Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture

Stephen Batiuk

The Southeast Anatolia Project (SOAP) of Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main is focused on the cultural classification and development of an area adjacent to the north of the Syrian‑Turkish border during the Early Bronze Age. In the light of the archaeological research in the past few years in the ‘Kranzhügel’ area in North‑East Syria (with its major centre Tell Chuēra), the SOAP is aimed at investigating the distribution to the north and the origin of its most prominent cultural characteristics, represented by circular cities and by the use of a special ceramic ware, North‑Mesopotamian Metallic Ware. For this purpose, archaeological and archaeometrical means of research were combined to prove homogeneity and continuity of these features within the area of investigation between the Taurus and North‑East Syria. In addition to surveys and both archaeological and chemical studies on the pottery, clay samples were also taken from places throughout the area in order to receive reference data for determining the location of the original clay source of North ‑ Mesopotamian Metallic Ware. The article presents the basic considerations which led to the project and some of the preliminary results.

The first foreign dynasty which ruled Egypt between c. 1640 and 1530 BC was seen by Egyptologists and historians alike for a long time through a filter of scanty contemporary and posthumous Egyptian as well as antique texts. They rendered the tradition about these rulers in an absolutely biased and distorted way. It is the methods of modern archaeology, which enable to elucidate aspects and parts of history, prehistory and the aftermath of the Hyksos rule in a new light. We want to know from where and when the elite and the people behind the Hyksos rule came from, how they arrived in Egypt and how they settled there and were able to build up their power. We also want to know what the backbone of their economy had been and how they interacted with the rest of Egypt and with whom they entertained their commercial and political contacts. Finally, the question arises, why the Hyksos rule failed in Egypt. Within this workshop you will hear some of the answers to these questions. We are able to offer evidence that the Western Asiatic population, on which the Hyksos rule rested, came from a different region in the Levant - at least parts of their elite. Temple architecture and burial customs show that the religious inspirations and the concepts of afterlife in the eastern Nile Delta originated from northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia. The same can be also concluded from the introduction of the artificial irrigation systems for which new evidence could be collected from Tell el-Dab‘a, a harbour town which became the capital of the Hyksos. It is the site on which excavations between 1966-2011 under the supervision of the speaker produced with more than 80 field- and working-up-campaigns an enormous quantity of evidence on settlement, tombs, palaces, temples and a hoard of material culture which was partly published in 24 volumes but would still need the same amount of publications in the future if circumstances would allow it. Other excavations in the Delta and in the Wadi Tumilat such as Tell el-Retaba, Tell el Maskhuta and Tell el Khilgan contribute to the cultural phenomenon of the Hyksos. This ERC project was able to draw from these excavations but also produced conclusions, which place these archaeological results with the help of international colleagues into a much wider perspective. Our studies in relationship with the Hyksos lead us not only to the Levant but also to the wider cultural background of Mesopotamia and also to Asia minor, and concerning trade also to Cyprus and the Aegean. It seems clear now that the flourishing trading network built up by a Western Asiatic community before the Hyksos Period broke down during their reign, as they were cut off from the resources of Upper Egypt and Nubia and could not offer a barter for their trade with the Levant.

Migration Theory and the Distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture by Stephen Denis Batiuk A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto Toronto, Canada June 2005 © Stephen Denis Batiuk, 2005 Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture Doctor of Philosophy, 2005 Stephen Denis Batiuk Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto ABSTRACT This work is a re-evaluation of the archaeology of the Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) and the various mechanisms used to explain the distribution of its material culture across the Near East during the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3500-2000 B.C.E.). The extent of this distribution is daunting, and as a result, the research focuses on the western portion of the ETC distribution zone, and more specifically on the Malatya-Elazığ region of Eastern Turkey, the Amuq Valley of Southeastern Anatolia, and Northern Palestine. This dissertation places the history of the interpretation of ETC wares within the context of the history of anthropological thought in an effort to contextualize the question. Primary data, drawn from the Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP) Survey, is used for an in-depth GIS analysis of settlement patterns. The AVRP Survey collections are also used to form a new regional EBA typology for an examination of the ceramic industries of the EBA in the Amuq Valley. These new data are then compared with the material from regions to the north and south of the Amuq, to evaluate traditional explanatory mechanisms and to understand the distribution of ETC wares as a result of a migration. Finally, a reconstruction that would best explain the data is created to complete the understanding of the distribution of the related wares across the greater Near East. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Where to start expressing your appreciation to all that have helped and supported you through such a significant event in your life? Perhaps it is best to start at the beginning and thank my parents, Alice and Ted, who blindly supported their son through what is a less than ordinary career choice. I hope you know that your love and support has been immensely appreciated throughout all these years. Second, of course, would have to be my surrogate parents here in Toronto, Gene and Lala. You have been generous to me in every respect of the word, and I count the numerous discussions and debates with you as one of the more important learning experiences of the last nine years. I would like, above all, to dedicate this book to you both. I am greatly indebted to Tim Harrison, who has provided me with many important opportunities, and has patiently stood by with a helping hand each time I stumbled. He has been an inspiration in his drive and determination, and I would like to thank him for all his insight and guidance through the years, as this work would not have been accomplished without him. To Cuyler Young Jr., your mentorship has guided me through these years. I have immeasurably appreciated studying with you, and only hope that I could become even half the professor you are. I am also indebted to Rob Mason, for his time, patience and instruction behind the microscope, and his sense of humor that made such work bearable. And I am as well grateful to Mitchell Rothman, who continues to go above and beyond the call of duty as a reader; to Antonio Sagona, whose work has not only served as the very foundation of much of my own, but who also provided me with material used in this dissertation; to Aslihan Yener and Hatice Pamır, who helped me greatly during my various summers in Antakya; to David Lipovitch, who probably read sections of this dissertation more than anyone else; and Larry Pavlish who was a tremendous sounding board, source of insight, and an important source of coffee during those last few days of the dissertation process. I would like to acknowledge the financial support of several institutions, namely the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations and the School of Graduate Studies at the University of iii Toronto, and the American Research Institute in Turkey who provided funding for the research and lodging while in Ankara. . There are of course numerous people in Toronto to thank, and it would be a momentous task to name them all; I apologize if I can only name a few. First of all, thanks goes out to what can best be described of as the ‘gang’: Andrew, Annlee, Deb and Jennie – you have put up with an inordinate amount of my frustrations, and Ryan, whose morning cheer and philosophical insight got me motivated and started just about every day over the last few years. I am sure this could not have been done without you all. To our support staff here at the department, Anna and Jennie, you rule our lives with a benevolent iron fist and the heart of a friend, and I hope you know all the students here appreciate you. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my friends back home in Ottawa, especially my best friend Todd: You have been my island away from archaeology, and kept me grounded all these years. And finally, to Mamai, my brothers: your sarcasm and wit have held me true, making sure my head is removed from any inappropriate places I might have shoved it. To express my sincere appreciation to you, I will not burden you with a copy. Boys, next time the emergency twenty is on me. Teşekkür ederim! Щиро вам дякую! Thank you one and all! Toronto, 2004 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................V LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................VII LIST OF PLATES ......................................................................................................................................................X LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................................... XI CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................3 ON ‘CULTURE’ AND ‘WARE’ ...................................................................................................................................5 ISSUES OF CHRONOLOGY .........................................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO – THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH INTO THE ETC PHENOMENON..............................10 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL TREATMENTS OF MIGRATION AS A SOCIO-CULTURAL PROCESS .............12 THE EVOLUTION OF THE QUESTION .....................................................................................................................14 The Transcaucasus and Kura Araxes Culture ...................................................................................................22 Iran and the Yanik Culture.................................................................................................................................26 Central Anatolian Burnished Wares and Karaz Ware .......................................................................................29 The Amuq Valley and RBBW..............................................................................................................................36 The Levant and Khirbet Kerak Ware .................................................................................................................40 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................................44 CHAPTER THREE - MIGRATION THEORY .....................................................................................................47 A BRIEF HISTORY OF MIGRATION ..........................................................................................................................48 THE STRUCTURE OF MIGRATIONS ........................................................................................................................60 Local or Short Distance Migration ....................................................................................................................66 Long Distance Migrations..................................................................................................................................67 Circular or Tethered Migration .........................................................................................................................68 Career Migration ...............................................................................................................................................69 Chain Migration.................................................................................................................................................69 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................70 CHAPTER FOUR – ETC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS.......................................................................................73 INTER-REGIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ..........................................................................................................75 INTRA-REGIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS .........................................................................................................87 The Amuq Valley ................................................................................................................................................87 The Malatya-Elazığ Region..............................................................................................................................113 Northern Palestine ..........................................................................................................................................124 DISCUSSION OF SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ............................................................................................................134 CHAPTER FIVE - THE RED BLACK BURNISHED WARE OF THE AMUQ VALLEY ............................141 NATURE OF THE SAMPLE AND ORDER OF THE PRESENTATION .........................................................................142 THE RBBW OF THE AMUQ ..................................................................................................................................166 DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................................................................167 CHAPTER SIX – THE PETROLOGY OF THE ETC TRADITION ................................................................171 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................171 THE SAMPLE BASE ................................................................................................................................................173 v The Amuq Valley Petrofabric Groups..............................................................................................................177 OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................200 THE BAYBURT REGION PETROFABRIC GROUPS .................................................................................................205 OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................214 SOUTHERN LEVANTINE PETROFABRIC GROUPS .................................................................................................215 OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................218 DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................................................................220 CHAPTER SEVEN – THE RETURN TO A SIMPLE EXPLANATION ..........................................................225 ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................239 APPENDIX A: SITE CATALOGUE.....................................................................................................................295 APPENDIX B: RBBW POTTERY FROM THE AMUQ VALLEY...................................................................417 vi List of Figures Fig. 1 Distribution zone of ETC and related wares in the Near East (adapted from Roaf 1990:80) Fig. 2 Landsat TM Mosaic image of the Near East showing the distribution of sites with ETC wares. (courtesy of USGS) Fig. 3 Landsat TM mosaic of the Near East with distribution of sites that produce ETC wares, with some approximated survey coverage areas. (courtesy of USGS) Fig. 4 Landsat TM mosaic of the Near East with distribution of sites producing ETC wares, with Class 1 and 2 settlements highlighted. (courtesy of USGS) Fig. 5 EarthSat Satellite image of Eastern Anatolia and the Transcaucasus showing the relationship between the distribution of sites with ETC wares and intermontane valleys. (courtesy of USGS) Fig. 6 Distribution of ETC sites within precipitation zones. Fig. 7 Distribution of sites with ETC wares and Landuse zones of the Near East Fig. 8 Distribution of sites with ETC wares in relation to topographic data of Eastern Anatolia and North Syria. (Topographic data derived from SRTM) Fig. 9 Map of the Amuq Valley and major geographical features. Fig. 10 Geological map of the Amuq Valley and the distribution of RBBW sites. Fig. 11 Soil map of the Turkish side of the Amuq Valley and the distribution of Phase H sites. Fig. 12 Map of the Amuq Valley with the distribution of Phase G sites and the K-Means analysis overlay. Fig. 13 Map of the Amuq Valley with distribution of Phase G sites with their estimated site catchments. Fig. 14 Rank-size plot of Phase G settlement patterns, showing primo-convex curve. Fig. 15 Map of the Amuq Valley with the distribution of Phase H sites, with road systems and KMeans clusters. Fig. 16 Map of the Amuq Valley with distribution of Phase H sites with their estimated site catchments. Fig. 17 Overlay of Phase H sites with estimated site-catchments areas and Thiessen polygons, showing catchments generally contained within the polygons Fig. 18 Rank-size Plot of Phase H settlement system showing primo-convex curve. Fig. 19 Topographic map of Çatal Höyük (AS 167) with excavation trenches. Fig. 20 Illustrated explanation of Viewshed Analysis, with each square representing a ‘grid cell’ in a raster map in the GIS. (Adapted from Wheatley 1995) Fig. 21 Viewshed map for Tell Judeideh (AS 176), showing the area and sites visible from it. Fig. 22 Cumulative Viewshed map for Tell Dahab (AS 177) and Judeideh (AS 176), showing the increased area and sites visible from the combined viewsheds. Fig. 23 Viewshed map for Çatal Höyük showing the area and sites visible from it. Fig. 24 Viewshed map of Temel Kızılkaya (AS 208) showing the area and sites visible from it, with the Phase H K-Means clusters. Fig. 25 Map of Phase H site distribution with the overlap of the Phase G and H K-Means clusters. Fig. 26 SPOT satellite image showing the Malatya-Elazığ region with modern flood zones, and the distribution of sites with ETC wares. (courtesy of USGS) Fig. 27 Topographic map of the Malatya-Elazığ region with the reconstructed Euphrates and site distributions. Fig. 28 Map of Malatya region depicting estimated minimal sustaining areas for EB sites. Fig. 29 Rank-size plot for Whallon’s Keban Survey Fig. 30 Rank-size plot for Özdoğan’s Lower Euphrates Survey. Fig. 31 Map of Malatya-Elazığ region with EB site distributions and K-Means clusters. Fig. 32 Topographic map of Northern Palestine with distribution of sites producing Khirbet Kerak Ware. vii p.76 p.77 p.78 p.79 p.80 p.81 p.82 p.85 p.88 p.89 p.90 p.93 p.94 p.97 p.99 p.101 p.102 p.103 p.104 p.105 p.106 p.107 p.108 p.109 p.111 p.114 p.116 p.119 p.119 p.119 p.120 p.124 Fig.33 ‘Zones’ of KKW contact. Adapted from Miroschedji 2000. Fig. 34 Northern Palestine polities in the EB, after Finkelstein 1995, using Weighted Thiessen Polygons Fig. 35 Overlay of Finkelstein’s EB polities (1995) with Miroschedji’s KKW ‘Zones’ (2000) Fig. 36 Rank-size plot of Khirbet Kerak Ware sites in the ‘core’ region, displaying a primoconvex curve. Fig. 37 Map showing K-Means clusters and their relation to Finkelstein’s EB polities, and the distribution of KKW sites and reconstructed ancient road systems. Fig. 38 Distribution of sites with KKW in the Northern Levant and the relationship to transportation systems and the modern political boundaries of Lebanon. Fig. 39 Geological map of the Amuq with the sites sampled in this study. Fig. 40 Map of Bayburt region with sites sampled in the study Fig. 41 Map of Northern Palestine with sites discussed in study. Fig. 42 Microphotograph of sherd AS 137_B3_10 Fig. 43 Microphotograph of sherd AS 137_B3_09 Fig. 44 Microphotograph of sherd AS 176_96_6 Fig. 45 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_01_04. Fig. 46 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_98_1_16 Fig. 47 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_98_1_20 Fig. 48 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_98_01_07 Fig. 49 Microphotograph of sherd AM 4772 Fig. 50 Microphotograph of sherd AM 4763 Fig. 51 Microphotograph of sherd AS 86C_99_03 Fig. 52 Microphotograph of sherd AS 9_96_21 Fig. 53 Microphotograph of sherd AS 166_99_01 Fig. 54 Microphotograph of sherd AS 173_99_36 Fig. 55 Microphotograph of sherd AS 186_96_1 Fig. 56 Microphotograph of sherd AS 181_99_6_68 Fig. 57 Microphotograph of sherd AS 108_99_18 Fig. 58 Microphotograph of sherd AS 180D_99_2 Fig. 59 Microphotograph of sherd AS 108C_99_4 Fig. 60 Microphotograph of sherd AS 139_99_A_1 Fig. 61 Microphotograph of sherd AS 177_98_A4_21 Fig. 62 Microphotograph of sherd AS 11A_96_07 Fig. 63 Microphotograph of sherd AS 252_A2_01_05 Fig. 64 Microphotograph of sherd AS 253A_01_20 Fig. 65 Microphotograph of sherd AS 17B_98_7 Fig. 66 Microphotograph of sherd AS 156_99_06 Fig. 67 Microphotograph of sherd AS 164_96_5 Fig. 68 Microphotograph of sherd AS 164_99_18 Fig. 69 Microphotograph of sherd AS 147_99_06 Fig. 70 Microphotograph of sherd AS 27_96_1 Fig. 71 Microphotograph of sherd AS 76_98_14 Fig. 72 Microphotograph of sherd AS 120_99_2 Fig. 73 Microphotograph of sherd AS 133_2 Fig. 74 Microphotograph of sherd AS 169_99_B3 Fig. 75 Microphotograph of sherd AS 253_A2_01_29 Fig. 76 Microphotograph of sherd AS 101_99_4 viii p.126 p.129 p.130 p.131 p.132 p.135 p.174 p.175 p.176 p.177 p.178 p.179 p.179 p.180 p.181 p.181 p.182 p.183 p.183 p.184 p.184 p.185 p.186 p.186 p.187 p.187 p.188 p.189 p.189 p.190 p.190 p.191 p.192 p.192 p.193 p.194 p.194 p.195 p.195 p.196 p.196 p.197 p.198 p.198 Fig. 77 Microphotograph of sherd AS 80_99_4 Fig. 78 Microphotograph of sherd AS 176_99_8 Fig. 79 Microphotograph of sherd AS 108C_99_16 Fig. 80 Microphotograph of sherd 105_98_1_19, showing the ‘Second Slip’ phenomenon. Fig. 81 Microphotograph of sherd 169_99_B_3, showing the ‘Second Slip’ and the ribbing decoration Fig. 82 Microphotograph of BS 101_2 Fig. 83 Microphotograph of BS 68_3 Fig.84 Microphotograph of BS 23_4 Fig. 85 Microphotograph of BS 29_2 Fig.86 Microphotograph of BS 102_1 Fig.87 Microphotograph of BS 59_2 Fig. 88 Microphotograph of BS 89_1 Fig. 89 Microphotograph of BS 78_2 Fig. 90 Microphotograph of BS 74_5 Fig.91 Microphotograph of BS 46_4 Fig. 92 Microphotograph of BS 49_2 Fig. 93 Microphotograph of BS 73_3 Fig. 94 Microphotograph of BS 75_2 Fig. 95 Microphotograph of BS 48_1 Fig. 96 Microphotograph of BS 48_7 Fig. 97 Microphotograph of BS 66_6 Fig.98 Microphotograph of BS 47_4 Fig. 99 Microphotograph of KKW Sherd. ROM accession no.:955.213.40.118 Fig100 Microphotograph of KKW Sherd. ROM accession no.:955.213.40.86 Fig101 Microphotograph of Grain Wash Ware Sherd. ROM accession no.: 955.213.40.82 Fig102 Microphotograph of Orange Buff Ware sherd. ROM accession no.:955.213.40.183 Fig103 Microphotograph of KKW Sherd. From Tell el-Umeri UD ix p.199 p.199 p.200 p.203 p.203 p.205 p.206 p.206 p.207 p.207 p.208 p.208 p.209 p.209 p.210 p.211 p.211 p.212 p.212 p.213 p.213 p.214 p.215 p.216 p.217 p.217 p.218 List of Plates Plate I Plate II Plate III Plate IV Plate V Plate VI Plate VII Plate VIII Plate IX Plate X Plate XI Plate XII Plate XIII Plate XIV p. 419 p. 421 p. 423 p. 425 p. 427 p. 429 p. 431 p. 433 p. 435 p. 437 p. 439 p. 441 p.443 p.445 x List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Relative Chronological Chart of the regions where ETC wares are found. Distribution of ETC Sites in various precipitation zones of the Near East Distribution of ETC Sites in various land use zones of the Near East Settlement Data for the Malatya-Elazığ region. Chart of the geographical distribution of vessel forms of the Amuq typology xi p.9 p.82 p.83 p.118 p.170 Chapter One Introduction Just over thirty years ago, Ian Todd wrote an article entitled “Anatolia and the Khirbet Kerak Problem” in which he challenged the connection between the Dark Burnished Wares of Central and Eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus and Northwest Iran and the Red Black Burnished and Khirbet Kerak Wares of Syro-Palestine. The ‘problem’, as he saw it, was the connection between the wares and the primary mechanism used to explain their distribution, namely mass migration (1973:182-187). Most scholars will not argue that anthropological thought has developed significantly since the early 20th century when these various ETC ware traditions were first identified and the connection initially suggested. In the 1970s, a trend developed towards re-examining proposed migrations, a pattern that did not go unnoticed by Todd (1973:181). Based on the data at hand, he was able to argue convincingly that a number of factors in the prevailing interpretation of the distribution of these different ware traditions were inconsistent with the idea of a direct overland migration; hence, the development of ‘The Khirbet Kerak Problem’. As the distribution patterns of the various ware groups became more apparent, the nomenclature became increasingly more cluttered as each regional variant was given its own name. Charles Burney coined the term Early Transcaucasian Culture (henceforth ETC) in an effort to address this issue, and to emphasize what he believed to be the ultimate place of origin of the culture (Burney and Lang 1971:4). Due to its vast geographical distribution, the question of the mechanism (or mechanisms) for this distribution can no longer be limited to an examination of the Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW) of the southern Levant. Attempts to address the problem must also incorporate the Red-Black Burnished Ware (RBBW), Karaz Ware, Kura Araxes Ware, and Yanik Ware traditions. It is 1 essential, therefore, to explore the causative mechanisms for this vast distribution within a broader framework; in essence an ‘ETC problem’. Todd, to his credit, created an argument that was methodologically sound, but he did not succeed in strengthening the arguments for a migration of ‘Khirbet Kerak Folk’ (1973:189). Doubts regarding migration were successfully placed in people’s minds (see Miroschedji 1986, Esse 1991). Nevertheless, widespread belief in a traditional view of migration has been tenacious, although little or no effort has been made to refine the model until recently. Despite continuing interest, and debate, not much has appeared in print (see comments Miroschedji 1986:28, and Yakar 1989:353). G. Philip must be credited with re-opening the discussion with a new explanatory model for the distribution of ETC wares (specifically KKW) – including a more refined understanding of migration (1999, 2000). His arguments “raise serious difficulties with the traditional accounts that seek to explain the appearance of KKW in the southern Levant in terms of a population movement from the north” (Philip 1999:50), and instead he favors a diffusionary model. Currently, the major objections to the use of migration as a mechanism revolve primarily around the relationship of RBBW and KKW to the remainder of the ETC wares. As noted above, however, these objections should not be limited solely to the southern Levant. Consequently, to achieve a better understanding of the distribution of ETC wares, one must extend beyond such a narrowly focused investigation. It is necessary to look at a broader set of patterns and circumstances, and the possible regional effects of the purported migrations in an effort to achieve a better understanding of appearance of the wares across the Near East. The aim of this study therefore has two main components. First, it is essential to reinvestigate the distribution of ETC Wares across the Near East “in light of the currently available archaeological evidence” (Todd 1973:181). Second, as Philip argued (Philip 1999:26), the utility 2 of the concept of migration as a mechanism for explaining the appearance of ETC wares across much of the ancient Near East must be re-evaluated. Consequently, new data from the Amuq Valley in southern Anatolia will be analyzed, and the published data from two other regions in the distribution zone will be evaluated. These data will be used to examine the more common mechanisms used to explain the distribution of the ETC wares (see Chapter Two), and to present a re-interpretation of the data where the assumptions are more clearly enumerated within a theoretical framework that would be applicable to the distribution of the ware traditions across the Near East. Organization of the study The history of research and the evolution of the ETC Problem will be reviewed in Chapter Two. This will include an examination of the historical context of the development of Near Eastern archaeology as a discipline, which is believed to have played a pivotal role in the ETC question. The goal is to show the development of the understanding of migration as a sociocultural process in Near Eastern archaeology, and to understand its role in interpreting the ETC problem. This section will be followed by a brief discussion of the discovery of the wares in five pivotal areas: the Transcaucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), Iran, Anatolia, the Amuq Valley, and the Levant; examining the sites that play an important role in the discussion. Chapter Three provides a brief history of the use of migration as a socio-cultural explanatory mechanism within archaeology and anthropology as a whole, and will explore the role modern historical biases have played in the development and the misuse of migration models. The reasons for the lack of progress in developing migration models for archaeology as a whole will be examined, along with the historical reasons why other explanatory mechanisms have been emphasized over migration. Finally, a new methodological approach to modeling the 3 structure of migrations will be presented and will serve as the framework for a re-investigation of the ETC question. In the subsequent chapters, the primary data are examined in order to evaluate which mechanism (or mechanisms) is most likely responsible for the distribution of ETC wares. Chapter Four examines the settlement pattern data of three different regions in which ETC wares are found. First, an examination of broadly shared inter-regional patterns will be highlighted. Secondly, to examine patterns on an intra-regional level, the Amuq Valley will be used as a case study to identify the changes that occurred in settlement following the introduction of RBBW into the area. These results are then compared and contrasted with two other regions: the Malatya-Elazığ region of Eastern Turkey to the north, and the North Jordan Valley in the Southern Levant. