bir Değerlendirme. Arkeoloji Dergisi XVIII, 113-125. Frangipane, M. 2016. The development of centralised societies in Greater Mesopotamia and the foundation of economic inequality. In Meller, H., Hahn, H. P., Risch, R., Jung, R.(eds) Arm und Reich – Zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesellschaften /Rich and Poor – Competing for resources in prehistoric societies. 8. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 22. Bis 24. Oktober 2015 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 14. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, 1-22. Georgiev, G., Merpert, N. Y., Katincharov, R. V., Dimitrov, D. G. 1979. Ezero. Rannobronzo- voto selishte. Sofia: Balgarska Akademija na Naukite. Georgieva, P. 1997. A Fortified Settlement from the Early Bronze Age in Thrace. In Dou- mas, Chr. G., La Rosa, V. (eds) Poliochni. E l’antica età del Bronzo nell’Egeo settentrionale. Convegno Internazionale Atene, 22-25 Aprile 1996. Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 311-328. Gernez, G. 2011. The Exchange of Products and Concepts between the Near East and the Mediterranean: The Example of Weapons during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. In Duistermaat, K., Regulski, I. (eds) Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Pro- ceedings of the International Conference at the Netherlands – Flemish Institute in Cairo, 25th to 29th October 2008. Leuven–Paris–Walpole MA: Peeters, 327-341. Gogâltan, F. 2010. Die Tells und der Urbanisierungsprozess. In Horejs, B., Kienlin, T. L. (eds) Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beiträge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Ver- bandes für Altertumsforschung in Schleswig 2007 und auf dem Deutschen Archäologenkongress in Mannheim 2008. Bonn: Habelt, 13-46. Gori, M. 2015. The Long Journey of a Few Ugly Pots: Long Distance Cultural Interactions in the Southwestern Balkans at the End of the Early Bronze Age. In Suchowska-Ducke, P., Scott Reiter, S., Vandkilde, H. (eds) Forging Identities. The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe, Vol. 2, BAR International Series 2772. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 183-192. Heyd, V., Aydıngün, Ş., Güldoğan, E. 2016. Kanlıgeçit – Selimpaşa – Mikhalich and the Question of Anatolian Colonies in Early Bronze Age Southeast Europe. In Molloy, B.P.C. (ed.) Of Odysseys and Oddities. Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean so- cieties and their neighbours. Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 169-202. Horejs, B., Weninger, B. 2016. Early Troy and its significance for the Early Bronze Age in Western Anatolia. In Pernicka, E., Ünlüsoy, S., Blum, S.W.E. (eds) Early Bronze Age Troy. Chronology, Cultural Development, and Interregional Contacts. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Ha- belt, 123-145. Hristov, M. 2005. Early Bronze Age tumulus cemetery at Dabene, near Karlovo (prelimi- nary report). Arheologia 1-4, 127-137. Hristov, М. 2011. The Early Bronze Age Ritual Structures and Necropolis from Near the Village of Dubene, Karlovo Region. In Borgna, E., Müller Celka, C. (eds) Ancestral Land- scapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Adriatic, Aegean, 4th – 2nd millennium BC), TMO 61. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 353-364.

