Reforging Connections: the Black Sea Coast of Anatolia in the 4Th3rd Millennia Bc

Anatolica XLIII, 2017 REFORGING CONNECTIONS: THE BLACK SEA COAST OF ANATOLIA IN THE 4TH3RD MILLENNIA BC Lynn Welton* Abstract The Black Sea coastal region remains one of the most poorly understood areas of Anatolia. Chronological controversies surrounding the best-excavated site of İkiztepe have resulted in difficulties in interpreting the site’s cultural sequence with regard to its place within the larger Anatolian world. While the earlier part of the sequence at this site, located on Mound II (spanning primarily the late 6th-5th millennia BC), has been widely discussed in terms of its chronology, the Mound I sequence has not received the same attention. This article thus aims to create a chronological framework for the Late Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age periods in this area of northern Anatolia, by examining the 4th-3rd millennium sequence excavated on Mound I at the site of İkiztepe. Introduction: The Issue of Chronology in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Anatolia The study of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in Anatolia has been impacted by a number of long-standing chronological issues that have only recently been recognized and acknowledged. These problems originate from the chronological frameworks that have been employed for interpreting Anatolian sites for more than half a century. Due to the fact that in the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I periods, parallels with the Southeast Anatolian, Levantine and Mesopotamian assemblages were difficult to identify (particularly Uruk-related material, until the excavation of Tepecik), the archaeological material cultures of Anatolia during these periods were difficult to pin down chronologically. Özdoğan, who has published a number of commentaries on this subject (1991, 1996, 1997; Özdoğan et al. 1991), suggests that archaeologists working in Anatolia were skeptical about the existence of early archaeological material there, and “it was almost taken for granted that the region was uninhabited during the Neolithic period” (Özdoğan 1991: 218). Alişar Höyük, for example, provided a 20m-deep sequence of pre-Middle Bronze Age material, but it was assumed that the earliest material in this sequence was Late Chalcolithic (von der Osten 1937: 30; Özdoğan 1991: 218; Özdoğan et al. 1991: 63). This was pushed even later by Orthmann (1963a), who produced a key compre- hensive study of early Central Anatolia, and who considered the earliest levels at Alişar Höyük to be EBAI (Orthmann 1963a: 16, 98). Özdoğan notes: “a vague comparison with Kültepe was made and also basal Alişar black burnished pottery was considered to be analogous to East Anatolian Karaz-Khirbet Kerak wares” (1991: 218). These parallels are now recognized to have been erroneous (Özdoğan 1991: 220). * Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. 118 Lynn Welton Indeed, von der Osten’s reconstruction of Alişar’s chronology has had a lasting impact on the understanding of this time period. His framework, and later Orthmann’s, provided the chronological foundation upon which studies of Early Bronze Age Central Anatolia were based for many years. The ultimate effect of this framework was that the long-standing cultural development visible within Chalcolithic Anatolia remained unrecognized, and the existence of assemblages dating prior to the Early Bronze Age was not widely accepted (Özdoğan 1996: 188). However, Schoop (2005a) has pointed out that the reasons for this problem are multiple, and are also related to von der Osten’s fundamental assumptions that each stratum at Alişar must represent a distinct cultural block with little internal variation or development, and that the site’s sequence must be fundamentally continuous, without interruption. These assumptions led him to reconstruct Alişar’s chronology by counting the site’s “cultural complexes” backward from known synchronisms with Mesopotamia dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2005a: 66- 67). This methodology led to the compression of a long sequence of development at Alişar, an issue that has only been recognized relatively recently. These arguments are also closely related to the ways in which Anatolian archaeological materials have been related to their counterparts in Southeastern Europe. While parallels between Anatolian assemblages and those of Southeastern Europe had long been noted (i.e. Fewkes 1936), new chronological understandings of the Southeastern European assemblages pushed their dates much earlier. As a result, the parallels noted with Anatolian material were now considered void, as the Anatolian chronology had not undergone a significant shift to- ward earlier dates (Özdoğan 1991: 218). This created what Renfrew termed the “chronological fault line” between Europe and Anatolia (1979: 103-106). Özdoğan notes that this resulted in most material from phases earlier than the earliest Alişar levels simply being considered as Late Chalcolithic (1991: 219). This included İkiztepe, whose “Late Chalcolithic” remains Özdoğan notes as being “almost identical” to the Veselinovo (Karanovo