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is used to reconstruct ancient settlement systems, and to investigate the relationship between sites and their placement in relation to eachother, the environment, and road systems, in an effort to understand the greater social landscape for the periods under investigation. Chapter Five provides a typological characterization of the pottery assemblage for the Amuq Valley. The assemblage is drawn primarily from the collections of the Amuq Valley Regional Project Survey. This typology will also be compared and contrasted with the MalatyaElazığ area to the north and the North Jordan Valley in the Levant to the south. Previous comparative studies have tended to look at assemblages from vastly different areas, thereby highlighting either their similarities or differences. The present work compares and contrasts the assemblages on a component (or vessel group) basis. This permits the identification of local developments within the assemblages, yielding a significantly better understanding of the relationship between the various local wares. 4 Chapter Six presents a petrographic analysis of ETC wares from a variety of sites in three different areas of the distribution zone: the Amuq Valley, the Bayburt Region of Eastern Turkey, and the North Jordan Valley. The examination begins at the regional level, again using the Amuq Valley as the primary focus of study. Patterns in manufacturing technology are identified, as well as broader patterns in the local ceramic industries. The observations in the different regions are then compared, so as to create a composite picture of the ETC ceramic industries. Finally, Chapter Seven reviews traditional explanations for the distribution of ETC Wares, and evaluates them within the framework of the evidence presented in Chapters Four through Six. This evaluation is then followed by the proposal of a revised migration model. On ‘Culture’ and ‘Ware’ Before proceeding, it is appropriate to address a few terminological concerns that affect this discussion. Inquires concerning the connections between KKW Culture and the wares of Eastern Anatolia and the Transcaucasus have been in circulation for over sixty years.1 It is difficult to avoid the excess baggage associated with a term like culture, and any ethnic connotations it might entail, since many early writers were either unaware or did not concern themselves with issues of ethnicity and how it relates to culture. Recognizing the diversity of definitions that exist,2 and the complex theoretical issues involved, I will simple defer to the following definitions synthesized from Bates and Plog (1990:7), and Rice (1987:286-7): Culture: A set of learned beliefs and practices/ behaviors shared by a group of people that are learned or learnable, passed on by means of social interaction rather than biological inheritance. Archaeologically, a culture is often identified by similar or related assemblages that are found in a generally defined geographical location, in a constrained chronological period. It 1 2 For a fuller discussion see Chapter 2. Kroeber and Kluckhohn alone produced a list of 160 different definition of the world ‘culture’ (1953) 5 is often, but not always, considered to be representative of the activities of a specific group of people. Ware: A general classification of pottery based on physical attributes, composition/fabric and form, yielding types and variations in type that define a coherent corpus. Archaeologists assume that these wares represent manufacturing techniques primarily. Functional variation that defines the activities of a pottery making and using group and stylistic variations that encode other ideological or social messages help us define groupings, and establish types, in addition to wares. Issues of Chronology One of the major issues identified by Philip has been that of chronology (1999, 2000). Much work has been undertaken recently to address the problems of ETC chronology (see Marro and Hauptmann eds. 2000), and out of this has emerged a general consensus that a gradual progression occurred in the distribution of ETC from north to south. The appearance of ETC wares in the Malatya-Elazığ region predates that of the northern and southern Levant (Philip 2000:180-1). The traditional dates for its appearance at Ras Shamra is ca 2900 BCE (de Contenson 1982:96). However, Philip rightly observes that the date for Ras Shamra is simply a general one based on circumstantial evidence, which subsequently has been adopted uncritically in the literature (2000:180-1). At present, radiocarbon dates for the Amuq are few and problematical. None are available for the Phase H levels, but there are two dates from the preceding Phase G levels at Tell Judeideh (Yener et al 1996:68), which Philip suggests provide a terminus post quem of 2800 BCE (2000:280), thus making the estimated dates for Ras Shamra all the more unlikely. 6 The available dates for the North Jordan Valley are also problematic. Those used for the EB III are derived with ceramic links Egyptian using vessels that have a very long chronological life (Esse 1991:103-16). The approximate date for the beginning of EB III is placed at 2700/2650 BCE, based on these weak synchronisms. Since the beginning of the EB III is stratigraphically identified by the appearance of KKW, a date of 2700 is assumed for the appearance of KKW (Philip 2000:281). Since few radiocarbon dates are available for EB III levels at sites that produce KKW, Philip has proposed a terminus post quem of 2800 BCE for the appearance of KKW in the southern Levant (1999:35, 2000:284). This is at least one hundred years earlier than has been suggested previously for the region. More importantly, however, this date coincides approximately with its assumed appearance in the Amuq. Since not all EB III sites produce KKW, nor is its distribution across a given site necessarily even as, Esse and Greenberg have shown (Esse 1991, Greenberg 2003), detailed stratigraphic sequences are essential for building a more secure chronological framework. Consequently, existing chronological assumptions must be treated with caution until there are more well-stratified radiocarbon dates specifically from those levels that produce RBBW and KKW. As a result, this study will not attempt to resolve this chronological dilemma. Rather, a more relative chronological approach will be taken in dealing with the data. Given the lack of a consensus concerning the chronology of even one region of the Near East, including varying opinions on what the terms Early Bronze (EB) I-III refer to in Syria Palestine versus Anatolia or the Transcaucasus (Rothman 2004), it is currently an impossible task to establish a single agreed upon chronology for the entire distribution zone of the ETC. Consequently, a chart with the broad comparative chronological relationships between each region and their terminology is presented as a general frame of reference to emphasize the 7 differences in relative chronology between regions (Table 1). It should not be understood as an absolute chronology, rather a general framework. 8 ETC Caucasus 4500 E. Anatolia Chalcolithic Iran Amuq/ NW Syria Amuq F Palestine Chalcolithic 4000 ETC I Kura-Araxes I 3500 LC 4 Amuq G ETC II EB I Kura-Araxes II (3130 BCE) 3000 EB IA EB IB EB IC? EB II EB I (Yanik) EB IIIA EB II (Yanik) EB II (3050) Amuq H? EB III Kura-Araxes III 2500 ETC III Amuq I EB IV --------------2000 EB IIIB Trialetti Table 1: Relative Chronological Chart of the regions where ETC wares are found. 9 10 Chapter Two The History of Research Into the ETC Phenomenon Introduction Research into the phenomenon of the Early Transcaucasian Culture (henceforth ETC) has a history as long and varied as the geographical distribution of its wares. The identification and investigations into the ware, especially in regards to its southern Levantine distribution, are inextricably linked to the development of ceramic studies in Near Eastern archaeology. Some of the issues at the core of criticisms of the use of migration to explain cultural change can be seen as stemming directly from the philosophical approaches to cultural change that emerged in the formative years of the discipline of Near Eastern Archaeology. This chapter will place the discovery and early research of ETC wares (in particular Khirbet Kerak Ware) in the historical context of the development of Near Eastern archaeology as a discipline. This has a direct bearing on the abandonment of simplistic migration and diffusion explanations in the New Archaeology, and which in many ways, lies at the core of the ETC problem. The chapter will not describe the discovery of ETC wares in each area where it has been found. Rather, it will focus on the identification of the ETC wares in five pivotal regions: the Levant, the Transcaucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), Iran, Anatolia, and the Amuq Valley. Due to the fact that the ware was uncovered more or less contemporaneously in these disparate regions, ETC wares have been given a different name with each discovery. For the present chapter, the local name will be used when discussing it in the appropriate geographical area. The overarching term “ETC Wares” was a construct created by Charles Burney in an effort to harmonize the evolving problem of nomenclature and will be used herein as a term only when dealing with the ware collectively in its greater distribution (Burney and Lang 1971:4). 11 Near Eastern Archaeological Treatments of Migration as a Socio-Cultural Process Even today, Petrie's typological ordering of ceramics lies very much at the core of Near Eastern ceramic analysis (1899). His introduction of stratigraphy and ceramic seriation is still at the heart of attempts to create regional chronological frameworks. Petrie's major goal was to create a master typology, which would allow one to date sites throughout the Near East by comparing similar ceramic types. As useful as this method has been, there are also inherent problems, as Dessel and Joffe have recently noted: The weakness of this method, a master typology which seeks to minimize variability in order to identify distinct and successive chronological horizons, is readily apparent. The subjective use of non-standardized and undefined descriptive terms for form and decoration -- again, in service of a typology, which minimized variability - also became a fundamental part of ceramic practice ... A diffusionary model was an underlying assumption supporting the utility of a master ceramic sequence. Similar ceramic types were implicitly understood as evidence for the movement of peoples. Thus the appearance of a new material culture, usually pottery, was reduced to the introduction of new peoples, with the cause of these movements usually conquest (2000:32-33). These views towards changes in material culture and their attribution to conquering migrants have their roots in the background of early researchers, especially in biblical studies. The main focus of biblical archaeologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was to discredit the cultural-historical school’s approaches, which questioned the historical veracity of the Bible, and to bring “increased recognition of the Bible as a source of history” (Albright 1935:38). This view became more entrenched under W.F. Albright. Changes in material culture were intrinsically linked to historical events, in particular destruction levels, which were associated with conquests. “Destruction levels first had to be found, associated with conquest events, and then set up as brackets into which culture sequences were fitted. The speed of social evolutionary and material culture development was therefore limited to intervals between destructions (Dessel and Joffe 2000:43). One of the dangers that developed out of Albright’s (and later Wright’s) 12 theoretical underpinnings was that each ware group was chronologically distinct. “Since the area is supposedly too small for many different groups and cultures to coexist without quickly influencing each other, ceramic change was interpreted as occurring simultaneously in all regions” (Dessel and Joffe 2000: 35). Furthermore, these changes were almost always seen as the result of the migration of a new ethnic group into the region. Albright’s methodology relied heavily on empiricism and analogy, using analogical arguments to fit archaeological data into the historical context of the Bible (see below). Dessel and Joffe further suggest that Albright’s inclusion of the protohistoric period of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) in his historical reconstruction of Palestine created “a series of theoretical and practical divides that have only lately been surmounted” (2000:33). This resulted in the study of the EBA becoming the domain of biblical archaeologists rather than protohistorians (read anthropologists), and created an academic environment where the “archaeological reconstructions are chained to biblically-derived ethnic reconstructions” (Dessel and Joffe 2000:33). Dessel and Joffe’s interpretation is an accurate one, if not a complete explication of the problem. It would appear that with the historical reconstructions of the EBA by Albright and his students, this ‘biblical Analogical’ approach influenced the interpretation of the archaeology of the EBA heavily. Destruction levels at EBII sites followed by the appearance of new cultural traditions were believed to be the result of invasions, viewed as analogous to the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land some fifteen hundred years later. This concept of migration and destruction, and their role in material cultural change became very much ingrained in Near Eastern Archaeology (see Albright 1933, Kenyon 1979, de Vaux 1975, and Lapp 1968b). With the development of new theoretical perspectives regarding cultural change in the 1960s, a backlash occurred. Migration, with invasion as a subset, was seen as too simplistic when 13 compared with other more complex theories of cultural change (Binford 1965). Due to the fact that the textual record of biblical archaeologists is full of descriptions of large scale migrations, this recoil from migration did not take hold that strongly in the discipline, and the old models held on with remarkable tenacity, and with very little theoretical development. With the study of the EBA the domain of biblical archaeologists, with their simplistic models of cultural change, there was no discussion before or after Todd regarding any possible foreign affinities for Khirbet Kerak Ware and what they might represent. This issue lies at the heart of the Early Transcaucasian problem, since until recently, most investigations into the distribution of ETC wares were conducted by Near Eastern archaeologists using models of migration that can be traced all the way back to Albright. The Evolution of the Question The Khirbet Kerak Question was first raised in an off-hand observation by Garstang. In his preliminary report of the Nielson Expedition to Cilicia, Garstang noted the: resemblance of some of the black burnished wares decorated with diagonal flutings found in the excavations of Alaca (Höyük), to those found at Judeideh in N. Syria by the Chicago expedition to Rihanieh, and reflected more distantly on a similar class of wares from the EB III, which were found in Palestine at Beisan, Jericho, and more plentiful at Khirbet Kerak. (1937:53) The resemblance had already been a matter of discussion amongst archaeologists over the previous years as Wright had drawn attention to it that same year (Wright 1937: 72). However, Wright’s observations only drew parallels between KKW from Palestine and the RBBW that was being uncovered by excavations in northwestern Syria, specifically the Oriental Institute’s excavations at Tell Judeideh. Garstang was the first to point to parallels further north in Anatolia. Ironically, his 1937 observations referred to the Central Anatolian burnished material, and not to the Eastern Anatolian and Transcaucasian burnished wares, since the site of Karaz was not 14 excavated until 1940. With the more extensive excavations at the site of Khirbet Kerak in the 1940’s, the corpus of pottery grew, as did the scholarly speculations. Discussion of connections began to accumulate, first with H. Otto (1938:162-5), who arrived at a similar conclusion to Garstang, and then with Schaeffer in his Stratigraphie Comparée (1948a). Many of these scholars, influenced by a “Childean” human particularistic approach, could only see migration as a viable explanation for changes in cultural sequences (for a more full discussion see Chapter 3). It is no surprise, therefore, that Woolley, who was also trained in this tradition, eventually waded into the discussion. In his 1949 James Bryce Memorial Lecture on Middle Eastern Archaeology, Woolley attempted to link KKW to the Hittites (Amiran 1953:89, n.1). With his penchant for the dramatic, Woolley saw the appearance of this ware as evidence of “a great folk migration, an outpouring of barbarians from the north . . . armed invaders who massacred the old inhabitants” (1953:31-37). This reconstruction, based on little evidence, would unfortunately remain in later KKW investigations, fuelling discussions of migrations and invasions. With Hood’s publication of the excavations at Tabarat el-Akrad in 1951, there finally began a synthesis of the Anatolian data. Although Hood still insisted on morphological similarities between the pottery of Akrad and central Anatolia, he also emphasized the important contrasts between the two wares. Furthermore, for the first time, he noted that the closest parallels actually came from further east, just south of the Caucasus. This represented the first incorporation of previously unknown Soviet data into the larger issue. The results from the excavations at Karaz and the survey work around Lake Van and Dıyarbakır were also included (Hood 1951:117). However, Hood followed Woolley and interpreted the distribution of these apparently related wares as the result of “a great folk migration, and not the gradual and 15 piecemeal expansion of a growing population into adjacent regions” (1951:118). In an influential study, Ruth Amiran further emphasized the Anatolian connection (1953). Her article only incorporated minimally data from Eastern Anatolian sites and made no discussion of Soviet material from the Caucasus. However, her study assembled the Levantine data, both the ceramic forms and the distribution of the ware, in a way that had not yet been undertaken. Unfortunately, as Todd has shown, she concentrated erroneously only on parallels between KKW and the unrelated Central Anatolian burnished wares (1973:186). More importantly, however, she highlighted the emerging discussions regarding the foreign nature of KKW. Although Wright had seen the ware as foreign to Palestine, preferring to see it as the result of trade, Amiran dismissed this idea based on the sheer volume of the material found (1953:36). Her attitude towards early trade aside, she did open the door to other methods of distribution: It must be admitted that influences radiating from a certain strong cultural center have other means of emanation than involving migratory movements as their cause. But such radiations, conceivable in any early period, affect the culture of the accepting counterpart in quite a different manner from that conspicuous in our Kh. Kerak Ware. It will I think be seen that Kh. Kerak Ware is not a local imitation of a certain ware effected outside the sphere of the original, but an organic part of it, being an old tradition in the hands of the makers who carried it along with them wherever their wanderings led them. (Amiran 1953:36) Both Mellart (1957) and Burney’s work (1958) began to characterize the eastern Anatolian sequence, and identified the parallels between the north and south. With Burney’s excavations at Yanik Tepe in Iran and the emergence of more data from Soviet excavations in the Caucasus, architectural parallels began to take center stage. The circular architecture uncovered at Yanik Tepe in Iran (Burney 1961a, 1961b, 1962, 1964) and Amiranis Gora in Georgia (Chubinishvili 1963) provided parallels for the granary at Beth Yerah (Amiran 1965). By the time of Hennessey’s work (1967), the northern nature of KKW was undisputed. Based on 16 the growing number of sites found that produced the ware, Hennessey was even able to suggest a migration route which has more or less remained popular in the literature to this day: south from the Amuq along the Orontes valley, into the Beq’a and Huleh basin (1967:75-6). However, significant problems quickly emerged from these data-sets. Surveys in the Lebanese Beq’a did not produce any KKW (Marfoe 1978). Furthermore, there was no evidence of the ware south of Hama (Ingholt 1940:19-21), resulting in a large gap in the middle of the proposed migration route. As well, the link between the Amuq and eastern Anatolia contained a similar gap, with no RBBW being found in any significant quantities between the Malatya and Amuq plains. Moreover, scholars working on the southern Levantine material poorly understood the material from eastern Anatolia and continued to associate KKW with the wares of central Anatolia. The ceramic and architectural parallels that were drawn were few and tenuous, and based on debatable similarities in form, whereas discontinuities were disregarded (See Amiran 1965). Holes in the data were generally disregarded. Like a broken record, the foreign and intrusive nature of the assemblage was over-emphasized and the traditional formula blindly followed: new material culture (i.e.: pottery) = the introduction of new peoples. This view of migration represented by investigations into the ETC question has unfortunately, on many levels, stayed with Near Eastern archaeology. This phenomenon has led, until recently, to a general lack of development in theoretical understanding of cultural change in Near Eastern Archaeology. Meanwhile, in anthropological circles, new theoretical concepts emerged along with a serious re-evaluation of traditional concepts of cultural change in pre- and proto-historical periods (see Chapter 3). These various discussions all came to a head in 1973 with the seminal article by Ian Todd, entitled “Anatolia and the Khirbet Kerak Problem”. Though relatively short, it resonated. 17 Todd addressed theoretical concerns and questions that had been circulating in anthropological discussions and applied them to the ETC question: The Khirbet Kerak Problem has exercised the minds (and imaginations) of numerous scholars over the past thirty-five years or so, and widely scattered material has been assembled to form a seemingly coherent picture of wide ranging contacts, possibly involving the movements of people. The determination of interconnections amongst prehistoric East Mediterranean cultures is of the greatest importance for a true understanding of the history of the region, but archaeologists must attempt to ensure that their framework of relationships is based upon solid foundations. Too often in the past sweeping movements of people and interconnections have been based on the flimsiest evidence, and the writer is in full agreement with the present trend to re-examine many of the proposed “migrations” in the light of the currently available archaeological evidence. (Todd 1973:181) The concept of migration had to be questioned, and not blindly accepted. Work on obsidian sourcing showed extensive exchange routes moving significant quantities of material as early as the Neolithic, suggesting that perhaps Amiran’s attitude towards early trade was faulty. Trade was once again a topic of discussion, as was the diffusion of ideas and emulation. New concepts had to be explored, not simply discarded. Todd’s article was intended to “be a cautionary note in the discussion of the KKW Problem” (1973: 182), but does not suggest the complete abandonment of migration as a mechanism for cultural change. Rather, his article was intended to introduce the “various archaeological and anthropological techniques available” in an effort to “aid in the archaeological identification of migrations” (1973. 189). The reaction to Todd’s work was surprising. When one takes a larger view of the literature that followed, his article appears to have had a polarizing affect, dividing discussants into two camps: migrationists, and people who sought ‘other’ explanations (Yakar 1989). Some continued to cling tenaciously to migration, almost in blind ignorance of the broader debate. Callaway, for example, attributed the appearance KKW to a violent destructive invasion (1978). However, at the same time, there were no significant theoretical contributions from those 18 who sought other explanatory mechanisms. When one looks at the extensive literature on the foreign relations of KKW, an interesting pattern emerges. From the period between Albright and Todd, there are numerous articles discussing the topic (see discussions above). Following his challenge, there is a decline in the number of new discussants on the topic. Although the theoretical difficulties were generally understood, there were no further improvements proposed to the model. The frustration felt by many was best summed up by Miroschedji: En somme le mouvement de population le plus évident et le plus incontestable de l’archéologie de la Palestine au IIIe millénaire se révèle être un phénomènome que l’on constate, mais que l’on n’explique pas. (1986: 28) Ironically, Todd’s paper appears to have had the reverse effect. Instead of stimulating discussion about the distribution of ETC through the introduction of new archaeological and anthropological techniques, his study seems to have discouraged it. For over twenty-five years, no one attempted to develop an explicit model for the distribution of ETC wares. One either believed that the constantly growing evidence of widespread distribution (as sites producing ETC wares continued to be discovered) was the result of a migration, and worked from that premise, or one did not. Few tried to substantiate either argument with evidence (see below for exceptions). Sagona, for example, developed a detailed three-fold division of the Kura Araxes expansion, but gives only two paragraphs to the discussion of migration, suggesting that the migrations were the result of environmental changes which would have affected the economy of agriculture and stock rearing (1984:138-9). Even Esse, in his extensive work on KKW (1991), which uncovered several important spatial and distribution patterns, nevertheless left the broader topic largely untouched, only stating in a somewhat abrupt fashion that the KKW phenomenon is a “clear case when moving from ‘pots to people’ is appropriate” (1991:171). One of Todd’s main suggestions was that “theories of movements of people and artefacts 19 must be substantiated by the application of scientific analytical techniques to the artefacts in question” (1973:181). Such work was undertaken by Chazen and McGovern (1984), and by Esse and Hopke (1986), with important results. Both studies showed through Neutron Activation Analysis that KKW was locally made, suggesting that long distance trade did not account for the appearance of KKW in the southern Levant. Even armed with this new data, although briefly revisited by Burney (1989), it was not until 1999 that there was any meaningful return to the discussion of migration as an explanation for the distribution of ETC wares. Graham Philip, drawing on a series of new radiocarbon dates and a different theoretical approach, recently has returned to the ETC problem (Philip 1999, 2000). Building on the spatial patterns observed by Esse (1991, see also Miroschedji 2000), he has proposed a novel interpretation for the distribution of KKW in the southern Levant. He sees “KKW not as a passive reflection of a ‘people’ in the traditional cultural-historical sense, but as a material cultural resource that was actively employed within as part of a range of social strategies” (1999: 44), and argues that the ware was used in the marking of identity. He interpreted the spatial patterning as evidence of the deliberate adoption of “specific behavioural patterns by groups who were choosing to reject the continued involvement within the existing socio-economic structure. . . groups who were ‘opting out’ of the specialized economy, and refocusing upon a different subsistence regime” (Philip 1999:46). KKW became a unifying symbol for a social group, which chose to pursue an alternate lifestyle or mode of existence from that which was dominant in northern Palestine at the time. Although an intriguing proposal, Philip did not follow through fully on it in either article. Instead, he returned after a fashion, to the concept of a migration. Based on its appearance at Ras Shamra during the period of greatest ceramic linkage between the southern Levant and sites in 20 coastal Syria and northern Lebanon, he proposed a form of maritime interaction, possibly even a seaborne migration (1999:49 and 2000: 286). However, his greatest contribution concerns the new data from his re-excavation of Tell esh-Shuneh, which suggest a greater degree of “continuing contact” between northern Palestine and Anatolia. The evidence appeared in the form of “consumable raw materials” of Anatolian origin dating as far back as the late 4th millennium (1999: 49-50). It is important to note that this is the period when RBBW appeared in significant quantities in the Malatya region, and the point when it made its first appearance in north Syria (Mazzoni 2000). In the end, Philip concludes; “the case for migration, in terms of small-scale, directional and continuing movement between Palestine and some part of the northern Leventine coast may still be defensible” (Philip 1999:50). He would prefer to see migrations as an explanation for the introduction of KKW into the southern Levant, but ultimately, its final distribution and duration were the result of its adoption as a medium through which to express an identity based on competing subsistence strategies. Such a two-fold explanation for the distribution of ETC in the form of KKW in the southern Levant is an intriguing proposal, suggesting that perhaps a combination of mechanisms or a multi-causal model should be utilized in an effort to gain greater insight into the nature of the phenomenon. 