171 Nihan Naiboğlu

Huot, J.-L., Thalmann, J.-P., Valballe, D. 1990. Naissance des cites. Paris: Nathan. Ivanova, M. 2008a. Befestigte Siedlungen auf dem Balkan, in der Ägäis und in Westanatolien, ca. 5000 – 2000 v. Chr., Tübinger Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 8. Mün- ster: Waxmann. Ivanova, M. 2008b. It Is Not The Walls That Make The City: Settlement Defence in the 3rd Mill. B.C. Eastern Balkans. In Czebreszuk, J., Kadrow, S., Müller, J. (eds) Defensive Struc- tures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, SAO/SPEŚ 5. Poznań and Bonn: Wydawn. Poznańskie and Habelt, 29-37. Ivanova, M. 2013. Domestic architecture in the Early Bronze Age of western Anatolia: the row-houses of Troy I. Anatolian Studies 63, 17-33. Jablonka, P. 2001. Eine Stadtmauer aus Holz. Das Bollwerk der Unterstadt von Troia II. Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (ed.) Troia. Traum und Wirkli- chkeit. Stuttgart: Theiss, 391-394. Kapuran, A., Bulatović, A. 2012. Coţofeni-Kostolac Culture on the Territory of North-East- ern Serbia. CTAPИНАР LXII, 1-30. Karul, N. 2017. Aktopraklık. Tasarlanmış Prehistorik Bir Köy. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Keskin, L. 2011. Metalworking in the Western Anatolian Coastal Region in the 3rd Millen- nium BC. In Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopoulou, P. (eds) Across: The Cyclades and Western Ana- tolia during the 3rd Millennium BC. Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 144-153. Korfmann, M. 1983. Demircihüyük, Band I. Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Korfmann, M. 2001. Troia als Drehscheibe des Handels im 2. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahr- tausend – Erkenntnisse zur Trojanischen Hochkultur und zur Maritime Troja-Kultur. In Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (ed.), Troia. Traum und Wirkli- chkeit. Stuttgart: Theiss, 355-368. Koşay, H.Z. 1938. Alaca Höyük Hafriyatı. 1936’daki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor.An- kara. Koşay, H.Z. 1951. Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Kazısı. 1937– 1939’daki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor. Ankara Koşay, H.Z., Akok, M. 1950. Amasya Mahmatlar Köyü Definesi.Belleten 14, 481 – 485. Kouka, O. 2002. Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord- und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jt. v. Chr.), Internationale Archäologie, Band 58. Rahden–Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Lamb, W. 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lera, P., Touchais, G. 2002. Sovjan (Albanie). Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 126.2, 627- 645. Leshtakov, K. 1996. Trade centres from EBA III and MBA in Upper Thrace. Reports on Pre- historic Research Procets (RPRP) 2, 239-287. Maran, J. 2001. Der Depotfund von Petralona (Nordgriechenland) und der Symbolgehalt von Waffen in der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ägäis. Boehmer, R., Maran, J. (eds), Lux Orientis. Archäologie zwischen Asien und Eu- ropa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann. Rahden–Westfalen: Leidorf, 275-284. Maran, J. 2009. Architecture, Power and Social Practice – An Introduction. In Maran, J., Ju- wig, C., Schwengel, H., Thaler, U. (eds) Constructing Power. Architecture, Ideology and So-

172 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ...

cial Practice/Konstruktion der Macht. Architektur, Ideologie und soziales Handeln (Geschichte: Forschung und Wissenschaft 19), Hamburg: Lit, 9-14. Maran, J., Kostoula, M. 2014. The spider’s web: innovation and society in the Early Hel- ladic ‘Period of the Corridor Houses’. In Galanakis, Y., Wilkinson, T., Bennet, J. (eds) Αθυρματα. Critical Essays on the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 141-158 Mazanova, V. 1996. Die Struktur der Siedlungen im Siedlungshügel Junatsite während der Frühbronzezeit. Reports on Prehistoric Research Projects 1 (2), 187-200. Mumford, L. 1961. The City in History. Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. San Diego, New York, London: Harcourt. Nikolova, L. 2000. Analyzing the Bronze Age. Contributions to the Prehistoric Cultural Pattern in the Balkans. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 4. Sofia: Agatho Publishers. Nissen, H. J. 2003a. Frühe Stadtbildung im Alten Vorderen Orient. In Özdoğan, M., Haupt- mann, H., Başgelen, N. (eds) From Village to Cities. Studies Presented to UfukEsin. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 33-45. Nissen, H. J. 2003b. Uruk and the Formation of the City. In Aruz, J. (ed.) Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 11-20. Oates, J., McMahon, A., Karsgaard, P., Al Quntar, S., Ur, J. 2007. Early Mesopotamian ur- banism: a new view from the north. Antiquity 81 (313), 585-600. Özdoğan, M. 2006. Yakın Doğu Kentleri ve Batı Anadolu’da Kentleşme Süreci. Avunç, B. (ed.) Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan. Kültürlerin Yansıması / Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections. İstanbul: Homer, 571-577. Özdoğan, M., Parzinger, H. (eds) 2012. Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Kanlıgeçit bei Kırklareli. Ostthrakien während des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Spannungsfeld von anatolischer und balkanischer Kulturentwicklung. Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum 3. Darmstadt: von Zabern. Özdoğan, M., Parzinger, H., Eres, Z., Yılmaz, Ö. 2012. Cultural Sequence, Stratification and Architectural Remains. In Özdoğan, M., Parzinger, H. (eds) Die frühbronzezeitliche Sied- lung von Kanlıgeçit bei Kırklareli. Ostthrakien während des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Span- nungsfeld von anatolischer und balkanischer Kulturentwicklung. Studien im Thrakien-Marma- ra-Raum 3. Darmstadt: von Zabern, 19-52. Özgüç, T., Akok, M. 1958. Horoztepe. Eski Tunç Devri Mezarlığı ve İskân Yeri. An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Özgüç, T., Temizer, R. 1993. The Eskiyapar Treasure. In Mellink, M. J., Porada, E., Özgüç, T. (eds) Aspects of Art and Iconography. Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 613-628. Pinnock, F. 1994. Considerations on the ‘Banquet Theme’ in the figurative art of Mesopota- mia and Syria. In Milano, L. (ed.) Drinking in ancient societies. History and culture of drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a symposium held in Rome, May 17 – 19 1990. Padova: Sargon, 15-26. Prendi, F. 1966. La civilisation préhistorique de Maliq. Studia Albanica 1, 255-280. Rahmstorf, L. 2006. Zur Ausbreitung vorderasiatischer Innovationen in die frühbronzezeitli- che Ägäis. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 81, 49-96. Rahmstorf, L. 2008. The Bell Beaker Phenomenon and the interaction spheres of the Early Bronze Age East Mediterranean: similarities and differences. In Lehoërff, A. (ed.) Con-

