TÜBA-AR I (1998)

Anatolia and the Bridge From East to West in the Early

İlk Tunç Çağında Anadolu ve Doğu 'dan Batıya Köprü

Machteld J. MELLINK*

Keywords: , Aegeah, Cyclades, Early Bronze Age, Mesopotamia, Pushkin, Schllemann, Syria, , I' ' Anahtar Sözcükler: Anadolu, Ege, Klklad'lar, ilk Tunç Çağı, Mezopotamya, Puşkln, Schllemann, Suriye, Troya, Tarsus ^

Tarih öncesi Ege'de, doğu-batı bağlantıları hakkındaki yeni tartışmalar Batı Anadolu'nun Lefkandi'deki Kiklad yerleşmeleri ve kara Yunanistan'ın kıyılarındaki yerleşmelerle olan ilişkilerinin belirtilerini kapsamaktadır. Uzun kazı rekoru ile Troya ana başvuru kaynağıdır. -Urla-'deki yeni çalışmalar önemli yeni verilerle bu bağlantılara katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Ege ilişkileri ayrıntılı olarak incelendiği zaman, Batı Anadolu kıyılarının, Orta, Doğu Anadolu ve Kuzey Suriye ile olan bağlantıları, belirtiler olmasına rağmen, daha az belgelenmiştir. Troya'daki A hazinesinde ele geçen altın takıların Alaca yakınındaki Eskiyapar yerleşmesinde bulunanlarla yakın ilişkileri vardır. Arkeo-metallurji uzmanları bakırın, kalayın ve değerli madenlerin kaynaklarını ve yayılımını incelemektedirler. A hazinesindeki içki kapları Tarsus ve Eskiyapar üzerinden geçiş yaparak Amuq J tabakasında görülen Kuzey Suriye gelenekleriyle bağlantı kuran altın ve gümüş kupalar şeklindedir. Troya H'nin sonuna ait kupa, Anadolu'nun İlk Tunç Çağının daha erken ve verimli bir evresine has olan depasin yerini alır. Troya, Afrodisias,ve Tarsus'da ele geçen, depas, maşrapa, çark yapımı kaseler ve geniş kırmızı açkılı tabaklar, ilk çanak-çömlek örneklerinin alışılmamış temsilcileridir. Bu repertuar Elmalı-Burdur bölgesine ve Eskişehir'in güney-doğusu'ndaki Küllüoba yerleşmesine kadar yayılır, fakat Zircirli'nin kuzey-doğu'sundaki Gedikli'de kesin olarak ortaya çıkar, ilk Tunç IIIyerleşmelerinin Kuzey Suriye ve kuzey Mezopotamya ile olan ilişkileri, kara ve deniz yoluyla Toros Dağlarından yapılan gümüş ticaretiyle bağlantılı Tarsus gibi şehirler üzerinden yapılıyordu. Troya'yı, Tarsus kadar uzaktaki yerleşmelerle eşleştirmek için yapılan yeni yaklaşımlar henüz kesinlik kazanmamıştır. Birçok İlk Tunç TU yerleşmeleri bu yeni gelişmelere katılmamaktadır ve Orta Anadolu (Kültepe, Alaca), bazı bağlantılar göstermekle birlikte, farklı kalmaktadır.

*Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 ,- 3899/U.S.A. 2 MELLINK

As the recent international symposium We can draw up a list of archaeological on the Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcoli- characteristics of Troy II (and, less suc­ thic and Early Bronze Age (in Urla, Octo­ cessfully, of Troy IITV) and use it as a test ber 18-19, 1997) showed, Early Bronze chart for the measuring of East-West Ae­ Age interconnections between the Anato­ gean contacts. Along with the Western li­ lian West coast and the Aegean islands, aisons we have to probe not only the Ana­ especially the Cyclades as well as sites on tolian contemporaries of Troy along the the East coasts of the Greek mainland, Aegean coast, but also inland sites and are beginning to be evident enough to be those along the Pontic and Mediterrane­ analyzed and made part of the study of an shores. Ultimately, the question of so­ the economic and cultural development me form of contact with the early histori­ of early settlements in the Aegean area. cal sites of Northern Syria and Mesopota­ mia has also to be considered, especially Much survey and excavation has been ac­ because it might yield clues to absolute complished on the Greek of the Aege­ chronology and economic-technological an, and progress reports at Urla presented motivation of approaches in Eastern and the current projects. On the Anatolian side, Western direction. new excavations, especially the İzmir Regi­ on Excavations and Research Project un­ It has became clear that navigation is der the direction of Hayat Erkanal, are yiel­ a major factor in the development of the ding ample new data to refine the under­ site of Troy and that exploitation of con­ standing of West-East Aegean relations in tacts that could yield direct access to the Early Bronze Age. The new results at Li- copper as well as precious metals would mantepe - Klazomenai and Baklatepe are, be pursued. One of the most active from the Anatolian point of view, a much branches of research in Trojan resour­ needed counterpart to the evidence which ces is the analysis of the tin bronze has been accumulating in the Troad from which became available in the early sta­ the days of Schliemann and Blegen to the ges of Troy II, as well as the provenance present area of Korfmann's excavations. of the silver and gold used for the manu­ facture of Priam's treasure. Lively explo­ Much of the previous speculation on ration and discussion are conducted by Aegean interaction was indeed focused Turkish, British, German and U.S. archaeo- on Troy. The Homeric fame of Troy kept metallurgists h). the site in the center of attention even if Schliemann started out with the wrong The archaeological and artistic appro­ chronology, treating Troy II material as ach to the study of the precious metal ar­ belonging to Priam's era, but giving it tifacts from Troy leads East into Anatolia publicity before other Early Bronze Age as well as West to Poliochni on Lemnos. treasures and their context were known. The Eskiyapar treasure, found in the fi­ At the present state of Aegean-Anatolian nal Early Bronze III level of a large mo­ research, Troy II remains a major example und 6 km West of the modern town of of architectural organization, strategic co­ Alaca, has close affinities to Troy in the astal vigilance, social hierarchy, developed shape of basket earrings (although less metallurgy, ample use of bronze and preci­ refined than those of Treasure A, 'Pri­ ous metal, production of metal and clay am's'), beads and a gold torque!2). Multip­ vessels for special drinking (and libation?) le references to the jewelry idiom repre­ rituals, and the maintenance of contacts sented at Troy are unmistakable and help for trade and exchange on a major geo­ to reveal interconnections of Troy with graphical scale, along with supply routes the area that was to become the Hittite in the fertile orbit of the Troad's villages. coreland. Anatolia and the Bridge from East to West 3

Much discussed, among the collection would be offered to a fellow drinker. The of Troy Treasure A, is the omphalos pan Troy II sauceboat was converted to serve Schmidt Nos. 5817 and 5822, reunited on as adepas by a craftsman who know Early paper by K. Bittel in 1959 as he published Helladic originals but worked in his own a series of similar pans which had turned style and milieu. up in a shop in Çanakkale!3). The Troy pan is now in the Pushkin Museum in Mos• It is chronologically significant that the• cow, the handle in the Hermitage in St. Pe• re is no depas in Treasure A. The closest tersburg. relative is the silver two-handled tankard Schmidt 5873 which held the jewelry. Sa- Eskiyapar yielded a small silver pan of uceboats in Greece are known from their this type!4) and later examples of such clay versions, which were in wide use in pans are known from two Old Assyrian Early Helladic II and must amply repre• tombs in Assur and from an Old Babyloni• sented in Lerna III. No gold or silver sa• an tomb in the Hamrin area!5). This type of uceboat has been found in regular excava• pan was therefore known beyond the Tig• tions, although the gold specimen from ris in the early second millenium B.C., but Arcadia is probably authentic!7). Sherds of its Trojan context is earliest and strongest. clay sauceboats were identified at Troy by The Troy pan is also the largest of the Blegen's team in late Troy I context!8). The known series, and rather unwieldy, as the sauceboat-depas hybrid Schmidt 5863 co• break of the handle demostrates. The pur• uld have been made in Troy when the sa• pose of such pans is not yet agreed upon. uceboat was still familiar and the depas The association of the Troy II pan with pre• had been introduced early in Troy II. cious metal vessels suggests that it had a function in the context of privileged drin• The regular drinking vessels in Treasu• king ceremonies, possibly to provide some re A gold or silver handleless goblets hol• kind of snack that needed to be roasted. ding small individual servings, Schmidt Whatever other guesses may be made, the 5864-67, Pushkin 6-8. The gold cups, 7-8 cm difference in size and elegance between high, have vertical or slanting ribbing as the Troy and Eskiyapar specimens has to decoration; the silver cups are plain, as be accounted for. A small silver pan of Es• are two similar cups from Eskiyapar kiyapar type was listed by Schliemann as which have a more curvaceous profile!9). once belonging to Treasure J(6). The group In this category of luxury drinking vessels of looted pans from Çanakkale has lost all Treasure A betrays affinity to the new gob• context, but their multiplicity suggests eit• let fashions of the North Syrian and adjo• her a workshop or a residue of communal ining territories, evident in Amuq phase J celebration. and at Tarsus by the end of the Early Bron• ze Age!10). The precious metal vessels from Treasu• re A are the best demonstration of Aegean The group of vessels in Troy Treasure A and Anatolian interconnections, the most also betrays affinity to North Syrian types eloquent is the gold hybrid sauceboat in Schmidt 5862, Pushkin 4, the globular Schmidt 5863, Pushkin 5, which is a Tro• gold bottle which must have served as a jan variant provided with double spouts container of special liquids, as did the and handles. The handles are typical de- many clay "Syrian bottles" that gradually pas or tankard handles, symmetrical and made their way into Anatolia. Troy 5862 is providing ample space for a grip from eit• ample in size and earlier in the comparati• her side. This turns the Early Helladic sa• ve ceramic sequence. The Eskiyapar ho• uceboat into a drinking vessel to be sha• ard had a silver Syrian bottle of slender red by partners, like the depas which co• type, grooved horizontally on the upper uld not be put down safely on its base but body!11). In any case, Treasure A has a 4 MELLINK