21 The Transcaucasus and Kura Araxes Culture The Southern Transcaucasus, particularly the region between the Kura and Arax Rivers, is believed to be the “homeland” of the Kura Araxes Culture. For a majority of Eastern European scholars investigating the Kura Araxes Culture, it belongs chronologically to the ‘Eneolithic’ period, more generally known as the Late Chalcolithic period in Western scholarship. The prevailing view is that the Kura Araxes Culture is autochthonous to the region, possibly evolving out of the preceding Shulaveri or Sioni cultural complexes of the 5th and mid-4th millennium (Kiguradze 2000:323). Early in the 20th century, the archaeology of the Caucasus was treated in isolation from the Near East. For cultural, geographical and most especially political reasons, cultural correlations were sought in the steppe regions of southern Russia and northwestern Iran rather than Anatolia and Syro-Mesopotamia. This has begun to change slowly over the last two decades, with greater attention being paid to and from the south. Russian, Georgian and Armenian scholars began investigations into the Bronze Age cultures of the Caucasus at about the same time major investigations were being conducted in Palestine such as the excavations at Gezer (Macalister 1912). Excavations at Zaglik and Kyul’tepe in Azerbaijan (Lalaian 1931) were among the first to produce remains of what was later to be termed the Kura Araxes Culture. Somewhat ironically, it was the explorations into the origins of the later MBA Trialeti cultures that led to intensive investigations into the black burnished ceramics found in the area between the Kura and Arax Rivers, and the adoption by B.A. Kuftin of the term Kura Araxes Culture (1941). However, according to Sagona (1984: 15), it was not until 1958 that the first comprehensive chronological ordering of Bronze Age material from the Caucasus was made by the Soviet scholar A.A. Iessen (1963). Later excavations at the 22 site of Shengavit near the city of Erevan produced the most extensive Kura Araxes settlement uncovered thus far in Armenia. In the 1960s, excavations in Georgia also produced several Kura Araxes settlements, the most important being the sites of Amiranis Gora and Kvatskhelbi. These provide some of the earliest and longest running sequences of Kura Araxes Culture in the South Caucasus (Di Nocera 2000:77). In the last published list (Munchaev 1982), there were approximately seventy settlements belonging to the “Eneolithic” period excavated in the Transcaucasus, the majority located in Armenia and Azerbaijan (Glumac and Anthony 1992:199). However, surveys and more recent excavations have almost tripled that number in recent years (Glumac and Anthony 1992:203). One of the key questions regarding Kura Araxes settlements in the Transcaucasus is their duration. Until recently, no single site had produced a continuous occupational sequence spanning the entire development of the culture (Sagona 1984:36), which made creating a full cultural sequence based on stratigraphical successions difficult. Further obfuscating the Kura Araxes sequence is the fact that the majority of sites are founded on either virgin soil or above levels of abandonment (Sagona 1984:97). In addition, many of the sites were poorly excavated, and those that have been published, were done so in Russian, Armenian or Georgian; languages generally inaccessible to Western scholars. Sagona’s work on the Kura Araxes Culture (1984) greatly remedied this situation, especially with the publication of a great deal of the unpublished Georgian material. Sagona managed to create a more definitive chronology for the culture, based primarily on ceramic forms and decorative techniques. He further subdivided each period according to ceramic traditions, based on variations in the assemblages of the sites (1984:97-107). Each periodical 23 progression was accompanied by an observed increase in the geographical spread of the Kura Araxes Culture. According to Sagona, Kura Araxes I begins ca. 3600-3700 BCE (Sagona 1984, Glumac and Anthony 1992), and was initially found only in an area extending “from the mountainous upper course of the Kura through its fertile middle valley, and reaching across the Armenian plateau to the middle Araxes” (Glumac and Anthony 1992: 203). It is roughly contemporaneous with the Late Chalcolithic period in northern and eastern Greater Mesopotamia and the Uruk period in southern Mesopotamia. Sites bearing typologically related assemblages are also found in Eastern Anatolia in the Erzurum and the Mingechaur regions of Azerbaijan where the Kura River enters each respective territory. It was in this geographical expanse that the Kura Araxes Culture originated. Haphazard and crowded settlements consisting of round structures characterize the sites excavated, with some sites defended by stone walls up to 5.0 m thick in width. There was a greater investment in ceramic production, especially in aesthetics, and a dramatic increase in metallurgy. However, the faunal evidence points to a greater percentage of short-horned cattle and sheep, evidence which is often assumed to indicate the transhumant nature of the culture, a view which seems to contradict sedentary nature at many of the sites (Glumac and Anthony 1992:204). The Kura Araxes II period begins circa 3000 BCE, based on the associated Late Uruk finds at Kura Araxes sites in the Elazığ area and Arslantepe VIA (Sagona 19843, Glumac and Anthony 1992), and is dated generally to the end of the Late Uruk Period and Jemdat Nasser Period in Mesopotamia. This phase sees a greater development in the technical and aesthetic aspects of the Kura Araxes ceramics, which were found across most of the Caucasus, with at 24 least five regional variations or traditions. Despite these regional variations, there still appears to be a clear degree of similarity across the entire zone of distribution, possibly a reflection of active communication networks (Glumac and Anthony 1992:204). It is in this period that the ETC culture is also first found in north-western Iran, first at Geoy Tepe then later at Yanik Tepe, and eventually at Godin Tepe in the Kangavar Valley (see below). Period II sites have been found as far west as Sivas in Eastern Anatolia, and as far south-west as the Amuq plain and Ras Shamra in northern Syria. Sagona dates the onset of Period III at ca. 2600 BCE based on the appearance of a few sherds of ETC wares found in the final levels of Mardikh IIA, dated by Matthiae to between 2750 and 2400 BCE (Matthiae 1982). This period sees the greatest proposed geographical expansion of the culture; spreading even into Palestine. Regional variations become extremely pronounced in this period with the development of at least seven traditions identified by Sagona. Following Period III, new cultures emerge in the Caucasus. The Martkopi and Trialeti cultures bear some resemblance to the Kura Araxes culture with a lustrous black burnished pottery with incised decoration. These ceramics are generally of a better quality than those of Kura Araxes ware, with finer fabric, finish, and sharper forms. As well, there is a marked change in burial practices, with a preference for shaft graves and burial tumulae. The exact relationship between the Kura Araxes Culture and the later MB cultures remains poorly understood. However, excavations by Sagona in Eastern Anatolia, rather than the Caucasus, seem to be clarifying this relationship (Sagona 2000). Stylistically, Kura Araxes Wares display significant regional variation, and within those regions, there is further variability or sub-traditions. Within the Kura Araxes basin alone, Sagona 3 Sagona’s initial publication of the Kura-Arax sequence has Period II starting 3300 (1984) and has been suggested recently to date to approximately 2800 (Marro 2000b), however Frangipane now suggests a date of 3400-3000 for 25 has identified three sub-traditions. Some of these variations can be attributed to the chronological length of the Kura Araxes periods, but Sagona is probably correct when he notes that many developments “owe much to local as well as foreign influences” (1994:15). Such a cultural mixing, given the geographical distribution of the ware, would in all probability be unavoidable. Iran and the Yanik Culture Geoy Tepe in the western Urmia Basin was the first site excavated in Iran that produced what would eventually be named the Yanik Culture. Discovery of the burnished wares of Iran occurred slightly later than in other regions. Although the site of Geoy Tepe was explored as early as 1936, and some grey-black sherds were collected, excavations at the site by T. BurtonBrown did not occur until 1948. The exact size and nature of the settlement at Geoy Tepe is unclear given the fact that EB material was uncovered in only one small sounding, which was divided into three phases. It is the excavations at the site of Yanik Tepe that more fully illuminated the ETC presence in north-western Iran. Excavations at the site by Charles Burney in 1960-62 produced a significant occupational sequence running from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. In the early 1960s, Burney’s understanding of the culture he was calling “East Anatolian Early Bronze Age” was generally incomplete (1989). Although he could see a genetic relationship between the materials found in Armenia and those of northwestern Iran, there was enough difference for him to coin the term Yanik Ware for the new material. His excavations unveiled four building levels corresponding to the Early Bronze Age. Later excavations at the site of Haftavan Tepe on the northeast shore of Lake Urmia further clarified the sequence in north-western Iran (Burney 1969, 1970a, 1970b, 1972c, 1976a, 1976c). The Italian surveys and excavations in the area west of Lake Urmia during the 1970s Arslantepe VIA (2000) and work by Wright (2001) suggests a medium date of 3130 BCE. 26 further increased the number of Yanik Culture sites by uncovering another twenty-seven settlements in the region west of Lake Urmia (Pecorella and Salvini 1984). Excavations by T. Cuyler Young Jr. at the site of Godin Tepe near Kermansha (1965-73), and later surveys, produced fourteen sites in the Kangavar Valley with Yanik Culture material (Young 1969b, 2004). Surveys and excavations have unveiled a more or less continuous distribution between Yanik and Godin, with the discovery of sites producing Yanik Culture in Malayer (Howell 1979:157), Hamadan (Young 1966:232, 5), Bijar and Mianduab regions (Swiney 1975:82-83). As well, some material has been found in the regions south of Godin (Tepe Giyan, Chia Zand and possibly Susa), but in most cases4 in quantities as to suggest they were the result of trade (Dyson and Voigt 1992:162). Chronologically, level K1 at Geoy Tepe represents the earliest Yanik Culture occupation in the Urmia basin, followed later by Yanik and Haftavan Tepe, and then Godin Tepe. The ware is generally represented by incised black to grey burnished ceramics. Not all ceramics were decorated with incisions. Many plain burnished wares and ceramics with excised decoration were also present. It has been suggested that the excised decoration is an imitation of wood carving (Burney 1961). There is a varied repertoire of designs used in decoration, including chevrons and schematic drawings of animals and birds. The incision/ excision are often in-filled with a limebased powder that provides a stunning contrast against the dark burnished surface. Also of note at Yanik Tepe was a massive town wall of undressed stones approximately 4.6 m thick. Two very important elements regarding the Yanik Culture emerged that have played a 4 With the exception of Giyan which appeared to have Yanik Cultural deposits 3 m deep covering most of the site small, a fact not recorded in the excavations (Young 2004:8) 27 significant role in the ETC debate. The first revolves around the domestic architecture. Although architecture was poorly represented at Geoy, some small fragmentary curved walls were observed. The EB I period at Yanik Tepe produced nine successive building levels with a total of fifty-seven circular mud brick dwellings. Similar round architecture was also uncovered at Haftavan Tepe (Burney 1972c). This “circular architecture” was deemed an important cultural element. Circular architecture is also found in the Caucasus, but more frequently in the earlier phases of the Kura Araxes Culture. This architectural practice is often erroneously cited as one of the distinctive elements of the ETC Culture (Kelly-Buccellati 1980). These structures are often used as a point of direct comparison with the “granary” at Khirbet Kerak, especially in conjunction with House 1, the second notable element from Yanik (cf. Amiran 1965). In the third level at Yanik Tepe, a large round structure was found in a prominent position in the town. This structure was also dubbed “the Granary” by Burney and consisted of two concentric walls with inner walls dividing the interior into four separate compartments in which several stone querns were found (Burney 1961:143). In the EB II period at Yanik, there was a significant shift to rectilinear structures, while incised pottery completely disappeared. Nevertheless, many identical installations were found in the structures from the two levels, and there is a general consistency in ceramic shapes that attests to a cultural continuity between the two periods. The extensive use of incised decoration on the pottery at Godin is suggestive of an EB I dating. Unlike the EB I levels at Yanik and Haftavan, the architectural remains from period IV at Godin did not contain any circular structures. Instead, a large structure of an unknown pyrotechnical operation was uncovered in the area known as the “Brick-kiln cut”, in addition to a relatively large rectilinear structure dubbed “the Conversation Pit.” In a recent article dealing 28 with the survey data from the Kangavar survey, Young has proposed a significant change in the understanding of the Godin sequence, and the period IV occupation of the valley. Young now hypothesizes that the bearers of the Period IV culture were not numerous enough to replace the previous Period VI inhabitants, but rather settled alongside them (2004). This new suggestion, borne out by the settlement pattern data, is important because it reproduces itself in other regions within the distribution zone of ETC wares. Central Anatolian Burnished Wares and Karaz Ware A flurry of investigation into the prehistoric sites of Anatolia was undertaken in the 1930s, uncovering a considerable number of sites with burnished wares. Of chief importance were the University of Chicago’s Syro-Hittite expedition to Alışar Höyük (1930-32) and the Plains of Antioch, and the Turkish Historical Society’s excavations at Alaca Höyük (1936-39). The collection of pottery from the Alışar excavations provided the backbone for the early study of Anatolian ceramics. Unfortunately, the methodology of the Alışar excavations left a great deal to be desired, and the chronological sequence suffered from a great number of errors. The EB I levels at Alışar, represented by levels 19M to 12M, produced predominantly black or grey burnished wares with the odd example of red burnished ceramics. With the second “Copper Age” EB II levels, there was a change to predominantly red burnished wares with fluting in a triangular decorative pattern. Investigations in Eastern Anatolia began in earnest in the 1940’s with the excavations at Karaz, 15.0 km north-west of the modern city of Erzurum. In 1942, H.Z. Koşay and K. Turfan undertook trial excavations and full scale excavations followed in 1944. The site produced predominantly a dark grey burnished ware which was hitherto unknown in eastern Anatolia, and as a result, was given the name Karaz Ware. İ. K. Kökten continued his research into the EB of 29 Eastern Anatolia in the 1940’s with his surveys of the Erzurum and Elazığ regions (Kökten 1947). Kökten’s research was later followed by C. Burney’s extensive and ‘economical’ bicycle surveys of Eastern Turkey in 1956 (1958). Both surveys recorded numerous mounds, with a considerable number dating to the EB. Later, in 1960 and 1961, Koşay undertook soundings at two sites in the Erzurum area: Güzelova (Koşay 1962) and Pulur (Kosay and H. Vary 1964). Until Sagona’s excavations at Sos Höyük in the 1990s, Karaz, Pulur and Güzelova provided the chronological sequence for the EB in north-eastern Anatolia. Excavations at the site of Sos Höyük just northeast of Erzurum began in 1994 under A.G. Sagona. A detailed sequence running from the medieval period through to the Late Chalcolithic, with an extensive series of 56 radiocarbon dates and a detailed ceramic sequence, holds the promise of solidifying the chronology of north-eastern Anatolia (Sagona 2000). The excavations have already altered the understanding of the Karaz cultural sequence by extending it well into the second millennium, and presenting evidence of a cultural continuity spanning a length of time not even contemplated by Burney in his earlier reconstructions (cf. Burney and Lang: 1971). The Chalcolithic levels provide evidence for a cultural overlap and/or co-existence between the earlier Sioni and Karaz Cultures, a relationship that had never been fully understood in the Caucasus. The EB levels at Sos witness the full force of influence from the Caucasus with another surprising cultural overlap/coexistence with Martkopi and Trialetti cultures in the final phases of the EB. These overlaps, it should be mentioned, are not just isolated to ceramics, but burial practices as well. By far the largest surprise of the Sos sequence is the continuation of the Karaz ceramics, albeit in a technologically modified form (Sagona: 2000), through the Middle Bronze age until about 1500 BCE, an idea first suggested but not proven by Burney (Burney and 30 Lang 1971:46-7). The work at Sos Höyük has provided a strong sequence for northeastern Anatolia with which to understand the relationship between Anatolia and the Caucasus during the EBA. The 1960s saw the construction of the Keban and Karakaya Dams on the Euphrates River. The dams were designed to create a reservoir with an estimated surface area of 675 000 000 m2, which would cover an untold number of archaeological sites. In an effort to preserve as much of the cultural history of the region as possible, a survey was launched in 1966 by METU (Middle Eastern Technical University). This survey continued in 1967, carried out by the Department of Prehistory of Istanbul University in collaboration with the University of Michigan. In 1968 excavations were begun at Kalaycık (Serdaroğlu 1969:186-189, Serdaroğlu 1970:31-35, Serdaroğlu 1972:7-13299), Aşvan (French 1970a:53-60; O.H. French 1971b, 36-37; P.H. French and S. Helms 1973; Sagona 1994:9-11,115-208; French 1997:159), Kalecik (Serdaroğlu 1969:186-189; Serdaroğlu 1970:31-35; Serdaroğlu 1972:7-13), Korucutepe (van Loon (ed.) 1978), Norşuntepe (Hauptmann 2000:419-425), Pağnık Öreni-Kaşpınar (Alkım 1970), Pulur (Koşay 1974), Yeniköy (Koşay 1976b:1 75-182), Tepecik (Esin et al. 1971), Tülintepe (Esin and Arsebük 1982), Han İbrahim Şah (Ertem 1972a and 1972b), and Değirmentepe (Dürü 2000:130-132) by various institutions (see Appendix A for a more complete bibliography for each site). With the completion of the Keban dam and filling of the reservoir in 1974, survey work shifted further to the south with the construction of the Ataturk (Karaba) and Karakaya Dams. Surveys were conducted in this region from 1975 to 1977 (Özdoğan 1977) followed by excavations in 1978. An additional group of sites was excavated [Ancoz, Değirmentepe (Dürü 1979b), Kaleköy (Özdoğan 1977, 70-71), Köşkerbaba, Şemsiyetepe (Darga 1981a), Pirot 31 (Serdaroğlu 1977), Samsat Höyük (Serdaroğlu 1977), Horiskale, İmamoğlu (Uzunoğlu 1981), Caferhöyük, Tille , Lidar, and Hassek Höyük (Behm-Blancke et al. 1982), Kurban Höyük (Algaze et al 1990 ) and Hayaz Höyük (Serdaroğlu 1977) – for more complete bibliographies see Appendix A] covering a large chronological range. The surveys and excavations in the two regions unveiled an incredible number of EBA sites, with a significant number producing significant quantities of Karaz Wares. The site of Arslantepe located in the Malatya region just north of the modern city of Malatya is of utmost importance in the ETC discussion. Not only has the site produced an impressive and important sequence for the region, but this sequence provides some possible insight into the social organization of the bearers of ETC wares and their relationship to the indigenous cultures of the Malatya region. Soundings at Arslantepe were initially begun in 193239 under Delaporte (1934), and continued later under Schaeffer in the 1950’s (1951). Excavations were resumed by the Italians in 1961, and have continued ever since. In the 1970s, excavations under Palmieri (1981) began to focus on the southwestern section of the tell, where the fourth and third millennium settlements were concentrated. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sequences have been revised several times by Frangipane (Frangipane and Palmieri 1983b, Frangipane 1993a, Di Nocera 2000, Frangipane 2000), with new discoveries being made every season. Excavations in the southwest sector exposed a large public area belonging to the 4th millennium, complete with monumental structures of ceremonial, economic, and administrative character. It is in this period that Karaz/ RBBW wares make their first appearance. Their occurrence is rare, and isolated to the storage areas of the buildings (Frangipane 2000:443-4). The limited presence suggests that this represents the beginning of the contact between the Malatya region and the cultures of the 32 northeast. The following VIA period provides evidence of direct contact with lowland Late Uruk cultures through the appearance of many new forms of mass produced bowls. Also in period VIA, the fully established repertoire of Red-Black Burnished ceramics is found. However, the dominant forms have a propensity to be “luxury” vessels: fine small jars, jugs, conical straightsided bowls as well as ‘fruitstands’. To the excavators, this pattern suggests that the makers/bearers of the RBBW were perhaps not settled at the site as such, but rather in the region, trading with the peoples of the city (Frangipane 2000, 2001). This is implied through the radical changes in the faunal record, which indicates a dramatic increase in sheep and goat and a corresponding decline in cattle and pig, and is interpreted by the excavators as a result of the city dweller’s greater reliance on ETC pastoral nomads in the environs (Frangipane 2001:4). At the end of the fourth millennium (Period VI B1), there is a dramatic shift in the situation at Arslantepe. The entire VIA Southern Mesopotamian influenced culture disappears. The monumental buildings are destroyed and never rebuilt. After a period of abandonment of an unknown length, the area is resettled by a foreign tradition. Instead of large monumental structures, a village of wattle and daub structures was established, associated exclusively with RBBW. After two or three rebuilding phases, the following VI B2 Period marks a return to older traditions, with the resumption of mud-brick architecture. The assemblage consists of typical Period VI A local wares found alongside RBBW (Frangipane and Palmieri 1983b, Frangipane 2000, 2001). Dating to this period, a “Royal Tomb” of extraordinary wealth was recently uncovered (Frangipane 1998, 2000, 2001). The richness of the finds (75 metal objects) and the human sacrifices associated with it suggests that the burial belongs to someone of importance; if not a 33 king, then an important chieftain (Frangipane 2001:6). Ceramics found in the tomb belong to both the Late Uruk wares and RBBW traditions. Also found recently, and dating to the same period, was a 6.0 m wide mud brick and stone wall, suggesting that a sort of fortified citadel coinciding with the top of the tell was associated with the VI B2 village (Frangipane 2001:9). Frangipane sees the new evidence as representative of a significant change in the political system at Arslantepe: from “that of the religious-administrative elites in the early state phase” (Frangipane 2001:7) to a political/warrior elite where the “legitimization of power is implicit in its social function and therefore does not usually need any strongly marked religious connotation” (Frangipane 2001:9). Gaps in the distribution of ETC wares has been a key point of debate, with one of the most important ‘gaps’ occurring between the Malatya region and the Amuq (Todd 1973:187). Consequently, three other regions need to be examined briefly. First, a survey was conducted in 1970 by the Italians in the regions north and south of Gazıantep, from Bireçik to Kilis (Archi and Pecorella: 1971). The publication of the survey is, unfortunately, chronologically vague since it simply divides the sites between the Bronze and Iron Ages. The team was not allowed to collect ceramics, so chronological identification was done on the spot and the sherds were discarded (Pecorella 2002, personal communication). Kelley-Buccellati, in discussing the distribution ‘gap’, notes that “surveys in the area of Gazıantep indicate that there are a number of Outer Fertile Crescent (ETC) sites there” (1980:415). She then adds in a footnote that “Dr. Pecorella was kind enough to show me the ceramics of the survey” (1980: 415, n.5). Neither Kelly-Buccellati nor Pecorella could confidently confirm the presence of any ETC wares found in the Gazıantep survey (KelleyBuccellati 2002 personal communication, Pecorella 2002 personal communication). Therefore, 34 the presence of sites with ETC wares in the Gazıantep region is uncertain at present, although recent work at the site of Oylum Höyük has uncovered isolated examples of RBBW (Özgen 1996). Secondly, the Plain of Islahiye, which links the regions of Gazıantep, Maraş, and Amuq regions, was surveyed by Alkım (1966), and a number of sites were excavated. Generally in the literature, it is suggested that no ETC ceramics are found in this region (Sagona 1984, Yakar 1985). However, on closer scrutiny, Alkım does admit to a number of sherds being found in the excavations of the step trench in the northeast slope of Gedikli Höyük (Stratum IIIf), as well as on the eastern lower terrace (Alkım 1966: 38-39). He then follows by saying that “Khirbet Kerak Ware was found both at Gedikli and at Tilmen Höyük and the mounds of the Islahiye region” (Alkım 1966:39, repeated again on p.52-3, emphasis mine). The occurrences are rare, apparently only producing a few sherds, suggesting to Alkim that the ‘Khirbet Kerak folk’ did not have the region under their direct influence (1966:39). The northernmost reaches of the Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP) survey did overlap with Alkım’s Islahiye Survey, and has confirmed the presence of RBBW at a few of the sites: AS 5: Güzelce – Alkim site #63; AS 12: Acarköy – probably Alkım site #67: Halılağa; and AS 215: Sekizevler – probably Alkım #68 Gök Höyük (Alkım 1966). Since Alkım did not provide specific dating for the sites in his survey region, it is unclear how many other sites might have produced RBBW. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that they produced very few sherds. The third region consists of the Cilician Plain to the northwest of the Amuq. The Bryn Mawr excavations at the site of Tarsus in 1934-39, and the smaller scale excavations of 1947-49, produced wares similar to those of Phases G and I of the Amuq, as well as the EB levels at Arslantepe. These ceramics were found in combination with more central and western Anatolian 35 wares. It is typically reported that no ETC wares were discovered in the excavations (Todd 1973, Philip 1999), however, Matson, who analysed the pottery for both the Bryn Mawr and the Chicago excavations, describes the sherd of a RBBW bowl in the final report (Goldman 1956:356). The same general lack of ETC emerged in Garstang’s excavations at the site of Mersin (1953), and in the regional survey work in Cilicia by Seton-Williams (1951). Recently, a few sherds of RBBW have also come to light in the excavation of the EB levels of the site of Kinet Höyük (Gates 2003: personal communication), suggesting that RBBW can be found, but in very limited quantities at some sites in Cilicia. Although the data is far from complete, the “gap” between Malatya and the next major area of concentration of ETC wares, the Amuq Plain, appears not to be as pronounced as originally proposed. We will have to wait for further work in these regions to clarify the matter. The Amuq Valley and RBBW In 1933, as part of the Oriental Institute’s Syro-Hittite Expedition, it was decided to “take an inventory of all the mounds in the Plain of Antioch and its tributary river valleys” (Braidwood 1937:1). The survey recorded 178 mounds, concentrating on the pre-historic periods. The chronology of the collected material was later anchored by the excavations of five mounds in the region: Tell Dahab, Tell Kurdu, Çatal Höyük, Tell Judeideh and Tell Tayinat. Judeideh produced the most complete stratigraphic sequence of the five mounds, and has served as a chronological backbone for most of the work in the Amuq. Investigations between 1937 and 1949 were also undertaken by the British at three mounds in the plain: Tell esh-Sheik, Tabarat al-Akrad, and Tell Atçana (Hood 1951:113, Woolley 1955:6). One of the main criticisms of the Chicago team’s work is that the Amuq sequence is more a “typological grouping in highly subjective ‘phase groupings’ . . . a descriptive summary, a 36 superstructure laid upon presupposed conclusions” (Tadmor 1964:255). Braidwood himself says that “the reader must trust mainly in our own assessment of the ‘preponderance of characteristics in common’ for a group of floors or layers” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:26). This criticism arises chiefly from the way the sequence was created; not from the excavation of one site, but from several small excavations at various sites in the plain, all being treated as if “the Amuq area supported a more or less uniform assemblage during the various horizons”, and that they were all of “one geographic unit, undivided topographically” (Tadmor 1964:254). Tadmor doubts the degree of uniformity in assemblages between sites in a relatively small region like the Amuq, but then attempts to show that the Amuq sequence (at least Phases F to J) “closely parallels that of the Palestinian Early to Middle Bronze Ages” (1964:269). As impressionistic as the construction of the sequence may have been, recent work in the region has shown that Braidwood’s intuitions were remarkably perceptive. Recent work by the Italians at Tell Afis in the Plain of Idlib, for example, have produced evidence of the introduction of RBBW in levels that are equivalent to Late Chalcolithic Amuq Phase G (Mazzoni 2000:102), and on closer scrutiny of the Hama excavations, the few ETC wares uncovered, are found in association with Late Chalcolithic Beveled Rimmed bowls (Thussen 1988), providing further evidence once more that Braidwood’s initial understanding of the sequence is the correct one. Red Black Burnished Ware (RBBW) was encountered during the University of Chicago excavations at the sites of Dahab, Çatal Höyük, Tell Judeideh, and Tell Tayinat (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:345). It was also uncovered by the British at Tabara al-Akrad and Tell es-Saluq (Woolley 1955: 7-8). Both the American and British projects strove to understand the cultural history of the plain from the Neolithic through to the Iron Age by undertaking excavations at various sites in the valley. However, when it came to understanding the appearance of RBBW in 37 the region, they both had varied interpretations. Braidwood, trained in an anthropological tradition that favours indigenous cultural development, noted that the pottery assemblage of Phase H also contained a strong continuation of Phase G Simple Wares, in addition to a continuation of existing lithic technology (1960:345, 519). The new architectural features that appear in Phase H (benches hearths and bins) and other “foreign” wares (Brittle Orange Ware) can all be found in Cilicia at the sites of Tarsus and Mersin (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:519-20), from which there is only one attested sherd of RBBW (see above). Braidwood preferred to see RBBW as a regional ceramic variant of the Syro-Cilician Dark-faced Burnished ware (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:519). Both Woolley and Hood, trained in the Cultural Historical tradition; which tends to stress the discontinuities in cultures, saw the same data as evidence of invasion and domination by an outside group (Woolley 1955:6-9). RBBW, in a mottled brown-black to dull orange-buff colour, was first encountered at Judeideh in the upper-most Phase G floors (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:294). Phase H was defined by “the beginnings of substantial appearance of RBBW in an otherwise standard Phase G assemblage” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:345). There is a general continuity in the ceramic assemblages between Phases G and H with the exception of a dramatic increase in the percentage of RBBW, and the limited appearance of other wares such as Brittle Orange Ware and Metallic Ware. In Phase H, the ware attains its classic “brilliant black and red-orange” colour scheme (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:294). According to Braidwood, RBBW continued into the following Phase I, but in limited quantities (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:398). Forty-three sites were recorded in the survey as producing RBBW. Unfortunately, aside from Tayinat and Judeideh, it is impossible from the publication to determine which Phase G or I sites produced RBBW. Excavation of Phase H levels was limited to small and medium sized 38 soundings, producing very little in the way of architecture. What architecture was found was domestic in nature and the material found was consistent with this context: several features and installations, metals, portable hearths, as well as a significant amount of pottery (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:345-50). After a fifty-seven year hiatus, interest started to focus once again on the Amuq in the mid 1990s. In 1995, rescue excavations were conducted at the site of Tell Judeideh, which was being destroyed by bulldozer activity (Yener et al. 1996). At the same time, a re-survey of the region was initiated by Wilkinson with the aim of understanding how the plain had changed since Braidwood’s work in the 1930s. The most visible change since the 1930s was the draining of the Lake of Antioch. Initial survey work immediately uncovered a number of previously unrecorded sites in the region of the lake, suggesting that further seasons could add to the occupational history of the valley (Yener et al 2000:174-87). Survey work has continued every season since 1995, and has covered a larger portion of the plain and adjacent valleys than Braidwood’s survey (See Fig.3 and Appendix A). The new survey work has resulted in an increase from the original one hundred and seventy-eight sites to three hundred and forty-six sites ranging from the Neolithic to the Islamic period. The number of sites which have produced RBBW, as of the 2002 season, has increased from the initial forty-three to seventy-one (See Appendix A). In 1998, as part of the AVRP Survey, Harrison initiated an investigation of the third millennium sites in an effort to examine the development of urban institutions, specialized craft industries, and inter-regional trade networks in the Amuq (Harrison and Batiuk 2000:181). During the 1998 and 1999 seasons, sites with recorded third millennium occupations were revisited and sherded. In addition, recent bulldozer cuts were investigated, documented, and 39 ceramic and radiocarbon samples were collected. A considerable amount of RBBW ceramics from the surveys and from the earlier excavations of the 1930s were drawn in the summer of 2001, and the spring and summer of 2002. This material will serve as the basis for the ceramic analysis presented in Chapter Five. The Levant and Khirbet Kerak Ware Given the role early archaeological investigations in the southern Levant played in the development of Near Eastern Archaeology, and the place Khirbet Kerak Ware holds in the larger question of a wide ranging migration, it is only fitting that we end our survey here. Criticisms of Albright’s approach to Near Eastern Archaeology aside, and in particular his contribution to EBA studies, it is to him that we owe the identification and designation of “Khirbet Kerak Ware”. Although the material was first identified by R.A.S. Macalister in his excavations at Gezer (Macalister 1912:151), Albright’s contribution is better known for the identification of Khirbet Kerak as the type site for this distinctive ware tradition (Albright 1926). A number of sherds were collected at the site, which Albright dated to the Hellenistic – Roman Period and the Middle and Early Bronze Ages (1926:30-1). The pottery belonging to the “earlier stratum” was collected from the lake eroded edge of the tell, as well as road-side cuts running through the center of the mound. In this early publication, Albright incorrectly assigned the burnished pottery to both the EBA and MBA, possibly, as Esse suggests, as a result of an attempt to draw parallels between the “burnished finish of KKW and the finish of the red burnished ware of MB IIA pottery” (1991:37). The American excavations at Beth Shan and Megiddo clarified the chronological position of KKW in the EBA sequence. The definitive study of the EBA came with G.E. Wright’s work, The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze 40 Age (1937), in which Wright identified KKW as the marker for the onset of the EB III period. Excavations at the site of Khirbet Kerak were initiated by Mazar, Stekelis and Avi-Yonah from 1944 until 1946. Mazar opened a trench covering 1600 m2, and revealed five phases of settlement with Hellenistic-Roman remains lying directly above those of the EB. The upper-most EB level produced an accumulated depth of 2.0 m of debris, comprised of four building phases, and was dated by the presence of KKW to the EB III (Maisler et al. 1952a:171-2). The 1945 season produced a large rectilinear structure measuring 40x30 m. A 2.5 m wide street circled the structure on the north, west and south sides. A gate opened into two courtyards which were surrounded by eight large (9.0 m wide) circular structures. These structures were seen as storage bins or granaries. KKW was found in an oven near the gate, dating the structure to the EB III period (Maisler et al. 1952b:223-30). In 1950, excavations were renewed by P.L.O. Guy (1951) and continued in 1951 by Bar Adon (Bar Adon 1952). In 1952, a team from the Oriental Institute under P. Delougaz excavated for a ten month season. The team returned again in 1963 and 1964 for further excavations. These investigations were primarily focused on the Byzantine Church, with several probes excavated in the vicinity of the church to examine the earlier levels. The probes produced evidence of three successive layers of streets, all belonging to the EB (Delougaz and Haines 1960). With the exception of an olive press, no real architecture was found. Areas H and K in the southeastern area of the mound produced what appeared to be an olive oil factory with the discovery of mortars, combed ware storage jars, and spouted combed ware vats; material generally associated with the production of olive oil. Dating this structure is somewhat difficult based on the ceramic evidence. The assemblage most closely resembles that of the Levantine EB III, with the glaring absence of 41 KKW (Esse 1991:123). Another interesting observation made by the OI excavators, which would be noted again by later excavations, was that the EB III levels do not appear to have been as large as initially thought. It would seem that the EB III levels, although quite large, were patchy and spread out all over the mound (Greenberg 2003). The largest settlement appears to have been EB I and II. In 1967, Ussishkin undertook minor salvage work at the site. A Chalcolithic/EBI transition level with circular, semi-subterranean houses was uncovered. The EB III levels produced approximately 20 m of a partially paved road with walls of houses on both sides of the street. As well, a larger “public” structure was uncovered (Ushishkin 1968). Amiran undertook excavations at the site in 1976, followed later by Eisenberg in 1981(Eisenberg 1981) and Yogev in 1985 (1986). The most recent work at the site was undertaken by Getzov in 1994, concentrating along the Zemah-Tiberias road (1999). The overriding problem with the excavations at Khirbet Kerak is the lack of publication. No final reports for any of the excavations have yet been published, although brief preliminary reports are abundant. A project recently undertaken by R. Greenberg of Tel Aviv University, is attempting to publish some of the excavations and to form a comprehensive stratigraphy across the site (Greenberg 2002). The majority of the work that has been completed thus far has been archival, uncovering the multitude of documents, plans, photographs, and field diaries relevant to the excavations. The project will undoubtedly revolutionize our understanding of the site. Sites producing KKW have been found throughout the southern Levant (see Esse 1991:137). However, the distribution is concentrated in the north around the Sea of Galilee, the North Jordan Valley, and the eastern Jezreel Valley. What is more important is that the full range of forms appears at only a few of these sites. Where it is found in the south, the forms are 42 generally small, easily transported types, such as simple and sinuous sided bowls, which are suggested to be the result of exchange. Several sites in the North (Hazor, Khirbet Kerak, Beth Shan, Yaqush) have produced the full range of forms, including objects that presumably would be of little interest in trade, but which could be seen as more sensitive cultural markers, such as andirons/portable hearths (see chart in Esse 1991:137). Within the north, further clustering is visible when one examines KKW sites for a concentration of ceramic components. A zone of higher cultural concentration is visible with ‘Affula and Qishyon forming the western border, Hazor in the north, Tell esh-Shuneh in the east, and Beth Shan in the south (see Esse 1991: 137143, and Miroschedji 2000: 278, See also Chapter 3, Fig. 33). In the northern Levant, outside of the Amuq Plain, the greatest concentration of KKW comes from the site of Ras Shamra, Phases IIIA1-IIIA2; (de Contenson: 1989). The sites of Qalat Sirani and Rousat al-Amir, both located in the environs of Ras Shamra, have also produced KKW (Courtois 1963). In the east, the ware has been found in very limited quantities at Ebla (Matthiae 1980:52-53), but in significant quantities at Tel Afis (Mazzoni 1999, 2000) and Qarqur (Dorneman 1999:146-7). The central Levant forms the largest gap in the distribution of the ware. The Orontes River valley has long assumed to have been the route by which KKW was introduced to the south (Burney 1989:335). However, significant presence of the ware has not been attested along this route, although Dorneman has reported some examples from Qalat Moudiq (1999:146), and a few sherds of KKW bowls were found at Hama (Level K7-1; Ingholt 1940:19-21), but appear to be found in association with Beveled Rim Bowls, suggesting a Late Chalcolithic rather than EB date. No KKW is reported from the excavations and surveys in the region around Homs (Philip 2002), or in the Lebanese Beq’a (Marfoe 1978). It has been found at a few sites along the Syrian coast south of Ras Shamra, such as at Qalat el-Rus (Wright 43 1937:73), Tell Sukas (Ehrich 1939. 70, 73-74), Tell ‘Arqa in northern Lebanon (Thalmann 1991:25), and Rosh ha-Niqra in southern Lebanon (Esse 1991:96). As noted earlier, Philip has recently suggested that perhaps a seaborne mechanism could account for the appearance of KKW in Palestine since it has appeared more frequently at sites along the central Levantine coast. It is curiously absent, however, from the EB levels at Byblos, the largest maritime center of the region during this period (Saghieh 1983). Summary The study of Near Eastern Pottery was first introduced by Petrie who, in hindsight, had a rather simplistic view of ‘cultures’. Petrie saw similarities between groups as evidence of the movement of people, and the appearance of new wares in a region as the result of intrusive groups bringing their culture with them. This view of ceramics and cultural change became ingrained in Near Eastern archaeology with the work of later scholars including W. F. Albright and G. E. Wright. Given the large geographical distribution of ETC wares, it is not surprising that scholars assigned the phenomenon a multitude of different names, as most of the regions in question tended to work in isolation from each other. As similarities began to be noted amongst the various regional groups, given the theoretical background of most of the scholars involved, discussions of population movements were inevitable. This uncritical use of migration as an explanatory mechanism in discussions of ETC wares inevitably come into conflict with developing concepts of cultural change amongst anthropologists of the 1960s. The inclusion of proto-historic periods, such as the Early Bronze Age, with later ‘historical’ periods -- another legacy of Albright -- resulted in an isolation of EBA studies from these theoretical developments in anthropological archaeology. The end result, in effect, was a division in the discussions of the 44 ETC, with some relying on outdated understandings of migration and cultural change, and others, to the frustration of many (Miroschdji 1986:26), dismissing the possibility of migrations out of hand. It is only with more recent developments within the discipline (Dessel and Joffe 2000:33), that more nuanced discussions of migration have been introduced finally to EBA studies of the Near East. 45 46 Chapter Three Migration Theory Introduction Migration has been demonized and has mystified Western archaeologists since the rise of the “new archaeology” in the late 1960s. It has been demonized as a simplistic explanation of culture change that was applied uncritically and inappropriately by a previous generation of scholars to archaeological problems that have subsequently been explained more convincingly in other ways. It has been mystified as a phenomenon that is difficult to detect archaeologically, that occurred sporadically and unpredictably in the past, and that therefore is not amenable to uniformitarian or scientific explanation. For many years, those who incorporated migration into explanations into cultural change risked being associated with a form of interpretation that was regarded as normative, simplistic, unsupported by functionalist models of social evolution, and/or impossible to test subjectively. (Anthony 1997:21) Human mobility over large distances has played an undeniable role in our existence. Be it the spread of hominids across the planet, the emergence and adoption of agriculture, to the development of long distance trade (from Neolithic obsidian trade, to the Old Assyrian trading colonies, to the populating of the America’s), humans have traversed great distances throughout recorded history. Invoking the movement of peoples as an explanatory mechanism for the spread of culture is one of the oldest and most persistent themes in history. From old tribal mythology to Herodotus, to the biblical narrative, mankind generally has understood the movement of culture when human carriers were involved with it in some manner. Migration as an explanation of cultural change was the main mechanism that could properly work within the framework of a literal interpretation of the Old Testament which “alone insured its predominance down to the middle of the last century” (Adams et al. 1978:484). Migration’s persistence in Near Eastern Archaeology as a sibling of biblical studies is therefore not surprising. This chapter will therefore establish the history of the development and use of migration and diffusion within the discipline 47 of archaeology, and highlight possible historical developments that could help explain the ‘Retreat from migrationism’ in the 1970s. It will then summarize the structure of migrations as outlined by the Neo-migrationists model developed by Anthony, and identify the patterns that can be used to help identify a migration in the archaeological record. A brief history of migration The 18th and 19th centuries saw the development of anti-creationist views of history and the development of cultural evolution. However, even as these views were gaining preeminence, the use of migration did not go into decline. Rather, with the concurrent development of other branches of the Social Sciences, migration theory found a new home and even a new level of respectability in the guise of diffusionism. Early understandings of diffusion developed by Oscar Montelius (as opposed to the later concept of Cultural Diffusion – see below) stressed that concepts of mobility (read migration) were the main forces for cultural change in archaeological assemblages (Montelius 1903). Distributions of these assemblages, along with developing linguistic and racial (based on cranial classification) patterning seemed to correlate with each other. This was exemplified in Gustaf Kossina’s use of linguistic and archaeological evidence to trace the ‘history’ of the German people (1911). This relationship of data “elevated migration theory from a purely historical doctrine to an explicitly scientific one, according to the canons of 19th and 20th century natural science” (Adams et al. 1978:484). The concept of cultural evolution emerged at about the same time that diffusionism/ migrationism was enjoying its fluorescence as a loosely defined ‘scientific’ principle. It gained preeminence mainly in the studies of early, prehistoric (Paleolithic) periods in Europe, while migration remained dominant in the later protoand historic periods. 48 By the start of the twentieth century, a new concept of ‘Cultural Diffusion’ started to take shape, generally as a “reaction against the excesses of nineteenth century evolutionism” (Adams et al. 1978:485). Cultural Diffusion was not necessarily different from earlier concepts of diffusion, since it involved migrations as a causative prime mover in cultural change, with ‘cultures’ diffusing from point A to point B by means of a movement of people carrying their culture with them (Childe 1925:132-7, 1926:210-11). This concept of Cultural Diffusion, however, was more nuanced than previous understandings. Mobility was still at the core, but on a smaller scale, with a stress on the local assimilation of diffused traits. This view was best articulated by Childe, who considered himself a ‘diffusionist’ (Trigger 1980:173-4). Childe understood archaeological ‘cultures’ to be the “material expression of what today would be considered people” (Childe 1925: v), and “cultural progress had resulted from breaking the isolation of human groups and pooling their ideas on an ever-increasing scale” (Rowlands 1994:48). By identifying ‘culture groups’, and the differentiations between them, one could trace movements of individual groups and interactions (Childe 1933:417). However, when it came to the diffusion of technology, or ideas and concepts such as agriculture – things that were functionally efficient– human mobility may not necessarily have been a factor (Childe 1929: vii, 248, but ironically, he argues for the opposite in 1946:24). Changes in material culture were often viewed as episodes where migrant groups displaced/replaced or even dominated indigenous groups (Childe 1926:200, 1929: vii). What emerged with Childe’s work was a greater concentration on recognizing migrations in the archaeological record (see Rouse 1986:13-9), but with little attention to the understanding of how migrations occurred. The effect on prehistoric studies was a blurring of understandings of diffusion and migration, a problem which has generally survived to the present. 49 The 1960s saw the development of what became known as ‘The new archaeology’, and with it the concept of cultural diffusion, independent of migration, has evolved. The new paradigm found itself at odds with older migration explanations in archaeology (Binford 1965). Practitioners of the new archaeology attempted to introduce a stronger theoretical and methodological rigor to the field. Theory became paramount, and older, traditional explanations were criticized for their weak theoretical foundations. ‘Processual archaeology’ put an emphasis on scientific procedures and law-like generalizations within which migration models of the time could not operate (see below). A new understanding of ‘diffusionism’ evolved where the transmission of elements from one culture to another could be achieved without close contact between groups; acculturation could be achieved by a variety of complex social practices other than direct contact. This understanding quickly found its way to the top of the theoretical pyramid as developments in anthropological theory sought to separate the linguistic, racial, and archaeological data that were used collectively as evidence for migrations, and treat them as independent variables. By not allowing these separate data groups to reinforce each other, most reconstructions of migrations not bear up under close scrutiny. A stronger emphasis was placed on internal indigenous development, and the differentiation of social mechanisms, environmental change, and demographic factors. As a result, a strong bias emerged against migration as an explanatory mechanism, with any and all processes of a ‘local’ or indigenous nature favored instead (Adams et al 1978:485-6). For the most part, migration models were seen to be “so bound up with the imprecise chronologies and the inaccurate model of ‘cultures’ that they could not be saved” (Chapman and Hamerow: 1991:4). Instead of producing refined migration theories, however, migration was generally dismissed as a process worthy of investigation, even in compelling cases. This created 50 a situation in anthropological theory where, as Anthony described it, the baby was being thrown out with the bathwater (1990). The result of all these factors was a twenty five year “retreat from migration” in Processual Archaeology’. Adams summed the situation up most eloquently when he wrote: Perhaps the most severe criticism that can be leveled at migration theory in anthropology is that, in the strictest sense, it does not exist. What we have been discussing are, properly speaking, not migration theories but distribution theories which presuppose migration. Yet anthropologists have shown little interest in addressing the movements of peoples as a subject for study in its own right. On the contrary, there has been an almost perverse refusal, alike on the part of archaeologists, linguists, and physical anthropologists, to consider the social, technological, and logistic mechanics of human movement. (Adams et al. 1978:523) However, there were ‘voices in the wilderness’ within the processual ‘camp’, which were not only willing to discuss migration, but considered it a discernable socio-archaeological process. For example, David Clarke developed twelve types of processes to explain patterns of change in artifact assemblages (1968:411-31). Of these twelve, one specifically spells out the use of migration (cultural intrusion/substitution through military conquest or mass migration); while another four involve human mobility in some fashion (e.g. imperial colonization, military conquest). Clarke’s work, however, had little impact on processualists. The second half of the 1980s saw the loosening of this grip, and the re-emergence of migration as a subject considered worthy of serious study, thanks primarily to the works of Rouse (1986) and Renfrew (1987). Childe, dismissed by Binford and other processualists, started to regain some respect, with his theories and work re-evaluated (Trigger 1980; Harris 1994), receiving an unprecedented level of respect from anthropological theorists, to the point where Renfrew was willing to see him as an early processualist (1992:122). Rouse’s book, Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remain. (1986) takes a more processual view of migration, and makes significant strides in 51 highlighting patterns in cultural remains, but only in clear-cut examples of migration, such as those of Polynesia. Rouse took the view that by “honing their classificatory methods” archaeologists could identify migrations in the archaeological record. But there was still no attempt to explain systematically how they worked. In reality, Rouse had a simple and undeveloped view that migrations only entailed people invading another’s territory, and that it was a unidirectional event, only undertaken in an effort to establish a new residence (1986:12). Most archaeologists who accept this idea (as well as geographers and demographers) have been influenced by the work of Zelinsky, who came to the conclusion that with the Industrial Revolution, migration reached a new and greatly intensified level, changing its character so much that it could not be used as a point of comparison with Pre-Industrial Revolution migrations (1971). However, there is substantial evidence which suggests otherwise. Developing studies of modern migration began to underscore the linkages between migration and a whole host of other behavioral patterns such as “urbanization, industrialization, agricultural strategies, family structure, gender roles, and ideology” (Zelinsky 1971:897). The development of the ‘post-processualists’ school led to the widespread “rejection of the Holy Trinity of Processual archaeology – logical positivism, universal laws and systems theory” (Chapman and Hamerow 1991:4). Migration again found a new home, this time in ‘postprocessual’ archaeology, which finally provided the climate for the investigation and development of the view that migration is actually a structured behavior which can be examined and explored. Furthermore, it was argued that migration models had the potential to be tested just as rigorously as any other theoretical model, and therefore could no longer be ignored by theorists. 