III) remains from the Balkans (1991: 219), but was dated much later. As a result, the early occupational sequence in Central and Northern Anatolia required reconsideration. The identification and study of a “Chalcolithic” period in Anatolia is therefore relatively young, and recent reconsiderations of this period have revolutionized our understanding of this period through a series of syntheses aimed at creating robust relative chronologies (particularly Schoop 2005a; but see also Düring 2011; Horejs & Mehofer 2014). The Early Bronze Age, in contrast, despite often being described as relatively well-studied, has been the focus of comparatively little work in terms of synthetic work, particularly in terms of chronology. Although a general chronological terminology is generally agreed upon (a tripartite division into EBI, EBII and EBIII, with EBIII often subdivided into EBIIIa and EBIIIb and sometimes EBIIIc), the exact placement of a number of key sequences and the relative relationships of regional sequences to each other remain contentious.1 Within this broader context, assemblages from the region of northern Anatolia in particular have been difficult to place chronologically. In particular, the Black Sea coast of 1 Note, however, that the aim of the ARCANE project is to resolve these issues for the third millennium BC, by correlating regional sequences to form robust relative chronologies anchored with absolute dates (http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/welcome.html). Anatolica XLIII, 2017 119 Anatolia, as one of the most archaeologically under-explored areas of the country, has tended to be left out of major synthetic discussions. The reasons for this are numerous, due to lack of exploration and publication, a variety of chronological controversies, and the idiosyncratic and sometimes divergent cultural trajectories of this region. This contribution will therefore focus on reconstructing the chronology of the Black Sea coastal region of Anatolia during the 4th-3rd millennia BC, particularly focusing on the best-excavated site of İkiztepe. History of Archaeological Work along the Anatolian Black Sea Coast Archaeological work in the Black Sea region of Anatolia has been limited. The earliest survey conducted in this region dates to the early 1940s, with contemporary excavations at the sites of Dündartepe (Öksürüktepe), Tekeköy and Kavak (Kaledoruğu) (Kökten et al. 1945; Özgüç 1948a, b). The excavations at these sites provided the first excavated archaeological evidence for northern Anatolia. In the 1950s, survey of northern Anatolia was conducted by Charles Burney (1956), and small-scale excavations were conducted in the Sinop region at the site of Kocagöz Höyük (Akurgal 1956; Akurgal & Budde 1956; Erzen 1956). Following these excavations, however, northern Anatolia was largely ignored in further archaeological research for more than a decade. In the early 1970s, survey was conducted in the province of Samsun, and in 1974 excavations at the site of İkiztepe first began under the direction of U.B. Alkım. Since his death in 1980, excavations at the site have been continued by Ö. Bilgi and concluded in 2012 (Alkım et al. 1988). More recently, work in the coastal region has primarily taken the form of surveys, including work in the Sinop (Işın 1998; Doonan 2004), Cide (Düring & Glatz 2010) and Devrek (Karauğuz 2005, 2006; Karauğuz & Düring 2009) regions. Excava- tions also occurred at the site of Yassıkaya, on the southwestern coast of the Black Sea (Efe & Mercan 2002; Efe 2004). Excavations at Dündartepe, Tekeköy and Kavak The site of Dündartepe (also known as Öksürüktepe) is located about 3km southeast of the modern city of Samsun, on the alluvial plain of the Yeşilirmak River. This site, along with Tekeköy and Kavak, was excavated in 1940-1941 by K. Kökten, and N. and T. Özgüç, but excavations were interrupted by the Second World War and never resumed. When excavations began, the site had already been heavily disturbed by the construction of a railway (Özgüç 1948a: 396). The areas of damage at the site guided the selection of excavation areas, and four trenches were opened in separate locations around the site. These included an area on the sum- mit of the mound (Area B), an undisturbed area on the slope of the mound, an area disturbed by the construction of a railway (known as Area A), and an area located on the slope of the mound facing the modern road (Özgüç 1948a: 397). The material excavated from these four trenches was divided by the excavators into three periods (known as Dündartepe I, II and III), and was dated to the Chalcolithic (or Eneolithic), Copper Age and Hittite Periods respectively (Kökten et al. 1945: 367; Özgüç 1948a: 397). These levels, however, were found in different areas of the site, and were never linked together stratigraphically. Furthermore, in none of the excavation areas was virgin soil ever reached. 120 Lynn Welton Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text. 1. Ovcharovo; 2. Durankulak; 3. Cernovoda; 4. Veselinovo; 5. Nova Zagora; 6. Stara Zagora; 7. Kokkinochoma/Proskinites; 8. Poliochni; 9. Kumtepe; 10. Beşiktepe; 11. Gülpinar; 12. Hacilar; 13. Kuruçay; 14. Yazır Höyük; 15.

Load more