chronological range from early to late und in Troy (Schmidt 6446)!16). Traveling Troy II, which would be a normal pheno­ craftsmen might have spread some types menon in a collection of jewelry and tre­ of jewelry and trinkets fromMesopotamia asured belongings of an established we­ to Anatolia and have left objects of strong althy center. The later features of the tre­ Mesopotamian affinity as far away as Troy. asure point to contact with the North Syri­ an and Cilician cultural zones,which in The link with Mesopotamia and Syria, turn have ceramic comparanda in the incomplete though the material evidence North Mesopotamian and Khabur area, is at present, presents itself as a remote with a good globular 'metallic'flask from privilege of Troy not shared by its Early Tell Chuera as a comparandum for Troy Cycladic or Early Helladic neighbors. Poli- 5862C12). The occasional depas which made ochni has some traits in common with the its way to the Amuq in phase J or to sites metal trinket link referred to. Among the like Tell Bi'a, Selenkahiye and Titri§!13) in jewelry from the yellow period is a lead li­ the Euphrates area belongs in a minor cu­ on pendant which has parallels on the rio exchange category accompanying the early trinket moulds. trade contacts with Cilicia. In any case, the depas does not make a success in Syria as Poliochni is one of the closest relatives an exotic favorite in the manner of the of Troy, although it is not architecturally 'Syrian bottle' in Anatolia, but this may be organized in the Troy fashion and may ha­ a matter of contents (perfumed oil?) in the ve maintained a different social structure latter instance. of its own with local roots in its early peri­ ods. The same applies to the basic materi­ Nevertheless, the sparse eastern diffusi­ al inventory of the Poliochni houses. The on of the depas can aid the archaeologist imprint is local, with gradual signals of in tracing chronological links. The story Anatolian interaction: one-handled tan­ might be more informative if we knew of kards and depas appear in the red and yel­ foreign travels of precious metal vessels low periods, along with tin bronze. Thermi as a result of diplomatic alliances or warli­ on Lesbos is not participating in the Troy ke expeditions. A relevant instance may II evolutionary pattern, and dwindles befo­ be seen on the Akkadian stela from Nasiri- re the liveliest Aegean-Anatolian interacti­ ya, if indeed booty shown brought in after on develops. an Akkadian victory includes a metal two- handled vessel of depas type!14). In Anatolia itself, the interaction of Troy with other prominent Early Bronze Age si­ Mesopotamian connections of the gold tes is unevenly known and in no case con­ jewelry types represented at Troy have be­ vincingly close. The most likely partners en suggested for some of the earrings are coastal stations with good hinterland, from treasure A, compared with a gold including sites across the Hellespont: the basket-earring from Ur by R. Maxwell- Protesilaos mound and the unexcavated Hyslop!15), who also considers some tech­ mound at Eceabat opposite Çanakkale. As nical details of Trojan jewelry as of Meso­ Mehmet Özdoğan discovered through his potamian origin. extensive surveys of , Troy II sites are otherwise rare on the European side of The possibility of technical links in the the Dardanelles and the sea of . manufacture of precious jewelry has also been raised by J.V. Canby, who pointed out Early Bronze Age sites in Northwest that Early Bronze Age moulds for the cas­ Anatolia are unevenly known after the lo­ ting of metal trinkets had an Anatolian oting of the so-called Yortan cemeteries, link, with parallels for the earrings of Troy the ceramic harvest of which shows a ste­ and figurines of nude women of the type fo­ ady tradition of Early Bronze HI pithoi Anatolia and the Bridge from East to West 5