52 Anthony has emerged as the foremost authority on the application of migration theory to archaeological contexts. However, his approach to the topic is not necessarily original. Instead, he has built on the latest studies of migration in other disciplines, particularly the view that migrations were a structured behavior. For the first time, however, an attempt was made to understand how migrations work. By understanding how the structure worked, one could hope to identify it in the archaeological record. Anthony identified three general causes for the poor progress archaeologists have made using migration models in the past: 1) a bias towards methodological approaches to the problem 2) the rejection of over a century of migration studies by demographers and geographers 3) a paralyzing fascination with the causes of migration, which in most archaeological cases is a hopeless quagmire. (1997:897) Regarding the methodological problems, Anthony cites the all important question: How is a migration to be identified archaeologically (1997:897)? Although it is an important question, he believes it is not the place to start. In a way, however, this is where he stumbles, because he misinterprets the question: Methods should be formulated on the basis of understanding of the prehistoric process being investigated. In migration studies, the goal of the methodologist has been minimally to discriminate the archaeological traits of migration from those of secondary diffusion, and maximally to distinguish one type of migration from another. The focus is on the archaeological record, primarily on the classification of archaeological data, the definition of valid chronological/geographical units, the identification of culturally distinct traits, and often on the linkages between these and ethno-historic linguistic groups. (Anthony 1997:897) Anthony is ultimately correct when he suggests that one must understand the prehistoric process being investigated. However, when one is faced with a data set, how does one know which prehistoric process to investigate? Therein lays the crux, and priority of the question: How 53 is a migration to be identified archaeologically? To evaluate the data without bias, as Anthony would like, one cannot come at the data with a particular process in mind – but a bias is immediately created when one decides to investigate one process instead of another. Anthony is correct in his second criticism of the rejection of migration studies performed by demographers and geographers. Ethnographic studies are used to understand patterns in the past on a regular basis. There really is no reason to believe that some of the patterns observed in modern migrations are substantially different from those of the past. “The basic questions (What kinds of migration are there? How does migration work as a process? Under what conditions might a specific migratory pattern be likely?) can only be answered by turning to the literature” (Anthony 1997:898). Anthony’s third criticism is somewhat troubling. He is correct when he suggests that the causes of migratory movements can be and often are extremely complex, and in prehistoric cases the proximate causes may not be identifiable in the archaeological record (1997:898). However, I would argue, that the need to identify these underlying causes is integral to the beginning of any investigation. These issues aside, Anthony’s work identifies migration as a group of complex socially structured processes which can result in patterning in the archaeological record. Consequently, migration studies are slowly re-emerging as a serious subject of active archaeological investigation. When one steps back for a larger view of the history of archaeological theory to examine why migration theory was abandoned as an explanatory mechanism, an interesting pattern emerges. Processual archaeology was largely an Anglo-American creation that made little progress in most of Europe, with the exception of Denmark, Holland and Sweden (Hodder 1991). Most of continental Europe, on the other hand, tended to utilize migration models as their 54 dominant paradigm. John Chapman, in a fascinating work entitled “The Impact of Modern Migrations on Archaeological Explanations” (1997) highlights this pattern by factoring a critical biography of anthropological thought into the study of migration as an explanatory mechanism. It is no longer absurd to suggest that each book, each article has its own biography, reflecting and transforming the individual circumstances of its author as well as the academic impulses of the time. Abrupt changes in the field of interest of an author can also be related to shifts in fortune or the time that it takes for individuals to come to terms with their own experiences before they can be penned. If the complexities of individuals’ biographies seem daunting for the archaeologists, how much more so would it appear for the history of archaeological thought, with its myriad criss-crossing of individual streams interacting, bifurcating and joining each other to form the main currents of thought. (1997:9) The link between the abandonment and re-emergence of migration theory as an explanatory mechanism and the cyclical tendencies of anthropological thought has been suggested before (Adams et al. 1978, Phillip 1999). Some have also tried to link this cycle to historical/social factors such as: • the decline of post-war colonialism (Adams et al. 1978, Rouse 1986). • the “disciple factor”: where the influence and temperaments of individual archaeologists lead “to a built in system of probabilities for the acceptance of one form of explanation over another” (Chapman 1997, see also Adams et al. 1978) • the ambiguity of migration hypotheses in contrast to other explanatory mechanisms These suggestions, although tantalizing, are not without their problems. Chapman quite rightly points out that the decline of colonialism affected Britain, France, Portugal and Germany, but that the abandonment of migration theory affected chiefly Britain, and Scandinavian countries such as Denmark (1997:12-3). Furthermore, both schools of thought produced influential leaders, and were equally susceptible to what can be described as a “disciple factor”. 55 Finally, the ambiguity of migratory mechanisms was isolated to archaeology. Historians, demographers, statisticians, geographers and economic historians have systematically studied migration for over a century. Sophisticated models have been developed. Its ambiguity as an archaeological explanatory mechanism is more the result of an odd intellectual isolationism in Western anthropological archaeology thought that flies in the very face of the eclectic nature of archaeology. The field of archaeology inarguably borrows from numerous other fields in an effort to recreate the past. The disciplines of demography, statistics, geography and economics are regularly foraged in theories and models, but strangely, this has not been the case with migration. Often enough, in personal discussions with individuals in the field of anthropology, there is a hint of hostility towards even the mention of migration. Migration is passé, a pedantic nonexplanation – an embarrassing throw-back to the early, simple days of archaeology. What makes this development even more curious is that some of the original literature that first systematically questioned the use of migration (cf. Adams et al. 1978), does not even effectively refute it. Adams, for example, even says that archaeologists may convincingly postulate migrations on the basis of site distribution data (Adams et al. 1978: 488), while Renfrew states that “what was really rejected was the evidence for migrations, not migrations per se” (1987 italics mine). Champion has further observed that in theory, both processualists and functionalists never rejected migrations that could be seen as regular, such as the movements of pastoralists, inter-community marriages, and trade (1990). He saw this pattern amongst British and North American anthropologists and archaeologists between 1960 and 1980 as more suggestive of a cultural rejection of migration by a generation of scholars (1997). Given that the history of both countries involves significant levels of migration, this is a curious social development. 56 When examining the ‘biography’ of migration theory (1997), Chapman notes a relationship between major changes in theoretical perspectives and the “experiences of nations and individuals beset by population migrations, wars and their aftermath” (Chapman 1997:14). In essence, he compares the history and impact of refugees, invaders and migrants in countries of Europe where migration was a dominant paradigm, to the regions of Europe and North America that were dominated by a retreat from migration in theory building between the years 1960 and 1980. At the core of his thesis is what he calls the ‘generational experience’. “The basic idea is that those people who were born in the same decade and through similar cultural and social experiences will share more than just a superficial similarity of attitudes and beliefs but rather a range of significant reactions, perhaps even world views” (1997:14), and that the cultural and social experience of migrations and invasions over the last hundred years have had an influence on changes in the theoretical perspectives of the generations involved. When looking at the past one hundred years of history in Europe there is a series of cyclical periods of “crises of integration” resulting from movements of ethnically defined refugees. The first period, corresponding to the forty years prior to and including WWI, saw the development of nation states across the whole of Europe. These new states, based on vague, “ethnically-defined” concepts of traditional territory resulted in considerable displacement of populations, producing an estimated 20 million refugees after the end of WWI. The second phase corresponds to the period following WWII up to the oil crisis of the early 1970s. The invasions of, and forcible resettlements in Europe during and after WWII, coupled with asylum seekers from the development of the Soviet Bloc and the return of post- 57 colonial refugees (which had begun in the late 1940s), saw an estimated 30 million refugees in Western Europe – drastically altering the economic and social landscape. The third period begins in the late 1980s and continues to the present day. The 1980s saw a steady growth of migration in Europe, estimated at over half a million per year, which culminated in mass migrations from Eastern Europe with the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The social impact of these successive waves of migrations and invasions was felt collectively by three separate generations. The first period was one where the effects were felt world-wide. According to Chapman, 60 million people were displaced, with an estimated 20 million that returned or remained as refugees in Europe. Mass movements of people were events experienced by both Europe and North America, and undoubtedly shaped the consciousness of the emerging generations. This period corresponds directly with the period of migration as the dominant paradigm in anthropological thought. The divergence in theoretical concepts emerged with the generations who experienced the second period. The dominating event of this generation was WWII. The perverseness of the Nazi ideology created a social backlash against all that it symbolized, and what represented it. The unabashed abuse of Kossina’s Die Herkunft der Germanen (1911) and Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte (1912) as the cornerstone to the Nazi ideology and mythology had the greatest effect on the use of migration in theoretical discussions. Part of the retreat from migration in the following generation can be seen as an attempt by the field to insulate itself as far as possible from this politicized intellectual history. This seems to start as early as 1952, with Grahame Clark’s Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis (1952), and came to preeminence in the 1960s with the ideology espoused by processual archaeologists who preferred to put themselves in 58 opposition to traditional (read Culture-historical) paradigms by “preferring to select a strongly contrasting range of explanatory mechanisms” (Chapman and Hamerow 1997:4). Should we accept the premise that part of the retreat from migration is a social response to the experience of WWII? Why is it then that we do not see a complete abandonment, but a divergence of schools? Essentially, Chapman attempts to link the divergence to “the social perceptions of this significance of contemporary migrations and invasions” (Chapman and Hamerow 1997:2). He does this by pointing out “that the ‘Retreat from migration’ arose specifically in those countries not invaded in either World Wars, Britain, America and parts of Scandinavia” (Chapman 1991:18). Relatively sheltered from experiencing the mass movement of populations during and after the Second World War, the emerging generational experience was significantly different from those who had endured invasions and movements of peoples during these wars. Although America did receive a significant number of refugees after the war, it did so largely passively. It was mainland Europe that experienced human concentration in refugee camps and slowly watched them emigrate to other parts of the world. Population movements in all their drama were a fact of life to the generation following the war in mainland Europe. Chapman does not try to suggest that this was the ‘prime mover’ for the retreat, but rather that it had a profound effect culturally on the subsequent generation, which could be seen as a factor for the retreat from or continued use of migration models within these diverging traditions. 59 The Structure of Migrations Migration is a well-studied and moderately predictable human behavior. It is regarded quite seriously as an important factor in social and economic change by a variety of social scientists except Western archaeologists. Our recent isolation in this area should be a source not of satisfaction, but of discomfort. (Anthony 1997:22) Migration has been studied intensively for over a century by demographers and geographers who have developed sophisticated models of the structure of migrations that can be of use to archaeologists. Anthony suggests that through understanding the structure of a migration, it might be possible to recognize evidence of it in the archaeological record (1990:899). Interestingly, although he maintains that the cause(s) of migrations in all probability cannot be identified, he suggests there are “structural conditions that favor migrations of a particular type” (1990:899). Traditionally, demographers have modeled migrations as a result of a series of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. These factors are essentially a series of perceived positive conditions in the destination seen as attractive by the migrating groups, providing a ‘pull’ and negative conditions in the initial “home” region which would provide sufficient incentive to look for better conditions, the ‘push’. Structural conditions in the social group, such as limited subsistence patterns, or perhaps an exploitive position within a group could provide one such ‘push’ in an environment where migration might be a favorable social response. Other “exploitive” factors can be seen as initiating causes of migrations in prehistory, but generally the push–pull model can be used as a template, even in cases where there are “culture specific or belief systems” playing a factor in the decision making process (Anthony 1990:899). Patterning can be expected to emerge across significant geographical expanses as a result of regularities in these “pushes and pulls” (Fish and Fish 1993), and these patterns can be observed at a macroregional level in the archaeological record 60 Previous archaeological models of migration have treated the movement as an amorphous wave flowing across the land with a single causative event initiating an incident of mass mobility; the most popular causative event being population pressure. High population in area x is alleviated by a proportion of the population moving to area y which has a lower population. The primary question at hand is: What (or who) is actually migrating? Cultures do not migrate, people do. The traditional cultural-historical approach of “a pot (as stand-ins for culture) equals people” is not being espoused here. Research by demographers and geographers over the last century has shown that migrations are more complex and nuanced. Furthermore, they have a significant social factor that must be accounted for. Rather than large amorphous groups, research shows that narrowly defined goal oriented sub-groups are the ones that tend to migrate (Anthony 1991:908). There may, of course, be exceptions to the rule throughout the long period of human history, but generally it may be seen as a matter of scale. At a macroscopic level, a migration may appear as a mass movement of people. However, on a more microscopic level, goal oriented sub-groups can be distinguished. It is these sub-groups, who bring social and cultural traditions to a new region, and who may be attempting (but not always) to assert their identity through the use, display and maintenance of these traditions, that are recognizable in the archaeological record. Current models focus on the movements of smaller, discrete social groups who form the decision making units, and who are ultimately responsible for the patterns reflected in the material record that result from the regularities in their decision making processes (Anthony 1990, 1997; Cameron 1995). Furthermore, traditional and troublesome models of mass movements, better known as “wave advance models” of migration, basically focus on the 61 displacement of one social group by another. Although a possible outcome, studies have shown that in reality this is not a common occurrence (Barth 1969). When a new group moves into an already populated region, co-residence of migrant and indigenous groups is a frequent outcome; one that is basically not considered in traditional models. The interaction between these two groups can be difficult to untangle in the archaeological record, but if the co-residence occurs for a significant chronological period, “multiple localized settings for co-residence between groups” (Barth 1969) – ‘islands’ or enclaves of migrants, may be visible within the general larger mass of the indigenous culture, reflected in the archaeological record. Should two groups exploit different ecological niches, sharing of local resources by separate groups can occur, and may even result in the formation of new institutions which can serve to integrate the local and migrant groups (Anthony 1991). The pushes and pulls must also account for the flow of information. Migrant groups do not travel randomly across landscapes, rather they move to a specific destination about which they have specific information. If there are negative factors in the home region which provide the push, the future migrants must have knowledge of better conditions in the intended destination area (the ‘pull’). Migrations tend to move along established “flows of communication”, be it trade routes, or zones of cultural interaction (Anthony 1990:899-900, 1997). They rarely move into unknown territory, but rather move to regions where they had some sort of previous contact, have relations, or even have lived themselves for a time. In prehistoric societies, very much as in today, “potential destinations tend to flow along kin-defined transmission routes” (Anthony 1990:900). Kinship lines are generally distinguished through a relationship based on culturally 62 recognized connections between family members. These connections can often be tenuous, but frequently form the basis for larger stratified societies such as chiefdoms. Anthony suggests that the greatest push factor involved in long distance migrations is economic (1990:900). Therefore differences in economic opportunities between regions will have a tremendous effect on the predictability of migrations. Once again, information flows must be factored in by means of previous economic activity between the two regions. It can then be assumed that the archaeological record should produce some evidence of this earlier activity. Economic differences can be highlighted by the subsistence strategies of the migrants involved. If a society practiced a narrow subsistence strategy, it would be dependent on localized and inelastic resources. Societies which practiced such focused strategies could reach their ‘threshold’ at which point they might be forced to migrate at a much earlier level then those practicing a more diffuse subsistence strategy, being more likely to reach a critical level economically sooner as they run through their narrow resources. Examples of such focused subsistence strategies “might be industry specialized laborers, herd-following hunters, most farmers or pastoralists that were linked to centralized markets through the provision of a specific type of animal resource” (Anthony 1990:901). ‘Pushes’ can more often result from less tangible social conditions in society as well. Building on work by Kopytoff (1987), Anthony proposes that various kinds of social groups, from villages to state level societies, consistently show a tendency to fission and throw off migratory offshoots (Anthony 1997:23). Kopytoff has discerned within certain African social groups a tendency to create a form of “lineage segmentation.” In such cases, younger males who are denied opportunities for social advancement accessible to their older kin, find their best opportunity for advancement through migration to a new region, where they can attract adherents 63 or clients from the original home region to form their own polity, essentially claiming founder status for the new region (1987:18-28). In stratified societies, particularly those of chiefdoms, this founder status can translate directly into political and economic power. In these cases, migration was primarily a social strategy to improve their standing within a particular kin group, rather than a response to population pressure. Chiefdoms, as defined by Service are “redistributive societies with a permanent central agency of coordination” (1962:144). However, they can exhibit significant variation in social-political complexity, and as a result, Earle has suggested differentiating between simple and complex chiefdoms (1978:12). Complex chiefdoms have a tendency to be more socially stratified than simple chiefdoms, with members competing with each other for controlling positions (Wright 1994:68). Founder status can therefore be used as a method of obtaining a position of power within a complex chiefdom, providing another incentive or ‘push’ for migrations. This social strategy has been observed in several Pre-Industrial societies, including the Maya (Fox 1987) and early ancient Rome (Fustel de Coulanges 1956). The final element which Anthony factors into his migration model is transportation costs. Migration is more likely to occur between two regions when the transportation costs are low. Quite logically, the greater the distance, the more expensive the migration will be, because the transportation costs are prohibitive. Transportation costs depend not only on the distance between two regions, but the technology of transportation, and the level of hostilities encountered along the route and in the region of intended habitation. Should the destination area be inhabited, but require labour sources, more importantly labour using a different eco-niche, tensions will be lower, and will tend to provide a greater ‘pull’ for the migrants. Costs are not 64 necessarily financial, but social as well. If the destination region is less socially amenable or accepting of migrants, then the social cost for the subgroup may prove prohibitive. A pull factor which appears to be omitted from Anthony’s discussions is environment. “Groups practicing focal subsistence strategies have quite specialized and narrow possibilities. The terrain into which they migrate must offer readily available resources. Alternatively, groups practicing a diffuse subsistence strategy are more readily adaptable to a wider set of resources” (Rothman 2003). The degree of fit of a groups subsistence patterns to a particular set of environmental factors can be seen as an important ‘pull’ as the migrants’ subsistence behaviors would be pre-adapted to the region. The speed of migration often is dependent on whether a focal or diffuse subsistence strategy is practiced (Rothman 2003). Migrations therefore, constitute social responses to a series of ‘pushes’ and ‘pulls’, the speed and intensity of which are dependent on the structure of information flows and transportation costs. Even if one dissects the standard population pressure model, it can really only work within the confines of this push-pull model, in which the push might be population pressure, while the ‘pull’ is knowledge that the intended destination area has the carrying capacity for the population influx. Given the evolving understanding of the complex nature of migrations, it is not surprising that demographers and geographers have developed a range of migration models. Anthony relies heavily on Tilley’s migration typology in an effort to identify the differences between these models. The over-arching theme is the surprising regularity in the nature of migrations. Economic models demand that migrants have a greater concept of the conditions of the destination area than is generally possible in order to make the move only based on rational economic factors. However, demographic studies have indicated that migrants more often move 65 to a place with social support rather then the place that makes the most economic sense. If anything, the best predictor of migration is the history of migration into a given region. Migrations can logically be divided into two types: short and long distance migrations. Long distance migrations, it must be noted, are significantly more complex and can be subdivided into several forms. Tilley, a demographic historian, has distinguished six forms of migration that can be of use to archaeologists: local or short-distance migration, long distance migrations, circular migration, career migration, chain migration, and coerced migration (1978; Anthony 1990). Local or Short Distance Migration This is the one form of migration which processualists never truly abandoned, and with good reason, because the majority of migrations fall into this category. Pastoral nomads, huntergatherers, marriage exchanges, all occur within a home region or further a field, provided they are within the same social network or “habitually interacting social groups” (Anthony 1990:901). The issue of transportation costs/technologies is eliminated by the local and restricted nature of the movement. By itself, these nomadic patterns can be seen as simply the residential patterns of the group. However, processualists would incorporate these movements into the standard waveadvance model, which is highly dependent on population pressure. Yet this is where it falls into the category of a migration under the guise of a nomadic pattern. As the population of a nomadic group increases, more land is required to sustain the group, and at a macroscopic level they incorporate more land within their nomadic territories. At a microscopic level, however, the older nomadic patterns are maintained, while the newer social groups are expanding the territory in an effort to sustain themselves. This wave advance model has its strengths, as it has the ability to accurately account for the slow movements of people across a landscape over millennia. It 66 falls short when the chronological period is of a diminutive nature and the geographical expanse is large. Long Distance Migrations Short distance migrations, although historically attested, are by their very nature difficult to distinguish in the archaeological record, because the migrants remain in the same social/ cultural network. Long distance migrations are significantly more complex due to their very expansive nature. However, unlike short distance migrations, migrations that cross significant ecological or cultural boundaries often require greater organization and therefore leave a greater mark on the archaeological record. Somewhat ironically, however, this is the form of migration that has received the greatest resistance from archaeologists. As migrations are dependent on the flow of information regarding potential destination, quite logically, long distance migrations are dependent on the long distance transmission of information about the destination, transportations routes and technologies, which can alleviate the frictional issues associated with the distances. According to Anthony, the establishment and maintenance of the information flows should be detectable archaeologically through patterns in the interregional material cultural flows (Anthony 1990: 902). Long-distance migrations can very often be categorized by a progression of jumps or leap-frogs between zones of optimal economic opportunity along the established routes of communication. Significant distance can be jumped or bypassed by migrants due to information collected by advance “scouts”, be they early settlers, traders, pastoralists, or craft specialists, who provide information about the intended destination and the optimal routes. Archaeological evidence for suggested long-distance migrations should therefore provide signs of this earlier 67 penetration. As well, one would expect that regions between the two points of movement would sometimes exhibit little trace of the migrant group. After information about the destination area has been received by the community and the decision to migrate has been made, the movement tends to flow more evenly, often moving rapidly from a restricted point of origin along well defined routes, which is “often just as finely targeted as the destination area. Archaeologically, this should result in artifact distributions that follow a specific line of movement, though such sites might be transitory and difficult to identify” (Anthony 1990: 903). Local and long distance migrations are common enough. However, demographers like Tilley have subdivided long distance migrations further. These subdivisions factor in what has been described as “return migration”, which often develops as a counter-stream to migrations; an observation hitherto ignored in archaeological discussions. Often enough, these return migrations are the result of economic pushes. Having obtained the desired economic level in the foreign land, migrants return to their point of origin. This can have significant repercussions in the interpretation of the archaeological record, as some assumed cases of long distance trade might actually be better understood as the result of return migrations. Circular or Tethered Migration Circular or tethered migration is predominantly economic in nature, involving migrants who move annually out of their home region to perform a specific task, but with the intent to return. Anthony cites the example of medieval German laborers who would travel annually to Holland to mow hay for the Dutch dairy industry, and then returned to Germany when their own seasonal work began (1997:25). Trade goods found in excavations could often be carried by these circular migrants. They are of particular importance for the creation of information flows. 