173 Nihan Naiboğlu

struire le temps. Histoire et méthodes des chronologies et calendriers des derniers millénaires avant notre ère en Europe occidentale. Actes du XXXe colloque international de Halma-Ipel, UMR 8164 (CNRS, Lille 3, MCC), 7-9 décembre 2006, Lille. Collection Bibracte 16. Glux- en-Glenne: Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte Centre ar- chéologique européen, 149-170. Reinholdt, C. 2008. Der frühbronzezeitliche Schmuckhortfund von Kap Kolonna. Ägina und die Ägäis im Goldzeitalter des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Mil- lennium B.C. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd. Renfrew, C., Gimbutas, M., Elster, E. S. 1986. Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Villagein Northeast Greece, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Şahoğlu, V. 2005. The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir Region during the Early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24 (4), 339-361. Şahoğlu, V. 2008. Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe: New Evidence for the Relations between the Izmir Region, the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland during the Late Fourth and Third Millennia BC. In Erkanal, H., Hauptmann, H., Şahoğlu, V., Tuncel, R. (eds) The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. October 13th – 19th 1997, Urla – İzmir (Turkey). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 483-501. Şahoğlu, V. 2011. Trade and Interconnections between Anatolia and the Cyclades during the 3rd Millennium BC. In Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopoulou, P. (eds) Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 172-177. Şahoğlu, V. 2014. The depas and Tankard Vessels. In Lebeau, M. (ed.) ARCANE Interre- gional Vol. I. Ceramics. Turnhout: Brepols, 289-311. Sazcı, G. 2016. The Metal Finds of the 3rd Millennium in Troy and their Counterparts in the Early Bronze Age World. In Pernicka, E., Ünlüsoy, S., Blum, S.W.E. (eds) Early Bronze Age Troy. Chronology, Cultural Development, and Interregional Contacts. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Tübingen, May 8 – 10, 2009. Bonn: Habelt, 183-195. Sazcı, G., Treister, M. 2006. Troias Gold – Die Schätze des dritten Jahrtausends vor Christus. In M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 209-218. Schoop, U. D. 2014. Weaving Society in Late Chalcolithic Anatolia: Textile Production and Social Strategies in the 4th Millennium BC. In Horejs, B., Mehofer, M. (eds) Western Ana- tolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? Proceedings of the Internation- al Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21-24 November 2012. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 421-446. Sherratt, A. 1997a. Troy, Maikop, Altyn Depe: Early Bronze Age Urbanism and its Periph- ery. In Sherratt, A. (ed.) Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives. New Jersey and Edinburgh: Princeton University Press and Edinburgh University Press, 457-470. Sherratt, A. 1997b. Cups that Cheered: The Introduction of Alcohol to Prehistoric Europe (1987). In Sherratt, A. (ed.) Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspec- tives. New Jersey and Edinburgh: Princeton University Press and Edinburgh University Press, 376-402. Sitterding, M. 1962.Fragen zur Entstehung der Stadtkulturen in West-Asien und Südost-Europa. Berlin: de Gruyter.