and handmade bowls, jars, pitchers, of building techniques, local metallurgy consistent types. A few hints of Troy II in­ both untilitarian (tin bronze) and luxuary cipience appear just before the relevant purposes (gold, silver); storage of supplies cemeteries cease to grow!18). and wealth: ceramic fashions: wheelmade bowls, large red polished platters, depa, Better evidence comes from the inland tankards, gradually all wheelmade; occasi­ area of Demircihüyük where M. Korf- onal appearance of Syro-Mesopotamian mann's excavations of the habitation site traits (e.g. lead figurines, use of decorative have revealed a fortified circular compo­ seal impressions on pottery), und with adjoined rectangular houses, a rather cooperative dwelling system,pre­ Not all of these traits are likely to appe­ serve d principally in the Early Bronze 1,11 ar in any one comparable excavated site in levels, again with local traits in the hand­ Anatolia, but a partial overlap of evidence made ceramic repertoirs overlapping with will also be meaningful. None of the coas­ Troy I!19). The excavations of the cemetery tal sites south of the Troad qualifies at pre­ at Sariket by Jurgen Seeher!20) has provi­ sent. Bayrakh-Old has a promi­ ded evidence that the habitation site conti­ nent location and evidence of Early Bron­ nued in the transitional Early Bronze II.Ill ze occupation, but remains unexcavated. period, but went into a hiatus during the Limantepe now takes its prominent place Troy II phase and until Middle Bronze. as a harbor site with an Early Bronze Age The cemetery near Bozüyük also ceased to fortress of Troy HI date, impressive with be used at the end of Early Bronze II!21). its curved stone-fitted bastion, presumed dimensions and stratified habitation le­ The Troy II hiatus is a common pheno­ vels in the fortress with fragments of early, menon to many sites in the Troad, in the sharply profiled sauceboats and an occasi­ Demircihüyük zone, and to Thermi. It is onal example of a Troy II type depas!23). important to supplement our knowledge The exact stratification of the Helladic and with evidence of surviving sites. Turan Efe Anatolian-Trojan ceramics awaits detailed has recently begun surveys in the Eskişe­ publication, but the connection with Early hir - Kütahya area which yielded Early Helladic sauceboats seems better repre­ Bronze III material from Bahçehisar and sented so far than the depas link. The other sites. His new excavations at Küllü- study of a long narrow architectural space oba yielded Troy II type pottery in abun­ as an example of a corridor-house is also dance!22). This discovery is very helpful in in progress. The importance of the reconstructing the network of sites that strongly fortified harbor site in Early may have been active centers of trade and Bronze II and III seems established thro­ contact in the Early Bronze III period. ugh its size and denaely stratified large bu­ ildings. Limantepe will contribute basic The lack of evidence for the crucial Troy evidence to the question of Anatolian II phase in the majority of known mounds links with the Aegean world through the in Northwestern Anatolia (including the Bronze Age. Troad) is not just due to lack of explorati­ on but to a change in settlement, economy The signals from the early levels below and safety in the relevant period. If we lo­ the Heraion on include the one- ok for convincing evidence of Anatolian si­ handled tankard and the bell-shaped two- tes coexisting with the most prosperous handled bowl, the early depas, wheelmade phase of Troy II, we have few stations to buff plates, goblets of early and later list. The points of comparison are: fortifi­ type!24). At lassos on the Carian coast our cation and internal architectural organiza­ Early Bronze evidence is still restricted to tion of a site with evidence of a ruler's sta­ the cemetery. Early Cycladic affinities are tion and auxiliary buildings, developed prominent!25). 6 MELLINK