68 In addition, these migrants sometimes remain at their destination and become the first settlers within a later migration subset, such as a chain migration. Career Migration Once again this is generally an economically based migration pattern. This particular form of migration tends to apply to specialized craftsmen or skilled professionals. However, the destination is not reliant on kinship ties. Rather, the needs of the hiring institution are primary. Although this form of migration can easily be seen on a smaller scale as far back as the Neolithic, a larger scale migration presupposes a higher level of social hierarchy at the place of destination, as there would need to be a larger demand for the goods created by specialized professionals and institutions to distribute the products that act as a pull for larger groups. This form of large-scale migration tends to be a factor less in the prehistoric period, but more so in the proto-historic periods with the advent of urbanism. Chain Migration Chain migrations are responsible for the leaps or jumps between optimal zones as they move directly to a specific destination, usually as the result of information “pulls”. They bring migrants from a “focal point” or a specific home region to a new specific destination by a known destination route. Information is often provided by previous migrants in a circular or career migration pattern. Since the migration is from a restricted point of origin, the groups of migrants are often narrowly defined along kinship lines as the information streams concerning optimal routes and destinations will follow these kinship connections (Anthony 1991: 904). This being the case, a link between artifact attributes and the migrants’ home region should be identifiable, resulting in regionally defined artifact types being found at the destination. Innovations from the original regional assemblage will emerge rapidly, especially in the case of regions where there is 69 co-residence with other groups. The innovations are a result of these new influences, but the base assemblage should be determinable. “First-comers” to a destination, again often the result of circular or career migrants who decided to remain behind, have a tendency to be young males (Lefferts 1977), and develop a higher status amongst the migrants through their knowledge and connections to the region. This first comer status can result in either new or further development of social differentiation within groups in the destination area (Anthony 1997). Among the earliest migrants groups, one often emerges as an "apex family" when migration pulls more members of the group into new territory (Anthony 1990:904). These families provide resources for other migrants as they arrive and act as cultural "translators" and liaisons with the native population. If necessary, they serve as organizers of defense and even expansion for their own group. As a result these apex families gain special status among migrant groups (Rothman 20003). Consequently, not only should it be possible to delineate regional patterns in artifact assemblages in the destination region, but distinct settlement patterns should also be observable, with isolated pockets developing around “founder” communities (Anthony 1997). Coerced Migrations The final category of migration is one that has been discussed widely. Warfare can create a significant displacement of populations and refugees, as can economic and social factors. The issue being that this is more a result of the ‘push’ factor in that groups are being forced from the place of origin. However, when the initial population movement gets underway, it appears to follow the same patterns of other migrations, resembling a chain migration, along kinship and information lines. Summary Observations 70 To conclude, migration is not a random, unexplainable event, but a dynamic social process that can be modeled and tested. It leaves detectable traces in both the artifact and spatial patterns of the archaeological record, if one understands the process. Most importantly, one cannot simply look at migrations as a process of population replacement. It is a social strategy through which individuals and kinship groups compete for power and prestige, both economically and socially (Anthony 1997). Through an understanding of the structure of migrations and the patterns they produce, it should be possible to identify migrations through the identification of patterns in the archaeological record, even if the specific cause that prompted the migration is unknown. 71 72 Chapter Four ETC Settlement Patterns Introduction The use of survey data and settlement pattern analysis has long played a role in the study of the Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC). It was realized early on given the extensive territory in which ETC ceramics had been found, that regional surveys provided most of the data (see Chapter 1). This type of data, however, does not come without significant problems of methodology and interpretation, and therefore needs to be dealt with cautiously. In early studies, distribution maps with vast and sweeping coverages were used to describe the territory in which ETC wares were found (cf. Roaf 1990:80, Fig. 1). However, such maps imposed a monolithic character on the distribution of ETC wares, attributing it to places where it had not actually been found, and presupposing that it would be found with further research. Over the years, as researchers began plotting simple maps, starting with Muchayev (1971), and the most inclusive being that of Sagona (1984), they began to find gaps in the distribution of the ware, particularly in the regions to the north and south of the Amuq Plain. This in turn began to prompt questions, particularly by Todd (1973), as these apparent gaps did not fit well with the wave advance model invoked in the early studies (cf. Childe 1925, 1950). Skeptics then pointed to these gaps in the settlement pattern as evidence against the migration hypothesis. In the twenty years since Sagona published his dissertation, with its gazetteer of sites with ETC wares (1984:195-346), a significantly larger portion of the Near East has been subjected to intensive archaeological survey. Using as many of the available sources, I have updated his catalogue, increasing the list from the original 470 sites to 652 (see Appendix A). I have also updated the bibliography as much as possible, and have created a GIS (Geographical Information Systems) using the survey data in an effort to facilitate spatial analyses of these data. 73 Accordingly, this chapter re-evaluates the settlement pattern data relevant to the distribution of ETC wares at both a macro and a micro level. Settlement patterns, I argue, can be an extremely sensitive cultural marker. Where as material culture can, in theory, be emulated or diffused, changes in settlement patterns could be more suggestive of an intrusive population, because they do not lend themselves to easy movement across cultural barriers. As a result, an examination of this dataset can be particularly telling in the context of population movements. Although an environmental deterministic approach is not being espoused here, different communities harness the productive capacity of the lands in different manners, which can leave a cultural landscape signature (Wilkinson 2003:9). Consequently, at a macro or inter-regional level, the ETC GIS database will be examined to reveal whatever broad patterns, or larger landscape signatures, can be observed, and if they are consistently repeated across the distribution zone. At a micro level, three regions will be subjected to more intensive analysis. First the evidence for an increase in settlements will be examined along with a shift in patterns which could be seen as evidence of the introduction of a new population into the areas under investigation. These patterns will then be compared and contrasted in an effort to identify any shared relationships in the structure of these settlement patterns, and for the local ‘signatures’ which might be suggestive of a common mechanism responsible for the patterns. The Amuq valley, with settlement gaps both to the north and the south, is ideally suited to serve as a case study for this regional analysis, especially since it has the heaviest concentration of sites with ETC wares (RBBW) between Eastern Anatolia and Northern Palestine. The data derived from the Amuq will then be compared to data from the Lower Euphrates Valley Survey conducted by M. Özdoğan (1977) near the modern city of Malatya and the Keban Reservoir Survey (Whallon 1979), the next major regions of substantial occupation of ETC wares to the 74 North of the Amuq. The data from the Amuq will then be compared with that from Northern Palestine, building on the work of D. Esse (1991). Although this does not follow a logical geographical north to south progression, this order was chosen based on the scale and detail of data available for this study. Inter-regional Settlement Patterns It can be argued that distribution maps of archaeological cultures have a tendency to be vague in the way they indiscriminately cover large regions on a map, suggesting a greater deal of uniformity than is often the case. Nevertheless, they are a valuable way of communicating large amounts of data in a simple and coherent fashion. Interpretations of these maps tend to vary mainly on the (archaeological) philosophical orientation of the individual. ‘lumpers’ see them as heuristic devices, while ‘splitters’ see them as an over-simplification of a complex situation. Roaf’s 1990 map (Fig.1), showing the distribution of ETC, Ninevite 5 and Scarlet Wares across the Near East, is a classic example of the type of distribution maps that frustrate some archaeologists. Given the semi-popular nature of the book in which it is published, however, it must be seen for what it is, a general map intended to convey the impression that ETC wares have been found across a large portion of the Near East, and not to suggest that it is found in mass quantities everywhere within the regions depicted. When a more detailed view is taken (Fig.2), it becomes clear why such general distribution maps are inadequate for conveying the nuances of settlement pattern. Figure 2 is a Landsat TM false colour image of the Near East5 5 Courtesy of NASA Earth Science Application Directorate http://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/ 75 Fig. 1 Distribution zone of ETC and related wares in the Near East (Adapted from Roaf 1990:80) with the 652 sites which produce any evidence of ETC ceramics. The database is based on the initial work by Sagona (1984) and has been updated (see above), and corrected in some cases by the use of GPS coordinates collected by the author, as well as by the use of smaller scale maps and satellite visualization. Accuracy varies greatly within the dataset, and the coordinates assigned to each site should be seen as an approximation, with accuracy ranging from a few meters in some cases, to as much as a few kilometers. What is immediately visible in the distribution, however, are the aforementioned gaps in the distribution of sites, particularly to the north and south of the Amuq Plain. A distinct clustering of the sites is also readily apparent . The immediate reaction to this observation is to dismiss the clustering as a result of biases in the data, a product of gaps in survey areas or of the varying intensity of the surveys undertaken. 76 Fig. 2 Landsat TM mosaic of the Near East showing the distribution of sites with ETC wares. (Provided through NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Scientific Data Purchase Program. Produced, under NASA contract, by Earth Satellite Corporation) However, when the same distribution is overlayed with only a portion of the surveys that have been done in the region (Fig.3), it is clear that the clustering is not the result of gaps in survey coverage. Certainly, the intensity of the clustering has been affected by differences in survey strategies. Nonetheless, the pattern is clear, and not exclusively the result of uneven survey coverage. Another aspect of the dataset must be acknowledged. The database contains all sites that produce ETC wares, ranging from a full range of forms, to a single example. Esse observed a very important pattern for the Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW) of the south (1991). Most studies that 77 Fig. 3 Landsat TM mosaic of the Near East with distribution of sites that produce ETC wares, with some approximated survey coverage areas. . (Provided through NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Scientific Data Purchase Program. Produced, under NASA contract, by Earth Satellite Corporation) discuss KKW include all the sites in which it occurs without distinguishing how representative its presence was. Sagona recognized this issue, and rightly chose to include all occurrences maintaining that “they may be no less informative than sites with thick deposits for an understanding of the extant of the Kura-Araxes [read ETC] influence” (1984:195). Esse, in his study of the distribution of KKW, preferred to classify sites not only according to the presence or absence of ceramics, but according to their assemblage. When this was done, a pattern emerged in which sites that produced the greatest variety of vessel forms were isolated to the north around the Galilee region and the Jezreel Valley, while the more southern sites produced only a limited 78 repertoire, consisting of small bowls for the most part. By classifying sites according to their overall assemblage, Esse was able to differentiate between what he identified as the core region of “Khirbet Kerak Folk” settlement, and those regions in which the vessels were traded. Such filtering further delimits the distribution of KKW, while also highlighting any clustering. Fig. 4 Landsat TM mosaic of the Near East with distribution of sites producing ETC wares, with Class 1 and 2 settlements highlighted. . (Provided through NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Scientific Data Purchase Program. Produced, under NASA contract, by Earth Satellite Corporation) Working with the larger ETC database, a similar classification of sites is possible. Consequently, sites were classified according to the assemblage of ETC wares uncovered at the site (See Appendix A). Classes 1 to 3 represent settlement contexts where ETC wares were found, while Class 4 represents wares found in funerary contexts. Class 1 represents sites where 79 ETC wares were found in abundance. Class 2 represents sites which produced ETC wares in significant quantities, but alongside ‘local’ or indigenous ware traditions. Class 3 represents sites which produced predominantly local/indigenous wares, with only minor or trace amounts of ETC wares. Similar to Esse’s analysis, it can be suggested that Class 3 sites represent examples of exchange or limited interaction with the ETC groups, while Classes 1 and 2 represent settlements that were producing ETC wares. If one looks at only the Class 1 and 2 sites (sites highlighted in Fig. 4), the clustering becomes even more clearly pronounced, providing further evidence that this clustering has not resulted entirely from biases in the survey coverages. Fig. 5 EarthSat Satellite image of Eastern Anatolia and the Transcaucasus in November showing the relationship between the distribution of sites with ETC wares and intermontane valleys. (Provided through NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Scientific Data Purchase Program. Produced, under NASA contract, by Earth Satellite Corporation) 80 Another important issue identified by Esse, but long ignored, is the role of the environment in the settlement areas associated with ETC wares. The differences in environment between northern Palestine and the Trans-Caucasus are significant. Winters are cold and snowy in the Caucasus, and although it does get cool in northern Palestine with the possibility of snow, winters are not as severe. These climatic differences do have bearing on the settlement landscape, with fewer mounded settlements in the Caucasus region, where they are concentrated Fig. 6 Distribution of ETC sites within precipitation zones. in the intermontane valleys which share characteristics with lowland plains (Sagona 1984:25 – See Fig. 5). 81 One would expect precipitation to be significantly different, but examination of hydrology maps for the Near East show surprising similarities in the precipitation patterns between the regions. Rainfall maps were acquired for Table 2. Distribution of ETC Sites in various precipitation zones of the Near East most of the Middle East, but were not available Fig. 7 for Armenia, Distribution of sites with ETC wares and Landuse zones of the Near East 82 Georgia, and Azerbaijan, and therefore sites in these regions had to be omitted from analysis. Of the 652 sites in the database, 499 sites are found within the regions covered by the rainfall maps (Fig. 6). The analytical results (Table 2) show the majority of sites to be located in the 400-600 mm isohyet zone, the ideal level of precipitation for rain-fed agriculture. This clustering in the 400-600 mm isohyet zone forms an arc across the distribution of ETC Wares in the Near East. M.K. Buccelatti noted that this arc paralleled the region traditionally identified as the “Fertile Crescent,” and consequently, she introduced the term ‘The Outer Fertile Crescent Culture’. Looking at the distribution of sites within Land Use Zones (Fig.7) produces some further illuminating patterns. Land use maps were also unavailable for Azerbaijan; so sites in this region had to be omitted from the analysis. It should also be noted that correlations between modern and ancient land use of territories cannot be one to one. Although land use maps do reflect certain ecological characteristics, they also reflect human related factors such as economic and social activities. As a result, human activity over the past 10 000 years (the Holocene period), particularly with regard to woodland zones, has affected the vegetation and the land use patterns of the Near East drastically in some cases. Deforestation in particular, has significantly altered the landscape, not only in the reduction of woodland zones, but it also accelerated soil cover erosion, which subsequently altered land use patterns. Nevertheless, the gross patterns can still be meaningful. The Middle Table 3. Distribution of ETC Sites in various land use zones of the Near East. 83 East can be divided into seven land use zones: Forests, Pastureland, Permanent Crops, Arable Land, Irrigated Land, Rough Grazing and Wasteland. Of the 652 sites in the database, 599 sites are located in the regions covered by the land use maps. The distribution of sites is revealing. For example, a majority of the sites (76%) are found in agricultural zones, with a mere 15% found in Pastureland and 1.3% in Rough Grazing territory. This runs counter to the prevailing understanding of ETC subsistence patterns, which has assumed a subsistence strategy dominated by pastoral nomadism. It is possible that nomadic camp sites are underrepresented in the database due to the difficulty of identifying them in the archaeological record. However, when Classes 3 and 4 (occurrences attributed to exchange and found in cemetery contexts) sites are eliminated from the analysis, the patterns change only slightly, with sites removed from the Rough Grazing zone and a small number from the Irrigated Crops zone. The important pattern to note is that the clustering of sites tends to be isolated to certain pockets of land use, particularly along fertile valley floors. This again could be the result of uneven survey coverage, especially in the case of mountainous regions. As one heads further north and east, elevation increases significantly. Simple two dimensional distribution maps do not convey the spatial relationship between sites and elevation. Figure 8 is a topographic map of Anatolia showing the distribution of sites with ETC wares in relation to the topography. Many of the gaps in the distribution of sites occur specifically in the mountainous regions with high elevation. Common sense would suggest that settlements of any type would not be found in significant numbers. That being said, the pattern of settlement in prime agricultural territories located within intermontane valleys is interesting. One must be careful not to assume that agriculture was the exclusive land activity. As Wilkinson has 84 Fig. 8 Distribution of sites with ETC wares in relation to topographic data of Eastern Anatolia and North Syria. (Topographic data derived from SRTM Data) recently pointed out, scholars often forget that prime agricultural territory also has the potential to serve both agricultural and pastoral pursuits (2003:8). Pastoral nomadism can be seen as a conveniently vague term which works well with many of the issues encountered in the ETC context. Pastoral nomads can cover large geographical distances in pursuit of their subsistence activities, and the nomadic nature of their settlements can be used to explain gaps in settlement patterns. They can also settle in permanent or semi-permanent settlements in a variety of ecological zones as conditions permit (Cribb 1991:44-64). The regions of Eastern Anatolia and Armenia-Georgia, the hypothesized homeland of the ETC, have a long history of pastoral nomadism (Yakar 2000; Zimanski 1985), and it would seem logical to project this pattern back to the ETC. More importantly, pastoral nomadism 85 is well documented in anthropological studies and constituted a form of migration that was never truly discounted in anthropological literature (Champion 1990:215). Looking at the land use data, however, one cannot help but suggest that perhaps the nomadic nature of the ETC has been over-emphasized at the expense of the more sedentary character of the settlements, possibly in an effort to find a theoretically acceptable mechanism for the distribution of ETC wares across such a wide area of the Near East. Emphasis is placed on the impermanent nature of architecture built of wattle and daub (Burney and Lang 1971; Sagona 1993; Shimelmitz 2003) that has been found at a number of sites (Arslantepe, Norşuntepe, Taşkun Mevkii, Sos Höyük, and others), which suggests a transient population, and is subsequently taken as evidence of pastoral nomadic activity. Although the technology behind the building of wattle and daub structures is not as technologically ‘sophisticated’ or as involved as that of mudbrick, it does not necessarily make their inhabitants transient by nature. A significant level of energy and labour costs are still expelled in the construction of these buildings. The technology is different, but it does not have to reflect a lower level of sophistication, nor necessarily a nomadic characteristic. Also, many sites that produce an abundance of ETC wares are often single-period occupations. However, what is often neglected is that even these single period sites are not transitory, but rather are inhabited for a significant period of time, with many sites preserving several metres of accumulated occupational debris (see Appendix A). That pastoralism was an important component in the ETC is not disputed, but the sedentary character of the ETC cannot be ignored either. There is a tendency for the large clusters of sites that produce high concentrations of ETC wares to be found in regions with similar landscape signatures: well-watered intermontane valleys with predominantly arable land. Should a migration be seen as responsible for the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian 86 Culture, this pattern could mean there was a conscious selection of specific environments for settlement. Since the settlement clusters tend to be encountered in such discrete land use zones, an intra-regional examination of these settlement patterns should provide some more meaningful models to clarify our understanding of the nature of ETC settlement and land use. Intra-Regional Settlement Patterns Three areas have been selected for a more in depth regional analysis due to their concentration of sites with ETC wares: the Amuq Valley of South Eastern Turkey, the Malatya and Keban Regions of Eastern Turkey, and Northern Palestine. The Amuq Valley has long been an area of extreme interest for the ETC problem, particularly with respect to the relationship between KKW and the other ETC Wares. The Amuq preserves a rather dense concentration of sites with ETC wares (RBBW) between the southern-most point of the least disputed boundary of the ETC Zone – the Malatya region, and Northern Palestine, where KKW is found in abundance. Should KKW represent a migration of people from the north, it is reasonable to assume that this movement would have passed through the Amuq Valley to reach northern Palestine (Amiran 1952; Lamb 1954; Hennesey 1967). As a result, significant debate has emerged as to the length of the ‘sojourn’ in the Amuq before these KKW ‘folk’ moved on to Palestine, presumably via the Orontes Valley (See Amiran 1952; Henessey: 1967; Phillip 1999, 2000). Data collected by the Amuq Valley Regional Project (henceforth AVRP) Survey will form the primary data for this study. The Malatya-Elazığ and North Jordan Valley regions will serve as the comparative datasets for the analysis of settlement patterns. The Amuq Valley (Fig. 9) Situated on the northeast coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the Amuq Valley is positioned at a nexus of roads leading from Anatolia, northern Syria and Mesopotamia and the Levantine 87 coast. The plain is bounded on the west by the Kızıl and Gavur Dağları, or Amanus mountains, and a series of low hills that make up the Kürt Dağ Mountains to the east in modern Syria. The Orontes River, which finds its headwaters in the Lebanese mountains, snakes along the southern section of the roughly triangular plain, which is approximately 34 x 41 km in area. The Orontes Fig. 9 Map of the Amuq Valley and major geographical features. continues past the modern city of Antakya (ancient Antioch), and finds its outlet into the Mediterranean Sea between the moderately high peaks of the Kızıl Dağ and Jebel al-Aqra mountains at Samandağ. The plain was dominated up until recently by the Lake of Antioch, fed principally by the two other rivers that enter the plain: the Kara Su from the north and the Nahr al-Afrin from the 88 east. The lake, now drained, covered a significant portion of the plain when Braidwood conducted his original survey in the 1930s. The lake was also surrounded by a large marshy area in which a significant number of sites were located. Both Braidwood and Woolley suspected that the modern lake was a fairly late addition to the landscape, but differed greatly on its origin. Fig. 10 Geological map of the Amuq Valley and the distribution of RBBW sites. Woolley believed its creation to be the result of an earthquake that shifted the drainage of the plain, resulting in a rapid creation (1953:17-9). Braidwood, on the other hand, saw a more gradual development over time, the result of a silting up of drainage systems (Braidwood 1937:9-10). Geomorphological analysis by Wilkinson and the AVRP survey have shown that 89 Braidwood’s assessment was the more accurate of the two. Wilkinson has also suggested a more diminutive lake in the Early Bronze Age (Yener et al. 2000: 104; Yener et al. 1996: Fig. 4). Geologically, the plain itself is comprised of recent Holocene alluvial and colluvial deposits (Fig. 10), the result of millennia of sedimentation from the river systems. Wilkinson has established a comprehensive sedimentary sequence for the region, dividing it up into several sedimentary environments: the Plain, the Orontes alluvium, the Afrin alluvium, the Amanus fringe alluvial fans, and a region of low sedimentary deposits known as the “Çakaltepe Window” (Yener et al. 2000). The soils of the region (Fig.11) consist of alluvial and colluvial, Terra- Fig. 11 Soil map of the Turkish side of the Amuq Valley and the distribution of Phase H sites. 