174 Comparing different models of complex settlements in Western Anatolia and Southeast Europe ...

Spanos, P. Z. 1972. Untersuchung über den bei Homer ‘depas amphikypellon’ genannten Gefäßty- pus, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft 6. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Stampolidis, N. Chr., Sotirakopoulou, P. 2011a. Early Cycladic Metallurgy. In Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopoulou, P. (eds) Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millen- nium BC. Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 52-57. Stampolidis, N. Chr., Sotirakopoulou, P. 2011b. Early Cycladic Architecture. In Şahoğlu, V., Sotirakopoulou, P. (eds) Across. The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millen- nium BC. Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp Sabancı Müzesi, 32-40. Stefanova, M. 2003. Early Bronze Age fortification systems in Upper Thrace. Thracia 15. In honorem annorum LXX Alexander Fol. Sofia: Institute of Thracology. Stefanova, M. 2004. Fortified settlement Mihalich. Monumental construction and- natu ral landscape (archaeological investigations in 2002), Γοдишник на Нов Български Университет, Департамент Археология 6, 175 – 180. Trigger, B. G. 1990. Monumental architecture: a thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behaviour. In Thomas, T. (ed.) World Archaeology 22.1 June 1990, 119-132. Tsintsov, Z., Hristov, M., Karatsanova, V., Tsaneva, S. 2009. Preliminary Reports from the Study of Early Bronze Age Golden Artefacts from Ritual Structures by the Village of Dubene, Karlovo District, South Bulgaria. Archaeologia Bulgarica XIII.3, 7-21. Umurtak, G. 2009. A Study of three numerical (!) Tablets and a Stamp Seal from the Early Bronze Age Settlement at Bademağacı Höyük.ADALYA XII, 1-10. Umurtak, G. 2010. Questions Arising from a Bulla Found in the EBA II Settlement at Bademağacı. ADALYA XIII, 19-27. Ünlüsoy, S. 2006. Vom Reihenhaus zum Megaron. Troia I bis Troia III. In Korfmann, M. (ed.) Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz: von Zabern, 133-144. Yener, K. A. 2000. The Domestication of Metals. The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 4. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill.

Сравняване на различни модели на сложни селища в Западна Анатолия и Югоизточна Европа през III хил. пр. Хр.: проблемът на урбанизацията

Нихан Найболу (резюме)

Третото хилядолетие пр.Хр. е било време на широкообхватни взаимодействия в обширната област от Централна Азия до югоизточната част на Европа. Всички ре- гиони по миграционните пътища изглежда са развили уникална форма на социална сложност, следствие от интензивния културен обмен през този период. Редовни тър- говски пътища достигат до Западна Анатолия, Егейските острови и Източна Тракия на запад, където се наблюдава напредък на урбанизацията. Моделите на заселване и начинът на живот в Западните Балкани, обаче, остават напълно незасегнати от про- цесите в егейско-анатолийския регион. Целта на тази статия е да се дефинира про-

175 Nihan Naiboğlu

цесът на урбанизация на Западна Анатолия и Егейските острови, и да се проследи въздействието му в западна посока. На изток Месопотамия, Египет и Харапската цивилизация бележат висока сте- пен на урбанизация през III хил. пр.Хр. В конкуриращите се градове на Месопотамия и Сирия вносът на екзотичните материали и суровини става съществени елемент на новоопределената идентичност на елита. По време на този процес Западна Анатолия и Егейските острови заемат място и роля в миграционните пътища, което предизвик- ва и социален напредък, изразяващ се в социална диференциация и обособяването на висша прослойка/елит през втората половина на III хил. пр.Хр. Макар и много по-опростен от месопотамските, новосъздаденият селищен мо- дел на Западна Анатолия и Егейските острови е доста комплексен и определено се различава от предходния период. Нововъведенията от III хил. пр. Хр., които предпо- лагат процес на урбанизация в тези региони, са както следва: 1) крепостна стена (от- бранителна стена, кула, порта, вал, ров); 2) социална диференциация (монументална архитектура, цитадела и външен град, монополизирано богатство, контрол над сто- ките и централизирани складове, печати, специализация на занаятите); 3) търговия на дълги разстояния (вносни стоки, общи мерни единици); 4) постоянен поминък; 5) открити пространства и улици; и 6) инфраструктура. Ефектите от изградената търговска мрежа отслабват в северозападна посока и напълно изчезват западно от Тракийската низина. Градските черти от егейско-ана- толийски тип достигат до Източна Тракия през втората половина на III хил. пр. Хр., докато в Западна Тракия иновациите се ограничават до вносни стоки от анатолийски и егейски произход, както и до местните им имитации. Западните Балкани, от друга страна, са извън обсега на миграционните пътища и следователно остават отдалечени от егейско-анатолийския процес на урбанизация. През III хил. пр.Хр. Западните Балкани са имали различни културни зони. Интерес- ното е, че единствените културни елементи, които се разпространяват в целия регион, са чаши с форма на халби и чаши с две дръжки, както и метални брадви с втулки. Модата се появява едновременно с егейско-анатолийските depa amphikypella и брон- зовите кинжали, които биха могли да сочат към общ културен произход, а именно маниери на пиене и метални оръжия за създаване на имидж на елит. Следователно широкообхватните взаимодействия през III хил. предизвикват междурегионален со- циален възход, водещ до урбанизация в егейско-анатолийския регион, но който има отслабващ ефект в северозападна посока и се свежда до абстрактния имидж на елита.

176