If we move inland in Caria, the acropolis ugh the Cilician Gates. Navigation reached mound of presents the first the site via the Cydnus river with an inland rich corpus of parallels for the Troy II harbor south of the town. The Early Bronze complex. Probed in several trenches, a III connections of Tarsus could have been burnt level with rectangular houses reve­ maintained overseas with East and West as aled an inventory of typical Troy II pottery well as by the land routes that had long ser­ (depas, tankard, red platters, wheelmade ved the trade needs of the Cilician center. bowls) with stacks of plates and bowls col­ lapsed on their burnt shelves!26). Mersin, less thoroughly explored by ex­ cavation for the third millenium B.C., has The next urban context with Troy II fea­ traces of similar Early Bronze III pottery tures, as we explore the coastal zone east­ and other Cilician sites may also contain ward, is Tarsus, well known for its Early good levels of this period. Bronze III phase of new houses rebuilt after a destruction with conflagration. The cera­ The most surprising extensions of the mic list of Troy II types is complete and Early Bronze III traits to the East of Cilicia starts with some early predecessors not fa­ were found in Bahadır Alkım's excavations miliar at Troy, especially the two-handled at Gedikli Höyük in the İslahiye district bell shaped bowl and the tankard with a along the road East from the Ceyhan river- single handle put on the lower body. The crossing to Gaziantep.On the East side of development of the depas continues from the mound, Early Bronze III cremation bu­ the early tall type to flaring vessels with a rials ware found in the necropolis!28). flat or profiled base, ultimately reconciled Along with the cinerary urns, pottery gifts with the North Syrian goblet tradition in appeared in the shape of depa, goblets, tan­ wheelmade versions and leading to new kards and Syrian bottles. Enough of these hybrids in the Syrian goblet shape provi­ are locally made to explain that Anatolian ded with a single handle of depas type. As fashions had been adopted. Gedikli hither­ at Troy and Aphrodisias, wheelmade bowls to remains the easternmost Early Bronze and red polished platters are amply repre­ site to have made the 'depas' tradition its sented, and the favorite finish for depa, ca- own, thoroughly enough to feel the need to rinated bowls and pitchers is a red polished provide the dead with this drinking gear slip. At the end of the Early Bronze III peri­ (or to require it at the funerary rites). od the simple handleless goblet has made itself popular. Although the beginning of The strong sites for comparanda to the the 'Troy II phase' is sudden and follows a Troy II phenomena are therefore Aprodisi- destruction of the houses in the main exca­ as, Tarsus, and Gedikli, which adds a ques­ vated trench, the end of the ceramic fashi­ tion of its own about the introduction of on is gradual and merges with the Syro-Ci- cremation burials in the later stages of the lician Middle Bronze repertoire. Early Bronze Age. These three sites make their own pottery in the new fashion in The fortifications of the excavated part of great quantities (at Gedikli a small explo­ Tarsus Early Bronze III were cut away in la­ ratory trench yielded 30 depa). At Tarsus, ter remodeling of the slopes. If we look for Early Bronze III botroi were filled to the signs of wealth in the houses, no treasures rim with broken red polished platters, de­ were left behind except for a small jar in ro­ pa, tankards and buff wheelmade bowls. om 74 with faience beads, bronze pins and At Aphrodisias the new style platters and earrings and a small piece of iron. Nearby bowls stood in piles on the shelves in lay some haematite weights!27). Early Bronze III houses.

The links of Tarsus were the land routes in Smallers signals of similar develop­ the Cilician plain East-West and North thro­ ments are found elsewhere in the coastal Anatolia and the Bridge from East to West 7

zone. Karata^-Semayuk in Northern Lycia the Old Assyrian trade and the rise of lite­ had its own production of red polished racy in trading centers. tankards, still handmade in late Early Bronze II, wheelmade in the Early Bronze In the Old Assyrian period glyptic usage III phase and best represented as burial and production will flourish in central gifts. The Early Bronze III phase of Kara¬ Anatolia, whereas the 'depas' age is une­ tas? does not last to the end of the milleni¬ ven in seal usage so far as excavated in um, and the depas does not appear in Anatolia. tombs, although fragments were found in habitation areas. Tankards are numeruos Troy has yielded very few stamp seals and develop in profile,with remainiscen- from its third millenium levels. The use of ces of bell-shaped cups!29). Wheelmade a stamp-cylinder to decorate a pithos with bowls and red platters appear in the ruins impressed zones is a habit transferred to of megaron-type houses. Much pottery of the Aegean from the East and found in a the depas family was also collected from single instance on Schmidt 2552. The sites in the Burdur area, as can be seen in ivory stamp-cylinder from Poliochni bet­ the Burdur Museum. All this begins to ma­ rays its affinities to Early Dynastic seal ke a transitional Burdur-Elmah zone for carving!31). Other examples come from the area between Aphrodisias and Tarsus. Mersin and Tarsus, where the use of seals starts in Early Bronze II. There is still de­ None of the authentic 'Troy complex' corative use on pottery, but at Tarsus Early Bronze III shapes are adopted by cylinder and stamp seal impressions oc­ potters in the proto-Hittite zone of Central cur on clay plugs in Early Bronze UK32). Anatolia. The closest instance of tankards Here the contact with North Syria has its use is at Acemhbyuk, where a two-handled lasting effect, and Tarsus, unlike Troy, has tankard was found in the same pot-grave the best of both worlds. as a single-handled specimen with ele­ gantly swung loop-handle on the lower The concept of Anatolia as a bridge from body. Tahsin Ozgiig discussed this and ot­ East to West has some validity in the am­ her instances of tankard and depas appe­ bivalent position of Tarsus between its cul­ arance at Kiiltepe, where imported wheel- tural partners in Northern Syria and its made bowls occur with depas variants in newly acquired West Anatolian - Trojan af­ levels llb-12 of the mound!30). The impor­ finity. We cannot give Troy the sole res­ ted depas becomes familiar enough to ins­ ponsibility of having instigated the chan­ pire a local variant at Kiiltepe and Ali§ar ges in Tarsus at the end of Early Bronze II. in the form of a rounded bowl with two de­ The incressing streght of the' depas' and pas handles; one wide red band is painted affiliated complex in Caria, Lycia and even vertically on the external axis, another inland south of Eskişehir needs to be ge­ band covers the handles. One elegantly ographically investigated and the sites flaring depas from Kiiltepe level 12 has a responsible for trade issuing from centers wide red band on the sides between the such as the silver mines in the Taurus handless, a typical local experiment to (Bolkarmaden) need new attention. adopt the depas. Troy has the most extensive record of As Tahsin Ozgiip pointed out, there are Early Bronze IITII excavation. The present points of contact to be traced in the cera­ excavations will weigh the importance of mic and in the jewelry repertoire. These af­ Trojan activities along all coasts of Anatolia, finities belong to the most progressive and its involvement in the reshaping of mo­ partners in contacts from the Anatolian re than ceramic fashions in inland sites like West coast to the centers of Anatolian cul­ Aphrodisias. We need to explore how auto­ tural initiatives that later participated in nomous some of the coastal and inland si- 8 MELLINK

tes were and whom to credit with Anatolian archaeometallurgists, geophysicists, dend- initiatives in the Aegean south of Poliochni. rochronologists and a series of specialists Intensive excavations of sites like Limante- who are equally eager to solve questions of pe and inşallah some day the acropolis of contact, development, innovations and the Aphrodisias will provide archaeological growth of interdependent cultures in the fi­ facts and stratified material to be tested by nal great prehistoric phase of Anatolia.

FOOTNOTES

(1) U. ESIN, 1967, (15) K. R. MAXWELL - HYSLOP.1971, Kuantitatif Spektral Analiz Yardımıyla başlangıcından Asur Kolonileri çağma kadar Bakır ve Tunç madenciliği, . Western Asiatic Jewelry c. 3000-612 B.C., 1971, London, 51. (16) J.V. CANBY.1965, N. H. - Z. A. STOS-GALE, E. PERNICKA, P. BEGEMANN, P. Iraq XXVII, 42-61, SCHMIDT Mesopotamian parallels 53, 58-59.

STRECKER, Discussions in Oxford Journal of Archaeology (17) L. BERNABO - BREA, 1976. from 1984 to 1997. Poliochni II, Rome, PI. CCXXVa.

(2) T. ÖZGÜÇ, R. TEMİZER,. 1993, (18) T. KAMİL. 1983, Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara: 613-628. Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anato­ lia, Oxford, BAR International Series 145. (3) K. BITTEL, 1959, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 74: 1-34. (19) M. KORFMANN, 1983, Demircihüyük I, Mainz and following volumes in series. H. SCHMIDT, 1902, (20) J. SEEHER, 1991, Heinrich Schliemann's Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41, 97-124; Berlin. In text referred to by catalogue number: Schmidt XXI. J. SEEHER, 1992, V. TOLSTIKOV - M. TREISTER. 1996, The Gold of Troy. New York, Moscow. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 42: 5-19. In text referred to as: Pushkin XXX catalogue number. (21) J. SEEHER, 1991, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41: 39-96. (4) T. ÖZGÜÇ - R. TEMİZER,. 1993, Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, 619 , fig. 48a, b; 50. (22) T. EFE, 1994, (5) A. HALLER, 1954, American Journal of Achaeology 98: 5-34. Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur. Berlin, Grab 20, 21; 10,pl. 10b, 21a. T. EFE, 1996, (6) H. SCHLIEMANN, 1881, XTV. Aaştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, II, 223-224, figs. 11-15. Ilios, New York, 503, 923. (23) H. ERKANAL - S. GÜNEL.1996, XVIII Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I: 243. H. SCHMIDT, 1902, (24) V. MILOJCIC, 1961, Heinrich Schliemann's Sammlung Trojanischer Atertümer, Samos I, Bonn, pls.46-47. 240, list of missing items, treasure J. H. P. İSLER, 1973, D. EASTON, 1984, Achaeology 26: 170-175. "Priam's treasure.", Anatolian Studies XXXIV: 158. H. J. WEISSHAAR, 1985, (7) H.G. BUCHHOLZ -V. KARAGEORGIS, 1971, Achäologischer Anzeiger: 409-418. Altägäis und Atkypros, Tübingen: 1082. (25) P. E. PECORELLA, 1984, (8) C. W. BLEGEN, 1950 Troy. The First and Second Settlements, Text, Princeton, 193, La cultura preistorica di lassos in Caria, Rome. EH 448, 572. (26) M. S. JOUKOWSKY, 1986, (9) T. ÖZGÜÇ - R. TEMİZER, 1993, Prehistoric Aphrodisias. Louvain-ProvLdence, 36,168-172, 389 - 588. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, 617,pl. 116, 3,4. (27) H. GOLDMANN, 1956, Excavations at Gözlükule, Tarsus II, Princeton, pl. 266. A. TOKAR, 1992, "treasure" in room 74, 33. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Metal Vessels, Ankara, 28, 29. (28) U. B. - H. ALKIM, 1966, Belleten XXX, 1-57, figs. 31 - 36. (10) H. GOLD MANN, 1956, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II, Princeton. (29) J. L. WARNER, 1994, Clay goblets fig. 268; depas with goblet influence fig. 266, lo­ wer half. Elmalı-Karataş II, Biyn Mawr. pl. 165a, 175a; cf.

R. J. - L. S. BRADWOOD, 1980, M. J. MELLINK, 1964, Excavations in the Plain of , Chicago.Fig. 338. American Journal of Achaeology 68, pl, 80:14; pl. 81:18; 69, Amuq J is also the context of a late type of depas, fig. 349. 1965, pl. 61:12; pl. 65:36, 71, 1967, pl. 76:9. (30) T. ÖZGÜÇ, 1986, (11) A. TOKER.1992, Acient Aatolia. Essays in Honor of M. J. MELLINK, Wis­ Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Metal Vessels, consin, 40-41,figs. 34-35 (Acemhüyük) Ankara, 43. (31) J. GARSTANG, et.alii, 1939, (12) H. KÜHNE, 1976, Annals of Achaeology and Anthropology. 26, Liverpool, pis. Die Keramik von Tell Chuera, Berlin, PI. 7,6; fig. 68. LXXV, 17; LXXXI, 8. (13) P. SPANOS - E. STROMMENGER, 1993, L. BERNABO-BREA, 1976, Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 125. Poliochni II, pl. CCLTV, 298-302. Compare also Samos, (14) E. STROMMENGER - M. HIRMER, 1962, H.P. ISLER, 1973, Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien, München, pl.119. Achaeology 26: 175. M. J. MELLINK, 1963, (32) H. GOLDMAN, 1956, Anatolia VII; 101-115. Excavation at Gözlükule, Tarsus II, Princeton, pis. 397-398.