90 Rossa, Basaltic, and Brown woodland soils, with the majority of sites situated in the fertile soils of the plain rather than the foothills, the traditional preserve of pastoralists. The Amanus Mountains to the west are comprised of a series of ultrabasic and metamorphic rocks, dominated by a large spur of intrusive green stone (predominantly serpentine). There are also limestone and undifferentiated Miocene and Palaeozoic deposits. The green stone deposits are also a good source of metallic minerals, which were probably mined in ancient times, for which at present there is little evidence (Yener et al. 2000: 168). The southern Jebel al-Arqa hills are comprised predominantly of limestone, with outcrops of green stones, Eocene Undifferentiated and Upper Cretaceous deposits, particularly on the western side near the modern city of Antakya and the Samandağ region. The Afrin Valley is similar to the rest of the plain, consisting of alluvial deposits, but it is bounded on the south by more limestone hills, and basalts and undifferentiated Eocene deposits in the moderately high hills to the north. Both the Amanus Mountains and the surrounding hills have a complex drainage system that further waters the plain. These systems, particularly in the Amanus, produce a series of highenergy fans that deposit impressive levels of sedimentation over time. With the intensification of settlement, human activity has increased erosion, with intense erosion beginning sometime in the third millennium BCE. The sedimentation in the plain increased greatly in the Roman period, as a shift in settlement from the plains to the hill slopes resulted in an intensive land clearing and deforestation in the hills, which significantly amplified soil erosion (Yener et al. 2000: 177-9). The long occupational history of this fertile plain was initially set out by Robert Braidwood based on the Chicago surveys and excavations in the region conducted between 1932 and 1938. The Chicago Expedition established a comprehensive sequence from the Neolithic through to the Islamic period, recording almost all visible sites, collecting site size, chronological 91 and hydrological data for each of the 178 sites discovered (Braidwood 1933). Soundings at a number of sites provided a sequence of 22 cultural phases (A through to V), which formed the basis for the dating used in the survey. The Amuq Sequence constructed by Braidwood quickly became an important reference for the material culture of the Neolithic to the end of the Early Bronze Age in the neighboring regions of Anatolia, North Syria and Mesopotamia. The Amuq sequence represents one of the more lasting legacies of the Braidwood’s, even though Braidwood himself described it as a “typological grouping in highly subjective ‘phase groupings’ . . . a descriptive summary, a superstructure laid upon presupposed conclusions” (1966:255). The work for these early periods (from the Neolithic to the end of the 3rd millennium) has remained remarkably stable, and recent investigations in the region have yet to produce any major corrections. Fieldwork was renewed under the auspices of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute in 1995 as the Amuq Valley Regional Project, and is ongoing. The region was subjected to an intensive environmental and archaeological survey, visiting most of Braidwood’s original 178 sites still accessible in modern Turkey. As of the 2002 season, the site database had expanded from the original 178 to a total of 346. Given the vast amount of archeological and environmental data collected, it was decided the best method to facilitate analysis of the information was through the use of a regional GIS. The Amuq Valley Regional GIS was constructed using 1:25 000 declassified Turkish military maps, which were scanned and digitized to form the base topographic and hydrological data. The AVRP site database created by the University of Chicago team was then imported and merged with Braidwood’s original data in an effort to fill gaps in the modern survey due to changes in the political boundaries of the region since the 1930s. This was done with the aide of 92 satellite imagery, including Corona 5m resolution imagery processed by J. Casana of the University of Chicago, and SPOT 10 m imagery attained from the United States Geological Fig. 12 Map of the Amuq Valley with the distribution of Phase G sites and the K-Means analysis overlay. Society (USGS). Geological (Fig. 10) and Soil (Fig. 11) maps were also scanned, georeferenced and digitized to aid in understanding changes in land use patterns throughout the history of occupation in the region. Landsat TM imagery was obtained from the University of Maryland Global Landcover Facility to help build on the Chicago team’s geomorphological work in further understanding changes in the region. According to Braidwood, Phase G (Fig. 12) represents the end of the late Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, and corresponds to the beginnings of intensive 93 settlement in the region (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:516). Braidwood’s initial survey uncovered six sites dated to the period, which has now been expanded to 24. Wilkinson suggests that Phase G sites continued the same settlement patterns as those of previous Phases D-F, with a tendency to be clustered in the centre of the plain, suggestive of a degree of continuity between the periods. Tell Imar al-Sharqi (AS 101), the largest site at approximately 13.74 ha, is located almost directly in the centre, and may have been surrounded by a city wall of some significance, perhaps even a fortification wall, as suggested by the large stones visibly eroding out of several sides of the tell (Yener et al. 2000: 183,193). Fig. 13 Map of the Amuq Valley with distribution of Phase G sites with their estimated site catchments. Highlighted sites are occupied in Phase H as well. 94 Examination of the spatial relationship of the sites around Imar shows an arc of small, 2 to 4 ha sites, distributed at regular distances of 3 to 4 km, suggesting a form of two-tiered hierarchical relationship with Imar forming the first tier, and these smaller sites the second. To better understand the relationship between Phase G sites, particularly the relationship between Imar and its surrounding sites, estimations of agricultural sustaining areas were calculated. This was done using Adam’s admittedly conservative formula for site size estimations of 100 people per hectare for villages, and 60 people per hectare for larger more urban settlements (Adams 1981:69). There is, of course, a question of how much land would be necessary for the estimated population. Presently, agriculture in the Amuq is heavily dependant on irrigation. This, however, is primarily a result of the modern crop of choice in the region, cotton. All Phase G sites are located in either alluvial or colluvial soils and, according to land use maps, most Phase G sites are found in the Arable Land zone. At present, there is no substantial evidence for the advanced use of irrigation in the region in ancient times. Thus it was decided to use Weiss’s estimate of 3 ha per person as the minimum amount of agricultural land needed for subsistence (1986:95) in a dry farming zone, rather than Adams’ 1 to 1½ ha of land for irrigated land (1981:87). Even with the larger estimated agricultural sustaining areas (which in turn can compensate for the smaller population estimates), there is very little overlap evident in the site catchments areas for Phase G (Fig. 13), suggesting a fairly high level of agricultural or subsistence independence. Even the sites immediately surrounding Imar are either outside its catchment area, or just on the fringe, suggesting only a minor level of integration between Imar and the sites in its immediate vicinity. Perhaps a less subjective mode of investigating the relationship between sites in a region is through Rank-size analysis. Rank-size analysis is an effective means of evaluating political and economic integration in modern complex societies developed by economic geographers, and 95 is often used in the examination of ancient settlement patterns as well. Rank-size analysis provides us with a standardized measurement of organization and integration in a settlement system (Falconer and Savage 1995). The Rank-size rule suggests that in well-integrated societies (‘integrated’ referring to the interdependence of settlements within a settlement system), “the size of any nth ranked place may be predicted by dividing the size of the largest site by n, such that the rank and population of these communities describe a straight line log-normal distribution when plotted logarithmatically” (Savage and Falconer 2003:39-40). Essentially, if the Rank-size rule remains true, the second largest site in the settlement should be half the size of the first, and so on. These log-normal distributions are found only in modern industrial systems, and any interpretation of ancient systems derives from the manner and degree of deviation from log-normal (Savage and Falconer 2003:39). If the slope of the distribution curve is steeper than the predicted log-normal and falls below the log-normal line, then it is referred to as a primate curve. Conversely, distributions with more shallow curves that fall above the predicted log-normal are called convex. Compound distributions with an upper primate portion and a lower converse one can also emerge and are known as primo-convex (Savage and Falconer 2003:39). A primate distribution emerges when there are fewer intermediate and large places than predicted by the Rank-size rule, or the primate or first ranked site is larger than expected, resulting in a drop off below the line of the predicted log-normal. It has been suggested that primate curves represent an “extraordinary centralization of political or economic functions,” and an extraordinarily high level of integration (Savage and Falconer 1995:40). Convex curves are the result of more intermediate and large sites occurring in the settlement system than predicted. These distributions are believed to be the result of limited 96 or weak economic and social integration in the settlement system. Convex distributions, however, can also be the result of a pooling of two or more settlement systems. Primo-convex curves are generally believed to be the result of the pooling of multiple systems (Savage and Falconer 1995:40). Most early uses of Rank-size analysis have relied on the simple visual interpretation of the curve to identify primate or convex curves (see Adams 1981). The amount or degree of deviation from log-normal was generally ignored. Occasionally the Fig. 14 Rank-size plot of Phase G settlement patterns, showing primo-convex curve. Kolomogorov-Smirnov one-tailed goodness-of-fit test (the K- test) is used to identify statistically whether the deviation is significant.6 Savage’s Rank-size Program was used to undertake the analysis of the settlement patterns for the Amuq. Phase G (Fig. 14) settlement produced a primo-convex curve with a Kvalue of 0.462. Running the Monte Carlo simulation produced a probability of <.001 random deviation from log normal. However, there is a significant ‘tail’ evident in the graph, where the distribution falls below the log-normal line on the lower end of the site size distribution. In this case, the Rank-size rule appears not to account for the smaller sites in the system, possibly skewing the settlement pattern, what is known as the “lower limb problem” (Haggett 1966:106). By eliminating these smaller sites from the analysis, however, one can resolve this skewing of 6 A standard K- test works on the assumption that all the sites in the population are known, something that is difficult to say in most archaeological applications. In an effort to address this issue, Falconer and Savage incorporate a Monte Carlo simulation which essentially pulls sites from the log-normal distribution at random to account for any missing sites in the settlement system under analysis (Savage and Falconer 1995:39). 97 the settlement data. The result is a higher K- value of 0.522, with a probability of <.001 random deviation from log normal. These analytical results suggest that Phase G probably represents a loosely integrated settlement system, mirroring previous analyses. Primo-convex curves, however, also can arise from the pooling of discrete settlement networks. This pooling can be teased out through the use of K-means cluster analysis.7 This method is common in a variety of spatial analyses, and was done with a program called CrimeStat (Ned Levine and Associates 2002). CrimeStat is a spatial statistical program used by law enforcement for the analysis of crime scenes. It is efficient in that it can import coordinate data, and run the simulation to find the statistically greatest number of clusters and then export the cluster shape to a format readable by GIS software. The K-means analysis of the Phase G (the ellipse in Fig. 12) settlement data determined that only one cluster probably existed, further confirming the existence of a single loosely integrated settlement system in the region for the period. According to Braidwood, RBBW makes its first appearance in Late Phase G, comprising 0-2% of the sherd bulk uncovered in excavations. It occurred usually in the upper levels of Phase G (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:292-4). Phase H, however, is defined by “the beginnings of substantial appearance of RBBW in an otherwise standard Phase G assemblage,” with RBBW making up 52-55% of the bulk assemblage (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:345). With Phase H, there is a dramatic shift in the settlement pattern (Fig. 15). There is an increase in the number of sites from 26 in Phase G to 71 sites in Phase H, with a corresponding increase in aggregate 7 K-Means is a second-order statistical analysis that identifies the clustering of points and forms a circle or ellipse based on the average distance of the population from the centre (Savage and Falconer 1995:35-6). The analysis begins with one cluster and continues to divide into two clusters until each member of the population is within their own cluster. 98 Fig. 15 Map of the Amuq Valley with the distribution of Phase H sites, with road systems and K-Means clusters. settled area from 96.5 ha to 222 ha. The settlement data also reveals some further interesting patterns. There is a large and distinct drop off in average site size, with a proliferation of small, but prominent sites of 1 to 2 ha in Phase H. A secondary pattern of greater importance emerges when one examines the settlement data. A majority (58%) of the small 1 to 2 ha sites are new foundations in Phase H, and many are not settled again in subsequent periods. Furthermore, factoring in the ceramic data, a parallel pattern of a general Phase H assemblage emerges: a mix of Plain Simple Wares, RBBW and other wares is found at large sites like Tell Tayinat or Tell Judeideh, but at smaller sites of the 1 to 2 ha range, such as Tabarat al-Akrad (AS 183) or Tutlu 99 Höyük (AS 105), RBBW is almost always the only ware found, essentially forming islands of RBBW within the landscape. In Phase H there is also a dramatic shift in settlement from the centre of the plain toward the edges, with a significant number of sites lining up on the southern edge, along the modern Antakya - Aleppo road, extending along the Afrin Valley into Syria. Though located on the edges of the plain, the sites are still found in fertile and productive regions, often near streams, rivers or near springs. This concentration appears to follow the route of the Roman road, as sections of the ancient road are still visible running alongside the present highway. The distribution of sites along this road, however, does not continue all the way across the plain, but rather, drops off in frequency in the south-central part of the plain, where the Orontes River enters from Syria into the Amuq. This is also where the site of Tell Tayinat, clearly the largest site in the region for this period at roughly 18 ha, is situated. Braidwood had initially noted the distribution of RBBW along this route heading east, and suggested that perhaps the ware (should it be related to ETC of the north) entered through the Afrin (1937:54). However, rather than seeing it as evidence for a point of entry, it could more likely be suggested that this distribution reflects an emphasis on transportation routes heading eastward. When looking at the distributions of sites, two more patterns are worthy of note. A significant number of the sites are regularly spaced 5 to 8 km apart. Also, there is a tendency for the placement of sites at entrances or exits into the valley, as if forming gateway settlements (see Fig. 16) that controlled access to the region. Judeideh intersects routes heading east to the Syrian interior, Tell Jindaris sits at the entrance of the Afrin into the plain, AS 246 at the entrance to the Belen pass through the Amanus mountains, perhaps AS 208 for the north to 100 Fig. 16 Map of the Amuq Valley with distribution of Phase H sites with their estimated site catchments. the plain of Islahiye, and Tell Tayinat at the junction of the southern Orontes route and the eastwest route across the southern edge of the plain. Calculations of minimum sustaining areas for Phase H sites (Fig. 16) produce very little in the way of overlap, suggesting a significant level of agricultural autonomy in the region as in the preceding Phase G period. The major exceptions appear to be around Tell Tayinat and Çatal Höyük, both of which produce a significant overlap with the smaller settlements in their environs. This idea of autonomy is further enhanced through the use of Thiessen Polygons, which provide a simple and useful way of identifying potential service areas or territories around sites (Hodder and Orton 1976:59-60). Interestingly, when the minimum sustaining areas for 101 Phase H are overlayed with Thiessen Polygons, in most cases they fall well within the settlement boundaries proposed by these polygons (Fig. 17). Fig. 17 Overlay of Phase H sites with estimated site-catchment areas and Thiessen polygons, showing catchment generally contained within the polygons Rank-size analysis produces a very interesting primo-convex curve for Phase H (Fig. 18). However, the primate portion of the curve is significantly truncated and the convex portion of the curve significantly more convex. Primo-convex curves are generally believed to be the result of a pooling of more than one settlement system (Savage and Falconer 1995:40). As noted earlier, the most effective way to identify the pooling of settlement systems is through K-means cluster analysis. Analysis of the Phase H settlement data verifies pooling, identifying four clusters 102 spread out across the plain: one cluster in the north, one in the centre, one in the east side of the plain, and one up the Afrin (the ellipses in Fig. 15). Whether we can say each one of these clusters represents a coherent social unit or community is not clear, but their clustering does represent a significant shift in the spatial patterning of the valley from the previous phase. Fig. 18 Rank-size Plot of Phase H settlement system showing primo-convex curve. Site size evidence suggests that these clusters might represent separate settlement groups with a two-tier site size hierarchy clearly visible within each cluster. In the case of the central cluster, Tell Tayinat (AS 126) is clearly the dominant site. As Tayinat is considerably larger than any other site in the valley during this period, a three-tier site size hierarchy can be suggested at the regional level. For the southeast cluster, it is unclear which might be the dominant site: Tell Judeideh (AS 176) or Çatal Höyük (AS 167). Çatal Höyük is situated at the nexus of the route from the Afrin Valley and the road which runs north-south along the eastern edge of the plain. It is also situated on the Afrin River with access to a significant amount of arable land, and with seven small sites within a 1 to 3 km radius. The major issue with Çatal Höyük is the size of the site in Phase H. Phase H was reached in a cut at the base of the site (W 16, Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:345). However, the size of the mound in Phase H is unclear. In all probability, EBA Çatal Höyük was smaller than the 103 present estimated site size of 8.1ha.8 The morphology of the mound of Çatal Höyük is unusual in that it has a circular protrusion on the northeast side of the tell (See Fig. 19). Phase H was found by the Chicago Expedition excavations only in this projection (W 16 sounding), in a mixed context. Consequently, it is possible that the EBA site was contained in this smaller mound, which was later absorbed into the larger mound of the second and first millennium BCE settlement. Should this smaller lobe be the original mound, based on the RBBW found in the sounding, I would suggest that it represents the extent of the EB settlement. Extrapolating a circular mound from this projection results in a 1.2 ha site, a size that falls well within the pattern of the proliferation of small sites, typical of Phase H. With Tell Judeideh, on the other hand, we Fig. 19 Topographic map of Çatal Höyük (AS 167) with excavation trenches. can be much more confident of the site size estimates for Phase H because it was encountered in sounding JK 3 on the northwest, as well as in TT 20 on the southwest (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:45). In addition, the AVRP survey has uncovered significant quantities of RBBW from a section exposed by recent bulldozer 8 Estimating the site size of tells in most cases is done simply by multiplying their length by width. Where possible, site size was estimated by drawing polygons around the site in satellite imagery and calculating the area of the polygon. In cases where length and width were only available, the geometry of the tell was factored in while estimating site size. If the site was described as circular and given equal measurements of length and width, the formula for the area of a circle (A=πr2) was used. Since most tells are more elliptical in shape rather than rectangular, the formula for the area of an ellipse (A= π(r1x r2 ) was used. This method was compared with polygons drawn over sites in satellite imagery with remarkably similar results. 104 activity on the east side of the tell, suggesting that occupation could very well have covered the entire 6.7 ha of the site in this period. Judeideh also sits on the cross-roads of the southern route up the Afrin and the southeast route towards Aleppo. However, unlike Çatal Höyük, Judeideh is slightly more isolated from other EBA sites, having only one site, Tell Dhahab (AS 177), within a 5 km radius. Tell Dhahab functionally related appears to have been to Judeideh. Judeideh is somewhat isolated, nestled in small limestone hills that in the third millennium would have blocked Fig. 20 Illustrated explanation of Viewshed Analysis, with each square representing a ‘grid cell’ in a raster map in the GIS. (Adapted from Wheatley 1995) any visual access to the Bab el-Halwa pass to the southeast, as well as the centre of the plain to the northwest. Dhahab, a small 0.32 ha site situated on the ridge to the southwest, has been suggested to have served as a lookout or watch tower9 for the settlement of Tell Judeideh. The site, presently being destroyed by modern bulldozing activity, is a small but high mound that has produced a significant amount of RBBW. One of the advantages of using GIS is the ability to examine spatial relationships that would otherwise be difficult to analyze using conventional methods. One of these is to create a viewshed map, essentially a cumulative map of lines of sites, showing the area visible from a chosen point. Calculating a viewshed map is a relatively simple computing problem for GIS software. The software takes the digital elevation model (DEM) and converts it into a grid, with each cell in the grid having an elevation value. In the case of the Amuq DEM, each grid square represents 10 m2 of surface area, which allows for relatively precise measurements. A layer with the site point data is overlaid on the DEM, and a straight line 9 Tim Harrison made this observation after the 1998 season where he investigated the destruction at the site. See Harrison 1999. 105 is then interpolated between the source point and the target. The elevation of each cell within the path is then examined to see if the cell height exceeds that of the elevation of the source point, essentially interrupting the line of site (see Fig. 20). This operation is repeated until a map of visible and non-visible cells is created for the entire region. Fig. 21 Viewshed map for Tell Judeideh (AS 176), showing the area and sites visible from it. A viewshed of Tell Judeideh at its estimated third millennium elevation10 with the visible areas depicted in green shows that the site, nestled in a small corner of the hills, has a very 10 Judeideh produced occupation levels from the entire Amuq sequence, resulting in a considerable change in elevation from the EB to the Islamic. Phase H was reached at approximately 135m asl (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:8). Thusthis elevation was used in the analysis. 106 limited view of its surrounding regions (Fig. 21). When one factors in the viewshed from Tell Dahab, there is a 3% increase in visibility (Fig. 22). This might initially seem a negligible Fig. 22 Cumulative Viewshed map for Tell Dahab (AS 177) and Judeideh (AS 176), showing the increased area and sites visible from the combined viewsheds. increase, but it would have provided Judeideh with a visible line of sight to the plain, but more importantly, also of the Yenişehir region to the south and the route east into Syria. These results reinforce the identification of Dhahab as a lookout or fortress, rather than a small settlement, associated with Judeideh. The problem of determining which of the two sites, Çatal or Judeideh, represented the dominant site in the cluster, however, still remains. Recent trends in landscape archaeology have emphasized the social or cultural aspect of ancient landscapes alongside the physical 107 context (Wilkinson 2003:4-35). Visible communication between sites can be seen to have been important for a number of economic, defensive and social reasons. Fig. 23 Viewshed map for Çatal Höyük showing the area and sites visible from it. Work by Christopherson (Christopherson and Guertin 1996) and others (Gaffney et al 1995) has shown that visibility plays an important role in site location strategies, and that viewshed analysis can help in the reconstruction of the ‘cognitive environment.’ If we can hypothesize that inter-site visibility played a role in the arrangement of settlement systems, then in theory the dominant site in the system should display a high level of visibility amongst the sites in the system since it can be assumed that communication with and between hinterland sites would have been important for a number of reasons, including economic concerns, safety concerns, and social interaction (Christopherson 1996). The viewshed of Çatal Höyük (Fig. 23) shows a high 108 level of inter-site visibility. Çatal Höyük not only has visibility with all the sites within its cluster, but also visibility with most of the sites in the centre of the plain. Surprisingly, it also had good visibility towards Yenişehir in the south and the route east to Syria, which DhahabJudeideh presumably controlled. However, since it is located behind a low spur of the Kurt Dağ, it had almost zero visibility of the Afrın route, which, hypothetically, it would have commanded. Fig. 24 Viewshed map of Temel Kızılkaya (AS 208) showing the area and sites visible from it, with the Phase H K-Means clusters. The Dhahab-Judeideh cumulative viewshed (Fig. 22) is somewhat diminished, but it still has a visible line of site with all but one site in the south cluster, as well as a strong line of visibility up the Afrın to the east. These cumulative results, therefore, suggest that Tell Judeideh was the 109 dominant site in the southeastern cluster. Characterizing the northern and eastern clusters is more difficult. In the north cluster Temel Kızılkaya (AS 208) is the dominant site at approximately 4.9 ha. The site has been described by Wilkinson, who suggested it was a possible hilltop fortification overlooking the route that led up the east side of the plain (Yener et al. 2000:184). A viewshed analysis of the site of AS 208 (Fig. 24) indicates that it is fairly isolated from the rest of the sites in the northern cluster. This isolation of the largest site is difficult to understand, and might suggest that either we have yet to uncover the principle settlement in this cluster; or more probably, although statistically a cluster, in reality the northern cluster may not represent a coherent hierarchical settlement system. The same can be said for the eastern cluster, with the viewshed of Jindaris, the largest site in the cluster, indicating not only isolation from most of the sites in its cluster, but from the rest of the plain as well. Therefore, for Phase H, there are two clusters that can be interpreted comfortably as reflecting distinct social units, with Tell Tayinat the dominant settlement in the central cluster, and probably Judeideh in the southeastern cluster. Tell Tayinat, the largest site on the plain at 18 ha, sits in the most prominent position in the plain at the junction of the two main trade routes, and can safely be assumed to be the dominant site or regional center for Phase H. A final comparison between Phase G and H settlement patterns is worthy of note. When comparing the two phases (Fig.25), little continuity is seen in the settlements of the different periods. Even in a simple overlay of the K-means clusters, there is little overlap. Of the 26 Phase G sites, only 14 are still settled in Phase H. The majority of the remaining 12 sites that are abandoned after Phase G are concentrated in the centre of the plain. Unfortunately, with survey data, fine chronological distinctions usually are not possible. Given the basic description of the Phase H ceramic 110 assemblage -- “the beginnings of substantial appearance of RBBW in an otherwise standard Phase G assemblage” (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:345) -- there is an important Fig. 25 Map of Phase H site distribution with the overlap of the Phase G and H K-Means clusters. chronological issue that emerges with the survey data for these two periods. As the main ceramic indicator for the identification of Phase H is the presence of RBBW, and excavations in Phase G levels at Judeideh produced RBBW, the presence of the ware at a site may indicate either a Phase H occupation, a late Phase G occupation, or continuity from G through H. That being said, there are some patterns that can be identified that could have chronological implications. If we are to see the introduction of RBBW into the Amuq as the result of an influx of people sometime in Late Phase G (based on the ceramic evidence), while the original Phase G settlement system was 111 still in existence, we might expect the settlement of new sites to occur on the outskirts of the earlier system in the more sparsely occupied areas. The Phase H settlement system does exactly this, and if we look at sites that are occupied in both Phases G and H (highlighted sites in Fig. 13) we see that these sites are also, for the most part, located on the outskirts of the Phase G settlement system. We are then left with the question of what happened to the centre of the plain in Phase H, which seemingly was abandoned. Could the Phase G settlement system have remained intact, with the new Phase H system established alongside it? This conclusion is possible, and might require a change in our understanding of the relationship between Phase G and H. Perhaps sites that produced the local Phase G ceramic industries, and which continued their occupation into Phase H, were not identified in the survey data due to the lack of RBBW. Rather than seeing a division between G and H, therefore, it may be more accurate to see H more as a sub-phase of G. If so, this would make making sub-dividing these periods in surface collections impossible. Summary of Amuq Valley Settlement Patterns Phase G represents the terminal late Chalcolithic and the beginnings of the Early Bronze Age, and corresponds with the initial stages of intensive settlement in the region. Settlement was clustered in the centre of the plain, in fertile alluvial or colluvial soil deposits, and generally, with good access to water sources. The Phase G settlement system of the Amuq Valley is characterized by a fairly high level of agricultural independence, with one loosely integrated settlement system dominated by Tell Imar al-Sharqi (AS 101). Phase H witnessed a decisive shift in settlement in the valley. There was a significant increase in sites from 24 in Phase G to 71 sites in Phase H, with a corresponding increase in aggregate settled area from 96.5 to 222 ha. Settlement shifted from the centre of the plain to the 112 perimeter, with a good number of Phase H sites located along the reconstructed road system for the region. There was also a distinct drop off in site size, with a proliferation of small (1-2 ha) sites in Phase H that were occupied only in this period. A secondary pattern also emerges, in which a diverse assemblage, comprised of Plain Simple Wares, RBBW and other wares, was found at the larger older sites, while at the smaller, new foundations, RBBW accounted for virtually the entire assemblage. There appears to be very little overlap of agricultural sustaining areas in Phase H, suggesting a significant level of agricultural autonomy for the period. K-means analysis reveals four settlement clusters distributed across the plain, which could represent separate intra-regional settlement networks. However, it would appear that there were in all probability only two settlement networks for the period, both still minimally integrated. Sites were situated to take advantage of good agricultural territory as well as transportation or trade arteries through the region. Furthermore, there was little overlap between the clusters of settlements attributed to Phase G and H, suggesting the need for a re-evaluation of the chronological relationship between these two cultural phases. The Malatya-Elazığ Region (Fig. 26) Situated in the foothills of the Anti-Taurus Mountains, the Malatya and Elazığ regions are dominated by the Euphrates River which winds its way through eastern Anatolia. In the Malatya region, the river opens onto a wide trapezoidal flood plain roughly 51x60x40 km on the west, nestled between the moderately high peaks of the Malatya Dağları to the south, the Karga, Hasan and Bulutlu Dağları to the northeast, and the Yaman Dağı to the northwest. The Malatya plain is situated in a bend in the river, which has widened and narrowed at various points, bifurcating and forming numerous islands. The plain was also fed by a number of smaller rivers and streams, the 113 most prominent being the Aliağa Çay in the north, the Kuruay in the northwest, and the Thoma Fig. 26 SPOT satellite image showing the Malatya-Elazığ region with modern flood zones, and the distribution of sites with ETC wares. (© CNES/SPOT Image 1992-1994) Çay in the southwest. The landscape of the region has changed drastically since the 1960s and 1970s, when the Turkish government undertook a number of hydroelectric dam projects in southeastern Anatolia. The 1980s saw the completion of the Keban and Karakaya Dams, the latter of which flooded a large part of the region. The geology of the region is in some respects reminiscent of the Amuq, with the exception of its large volcanic deposits. A large flood plain consists of recent Holocene deposits, ridged by limestone hills, with granitic and basaltic deposits to the east. To the southeast upper cretaceous deposits exist with occasional ophiolites and paleocene deposits in which a number of 114 copper ore deposits are found, as well as some sources of native copper and galleries apparently exploited in antiquity (Palmieri et al. 1993:578-9). Fortunately, due to the hydroelectric projects, intensive archaeological salvage surveys were performed from 1975 to 1977, along with the excavation of 16 sites covering the Neolithic through the Ottoman periods. Surveys were initially undertaken of the Elazığ region by Whallon and Katman in 1967 on behalf of the University of Michigan (1970), and of the Maltaya region by Serdaroğlu, and later by Özdoğan on behalf of the Department of Prehistory of Istanbul University and Veli Sevin (1988). A series of preliminary reports of the 1975 and 1976 seasons were published by Serdaroğlu (1976; 1977). The final publication of the Elazığ region survey was produced by Whallon (1979), and the Malatya region by Özdoğan (1979), with a shorter report of the later survey of the Elazığ-Bingöl region by Sevin (1988). A smaller scale GIS was created for the Malatya-Elazığ, first by entering all of the published data into a database. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was then constructed by using a combination of ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) satellite imagery and SRTM-3 (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data. The information is not easily imported by most GIS software in its native format, and requires further processing, particularly to eliminate differential variations in elevations that appear to creep into ASTER data due to the use of faulty ground reference points. The major disadvantage of the ASTER system is that it is particularly susceptible to environmental interference; cloud or water cover effectively blocks measurements and gives an elevation reading of No Data, essentially 0 m. With SRTM data, by contrast, the radar is able to penetrate relatively shallow bodies of water to detect subsurface topographic features. This is of particular use in the regions flooded with manmade reservoirs. SRTM data has recently been released for public use, but in a re-interpolated 115 Fig. 27 Topographic map of the Malatya-Elazığ region with the reconstructed Euphrates and site distributions. Topographic map derived from ASTER and SRTM data. state. Instead of releasing the data in its full 1 arc-second format, NASA chose to release it in a 3 arc-second format, changing the resolution from 30 m to 90 m, far less than that of the ASTER data. However, these data, can be re-interpolated again with the help of GIS software, and by combining the two datasets, a DEM can be constructed. Although it is not as precise as the manual digitizing of the high resolution paper maps used in the Amuq GIS, it has the advantage of being created in a number of days instead of several months.11 Site locations were determined 11 The ASTER instruments aboard TERRA satellite systems have the capability of collecting data from which 30 m resolution DEMs can be extracted. This data is archived at NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) ground stations. The raw data is processed on request for free and then archived for public use (Childs 2002). A more detailed explanation of the ASTER system can be found at http://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov . ASTER data is available from EOS Data Gateway at : http://redhook.gsfc.nasa.gov/~imswww/pub/imswelcome/ . 116 using the maps published by Özdogan (1977) and Whallon (1979), which were georeferenced and overlaid on the DEM and then merged with the site database (Fig. 27). Geological and soil maps were also referenced, digitized and incorporated into the GIS. There was not enough environmental data collected during the surveys of the 1970s to allow for a detailed investigation of the geomorphology of the area. At best, the general flood topography and river course could be recreated and merged with the DEM data. Given the fact that both Özdoğan and Whallon identified Neolithic sites in their survey areas, it would seem logical to assume that limited change in the landscape has occurred in the Malatya, Aşvan and Altınova flood basin since the EBA. However, Özdoğan never surveyed in the environs between the Thoma Çay and Arslantepe, and they have only been surveyed minimally, with very few ancient sites found. It has long been suspected that the geology of this area has been active with earlier sites buried by colluvial deposits (Conti and Persiani 1993). In 2003, Di Nocera of the Italian team began an intensive survey, but we will have to await their results (Frangipani 2003, personal communication, Di Nocera 2004). Unfortunately, there is a major chronological issue that emerges with the settlement data. Work which continued at Arslantepe after the creation of the dams has significantly expanded the Late Chalcolithic and EB levels at the site. In particular, data related to the introduction of Karaz/RBBW to the site has expanded significantly since the time of the original surveys (Frangipane and Palmiere 1983b). Frangipane (2000, 2001) has shown conclusively that RBBW first makes its appearance at Arslantepe in the Late Chalcolithic. Furthermore, the EB period can be further subdivided into three sub-periods based on the different patterns in the wares SRTM data was collected by the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2000. The project entailed producing digital topographic data for a large portion of the earth’s surface by means of radar interferometry. Data was collected every arc-second (30 m), and it has a 90% accuracy in elevations - far above that of ASTER imagery. A more detailed explanation of the SRTM Project can be found at http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/ 117 uncovered at the site. Özdoğzan’s published data does not provide ware descriptions with sufficient data to attempt such fine grain resolution. It is therefore difficult to use if we try to compare and contrast changes in settlement patterns with the introduction of RBBW/Karaz ware into the region. Whallon’s publication, on the other hand, does provide detailed ware distribution data to partially use with the revised sequence from the excavations at Arslantepe. Carlos and Persiani have attempted to salvage the data, subdividing the EBA into two periods that roughly cover the same time periods as Middle G through to H in the Amuq (1993: 361-92). According to Conti and Persiani, Period 1 corresponds to the middle of the Amuq Phase G until a little after the beginning of Phase H, based primarily on the presence of Late Reserved Slip Wares and Plain Simple Wares. Conti and Persiani’s Period 2 covers the remainder of Amuq Phase H and the beginning of Phase I, based on the increase in the amount of Red Black Burnished Ware, and the later development of Simple Wares. Period 3 corresponds to the remainder of Amuq Phase I and J based on the continued presence of Simple Wares, but marked by the appearance of local painted ware traditions (Conti and Persiani 1993:378-87 and see chart on p. 388). Whichever dataset is used, Malatya-Elazığ Settlement Patterns interesting settlement patterns still emerge. 25 23 20 First, there appears to be an increase in the 20 No. of Sites 15 number of sites with the introduction of RBBW (see Table 3). There is Malatya Region Elazığ Region 10 a 5 4 3 3 1 0 proliferation of small (less than 1ha) sites dominated by the presence of RBBW, with a 18 16 L. Uruk Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Table 3. Settlement Data for the Malatya-Elazığ region mixed assemblage reflected at the larger SRTM data is available from the USGS server at: ftp://edcsgs9.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/ . 118 sites . Estimates of the minimal sustaining area produce no overlap between sites in the dataset Fig. 28 Map of Malatya region depicting estimated minimal sustaining areas for EB sites. (Fig. 28), with the exception of Arslantepe and Gelinciktepe. Rank-size analysis of the settlement data for the Malatya region produces a convex curve (Fig.29) and a primo-convex Fig. 29 Rank-size plot for Özdoğan’s Lower Euphrates Survey. Fig. 30 Rank-size plot for Whallon’s Keban Survey 119 Fig. 31 Map of Malatya-Elazığ region with EB site distributions and K-Means clusters. Topographic map derived from ASTER and SRTM data. for the Elazığ region (Fig.30), both of which are suggestive of a pooling of settlement systems. K-means analysis (Fig. 31) produces evidence of three clusters for the Malatya region, and a further three clusters for the Elazığ. All sites in the Malatya region are situated more or less along the Euphrates, the main transportation artery of the period. However, Arslantepe, situated in the center of the Malatya Plain, is located quite a distance (5-10km) from any river. The area around Arslantepe is rich in springs (Conti and Persiani 1993:399), and is also at a nexus of the main routes that exit the region to the south, as is another important site, Furuncu. Both sites were identified by Conti as having the longest lasting settlement (through all three EB periods) in 120 the region (1993:392). Pirot Höyük, the dominant site in the third cluster, is situated at the base of the Burusan stream. Following this stream directly up the mountains, one comes to the town of Çanakçi where the survey team encountered copper ores and ancient mining galleries (Palmieri et al 1993:586). It is unknown if these galleries were used in the EBA, but the relationship is interesting nonetheless. The Elazığ region is somewhat different. The region is composed of two plains: the Alınova and the Aşvan. Although Whallon’s recording techniques were more systematic than Özdoğan’s, and Conti and Persiani’s chronological divisions should be possible, it is hampered by “different style change trends in the Red Black Burnished Pottery” between the two regions (1993:392). Nevertheless, Conti was able to make a number of important observations concerning the settlement patterns. In contrast to Malatya, where there are essentially two settlement choices (along the Euphrates, or spring fed plains) in the Elazığ region, Conti sees three settlement choices: one group in the Altınova plain not far from the Euphrates, another group in the Aşvan plain along the Euphrates, and a third group forming a line along the route between the two plains (Conti and Persiani 1993:399). These three settlement choices, coincidently, correspond with the K-means analysis ellipses (Fig. 31). It is unclear why Conti describes this patterning as three different settlement choices, however, since the first two are essentially the same settlement choices (on the plain near the Euphrates River), albeit in separate geographical areas. By understanding them as the same pattern (in the alluvial plain not far from the Euphrates), the differences between the Elazığ and Malatya regions are not that significant, particularly if one notes Conti’s third settlement choice: a line joining the two plains. Once again there appears to be a relationship between settlements and routes of communication. 121 A final pattern should also be of note. The excavations in the Keban provide significant insight into the pattern of co-residence at these larger mixed assemblage sites. The excavations at Tepecik show that when ETC wares appear in significant quantities in the EBI (Level 8), they constitute only about 35% of the total assemblage. The remainder of the wares found at the site were oxidized, wheel-made wares (Plain Simple and Chaff Faced Wares), suggesting a pattern of co-residence of people manufacturing ETC and those of the regional cultures. In the following EB II, the percentage of ETC wares increased, reaching 60% at Tepecik and other sites in the region. Finally in the EB IIIa period, the percentage of RBBW reached almost 90% (Esin 1982103-5). EB I and EB II chronologically correspond to Phases G and H, and are almost a complete duplication of the patterns witnessed in the Amuq. Furthermore, there are some fascinating intra-site ETC distribution patterns. At settlements such as Norşuntepe, the ETC settlements are established alongside the urban settlements. A number of wattle and daub structures attributed to the ETC have been uncovered (Hauptmann 1982) side by side with the structures of the indigenous inhabitants. A similar pattern is seen at Taşkun Mevkii (Sagona 1994), and can be seen as evidence of the varying levels of integration of groups associated with ETC wares with those of the local SyroMesopotamian wheel-made wares, while still maintaining differentiation between the groups at a household level. At Arslantepe, the VIB2 village is built on the abandoned section of the tell, and the relationship between the VIB2 village and the indigenous groups has long been unclear. The recent discovery of a citadel on the top of the tell dating to the VIB2 period (Frangipane 2001:8) could provide evidence of a differential distribution or localization (perhaps in a neighbourhood?) of ETC groups. 122 Summary of the Malatya Region Settlement Patterns It is most unfortunate that due to the present physical environment, the majority of the Maltaya region cannot be re-surveyed to improve the available data. Özdogan’s and Whallon’s work, for their time, was remarkable. Like Braidwood, they were hampered by the limited knowledge of the chronological sequence at the time. Although excavations at sites in the region were conducted, unlike the Amuq, the data from these excavations was not directly incorporated into the understanding of the survey data at the time of publication. However, working with the data from Arslantepe, meaningful patterns can still be culled from the survey data in its present state. There is a point in the Late Chalcolithic that RBBW/Karaz Ware appears in small numbers alongside the local Late Chalcolithic cultures (Arslantepe Period VII). The following Early Bronze period saw an increase in the number of sites producing RBBW, particularly those with mixed assemblages, with the proportion of RBBW wares steadily increasing throughout the EB period. At the larger sites with mixed assemblages, there appears to be a differential distribution of RBBW within the sites. The same period also witnesses an addition of small sites less than 1 ha in size, which produced only RBBW ceramics suggesting varying levels of integration within their settlement networks. These patterns correspond significantly to what is seen in the Amuq, with the exception of the increase to 90% in the EB III period. Almost all sites are found in the plain on fertile alluvial soils with good access to water, and with no overlap in agricultural sustaining areas, suggesting a high level of autonomy. Rank-size and K-means analysis suggest a series of small, loosely integrated two-tier settlement systems in the region, and a possible third tier with Arslantepe as the regional center. Finally, there does appear to be a relationship between site placement and transportation arteries, with Pırot Höyük having a possible relationship with the copper mineral deposits in the Çanakçi area. 123 Northern Palestine (Fig. 32) The work of Douglas Esse has served as a template for the analysis conducted in other regions. It is therefore redundant to duplicate in detail his descriptions of the geography and environment (1991:1-31). It is sufficient to state that the environment of northern Palestine, Fig. 32 Topographic map of Northern Palestine with distribution of sites producing Khirbet Kerak Ware. Topographic map derived from SRTM data. although different, shares many similarities with the two previously investigated regions. Settlements tend to be situated in good alluvial soils, arable or irrigated lands of high agricultural potential. The history of surveys in the region is quite extensive, but they have varied in intensity and comprehensiveness (see Chapter 1). Esse reviewed the results of some of the more recent 124 intensive surveys (1991:128-9), as well as his own, and identified 304 sites dating to the various periods of the Early Bronze Age. Although KKW was found at forty-five sites, and over a substantial portion of the southern Levant, it has what can best be described as a differential distribution. Percentages of KKW at sites differ. Some sites such as Tell esh-Shuneh and Tell Yaqush produce KKW almost exclusively, while KKW makes up 20-30% and 60% respectively of the wares at sites like Beth Yerah or Beth Shean, and others preserve only a few individual examples (Philip 1999:43). It has been suggested, based on the inventory of KKW producing sites, that the core region of KKW should be sought in northern Palestine, in the Galilee and North Jordan Valley region (Esse 1991; Miroschedji 2000). Miroschedji, in an analysis similar to Esse’s, went further in his interpretations, suggesting that the distribution of KKW can be divided into three zones: 1) a nuclear zone – focused tightly on the southern Galilee and northern Jordan region, 2) a peripheral zone consisting of the Huleh Basin, northern Galilee, eastern Jezreel and regions east of the Jordan, and 3) a zone where the presence of KKW is rare, covering the remainder of the distribution of the ware in the southern Levant (Fig. 33). For this reason, the analysis of settlement patterns will be restricted to the northern region around the Sea of Galilee, North Jordan Valley, and the eastern Jezreel. Northern Palestine can be divided into three distinctive zones: the Akko Plain, which extends from Mount Carmel to Rosh HaNiqra on the coast near the Lebanese border, the hill country of the Galilee, and the Great Rift Valley (Fig. 32). The Jezreel Valley, situated to the south of the Galilee, serves as a separator of this region from the Samarian hill country, and as a conduit between the Great Rift Valley at Beth Shean and the Mediterranean coast. The Jezreel forms a natural corridor from the Mediterranean coast to the Jordan Valley, and it is within this natural corridor that the majority of Esse’s core KKW sites are found. The valleys are similar to 125 Fig.33 data. ‘Zones’ of KKW contact. Adapted from Miroschedji 2000. Topographic map derived from SRTM the Amuq and Malatya-Elazığ regions, as they are predominantly arable or irrigable lands with high agricultural potential. As elsewhere, the distribution of sites reflects a clear pattern, with a combination of small (2.5ha and less) sites that produce only KKW, interspersed around larger sites comprised of a mix of KKW and other South Levantine EB II-III ceramics. Furthermore, all the sites are situated on traditionally important transportation arteries. This pattern is striking, and more apparent than what is seen in both the Amuq and the Malatya-Elazığ. However, this cannot be seen as a development that accompanies the introduction of KKW into the region in EB III, as it was a pattern that had already started to develop in the EB I. 126 Settlement data for the EB II-III is infinitely more complex and difficult to interpret, due primarily to chronological problems. In some respects, the EB III suffers from the same issue as Phase H in the Amuq, in that there is clear cultural continuity with the preceding period. As KKW has such an uneven distribution, with varying percentages at different sites, it can truly be difficult to identify an EB III presence at sites from surface collections. Also, site size estimations are more frequently hampered due to the multi-period nature of many of the sites, with few small exposures of Early Bronze levels. Esse preferred to deal with the EB II-III settlement data as a single period, and showed that in the transition from EB I to EB II-III, there was a decline in the number of settlements, but an increase in mean and median site size, suggesting settlement agglomeration, the development of settlement hierarchies, and a shift from a more rural settlement pattern in the EB I to a more urban one in EB II-III (1991:146-152). With this shift in settlement pattern, he suggested an accompanied shift in subsistence strategies, from that of a mixed economy in the EBI to a more sedentary agrarian system in the EB II-III (1991:162-5). The best evidence for this can be seen in the granary structure at Beth Yerah (Mazar 2003).It is important to note, however, that although there is a general decrease in the number of sites from the EB I to EB II-III, there is an increase in small settlements, less than 2 ha in size, with these sites almost always producing exclusively KKW. Finkelstein, in examining the EB II-III of the southern Levant (1995), reconstructed a political landscape of interacting peer-polities for the EB III. He based his view on the size of sites, the presence and strength of fortifications, evidence of public construction, settlement patterns (the relationship between large sites and the smaller sites in the surrounding regions), geography, and comparisons to territorial boundaries of the better documented second millennium BCE (Finklestein 1995:56). 127 He identified twelve polities in the EB II, and ten to eleven in the EB III. He identified the boundaries of these polities through the use of modified Thiessen polygons. Standard Thiessen polygons can be quite schematic, and Finkelstein attempted to incorporate historical factors into this analysis. That is, he modeled the EB polities after the better documented polities of the LBA because Thiessen polygons created for the LB appear generally to correspond well with the historical and archaeological data (1995:55). The shift from EB II to EB III was marked by “a total change in the lowlands, northern Samaria and the southern deserts, and by continuity in the mountainous Galilee and central hill country south of Nablus” (Finkelstein 1995:59). This shift saw a decline in the number of EB II sites, which has generally been suggested is a result of turmoil, possibly from invaders from the north (Amiran 1986). In Northern Palestine, Finkelstein sees eight polities: centered around Tell Dan, Hazor, Kadesh, Kabri, Shimron, Megiddo, Beth Yerah, and Beth Shean, with Beth Yerah’s territory shrinking significantly in the EB III. He sees the region undergoing political fragmentation, however, with a decrease in the number of rural settlements (Finkelstein 1995:59-60). In his view, the Jezreel Valley also saw significant change with the growth of Megiddo as a regional center at the expense of a number of other EB II sites, accompanied by either the founding, or rising to prominence of a number of sites, such as Ta’anach, Affuleh and Beth Shean. The northern coastal plain appears to have had little settlement, and Finkelstein suggests that the plain was dominated by inland sites (1995:62). An attempt was made to reconstruct Finkelstein’s polities through a slightly different method of creating Thiessen polygons. One of the main reasons why Thiessen polygons tend to be schematic is that they are based on simple two-dimensional Euclidean geometry, treating the region under study as a flat surface. However, topography can greatly alter the distance measurements used for the creation of the polygons. In such a small but geographically diverse 128 region as the southern Levant, topography must be factored in if Thiessen polygons are to be used effectively. Fortunately, this is a relatively easy procedure using GIS software. The map (Fig. 34) is remarkably similar to that of Finkelstein’s, with the minor exception of less linear borders, and a significant change to the boarder for the territory around Megiddo. Fig. 34 Northern Palestine polities in the EB, after Finkelstein 1995, using Weighted Thiessen Polygons This reconstruction of an EB III landscape of competing peer polities is of some interest in understanding the patterns in the distribution of KKW. Esse divided sites by the range of KKW vessel forms present in their assemblage (1991:137-9, see Fig. 33). Of the eight polities identified by Finkelstein for northern Palestine, only three have a concentration of sites that 129 produce a large range of vessel forms: the polities based around Beth Yerah, Beth Shean and Megiddo. It is specifically these three polities that form Esse’s ‘core region’ of distribution of KKW (Fig. 35). Unfortunately, the sparse settlement data does not permit an effective use of Fig. 35 Overlay of Finkelstein’s EB polities (1995) with K-Means analysis and Miroschedji’s KKW ‘Zones’ (2000) Rank-size analysis each of these individual polities. If one attempts Rank-size analysis of all the sites which produce KKW in the core region, however, a primo-convex curve is produced, suggesting that there is a pooling of settlement systems (Fig. 36). K-means analysis produces two clusters: one centered around Megiddo, and another that combines the Beth Shean and Beth Yerah polities (Ellipses in Fig 35). Given the physically 130 constrictive nature of the Jordan Valley, that the K-means might not be able to separate the Beth Shan and Beth Yerah clusters is not too surprising. By reducing the cluster separation to its minimal level, however, CrimeStat does identify three clusters that correspond roughly to Finkelstein’s proposed polities (Fig. 37). However, Finkelstein’s reconstruction, omits the fact that Beth Shean was only 2ha in size during the EB III (Esse 1991), too small to have been the center of a polity. The original K-means analysis might therefore provide a more appropriate reconstruction of the EB organizational Fig. 36 Rank-size plot of Khirbet Kerak Ware sites in the ‘core’ region, displaying a primo-convex curve landscape, with only two site clusters, one centered around Beth Yerah and the other around Megiddo (See Fig. 35), a reconstruction that corresponds well with Esse’s and Miroschedji’s identification of two core regions of KKW distribution . There are two further patterns to note. Tell Yaqush, excavated by Esse (1990, 1991), is situated almost directly across the Jordan River from Tell esh-Shuneh. It was described by Esse as a “predominantly agricultural village located on the major north-south thoroughfare that linked Canaan with Syria” (1992:3), and is estimated to have been about 0.75 ha in the EB III. Unfortunately, Esse based the site’s relationship to the north-south route on modern routes that are dictated by modern political boundaries. The more traditional interpretation of the ancient 131 road system12 appears to suggest that the major north-south route actually did not go by Yaqush, but instead traversed the river and passed close by Tell esh-Shuneh which would have been the more important site on the north-south route. Fig. 37 Map showing K-Means clusters with minimal cluster separation and their relation to Finkelstein’s EB polities, and the distribution of KKW sites and reconstructed ancient road systems. Finally, recent work by Greenberg on the material from Beth Yerah has discerned spatial patterning in the distribution of KKW at the site. In a pattern reminiscent of what was seen in the Keban area, there appears to be a ‘differential distribution’ of KKW at the site (2003). KKW 12 For the reconstruction of roads in the ETC GIS, two sources were used. First the Helsinki atlas (Parpola and Porter 2001) which reconstructed the Neo-Assyrian road systems for much of the Near East, and Student Map Manual: Historical Geography of the Bible Lands (1979) for the traditional routes of the Southern Levant. 132 appears to be concentrated in houses that were abandoned at the end of EB II, while houses that appeared to have continued between EB II and III produced little evidence of KKW. Summary of the Settlement Patterns of Northern Palestine Settlement data for the EB of the southern Levant in many ways suffers from the problem of insufficient data. This arises chiefly from the nature of the chronological fossil types that serve as indicators for EB III – a problem not all that different from the Amuq Phase G-H interface. Since most analyses of EBA studies conflate the EB II and III periods, it is almost impossible to identify clear changes in settlement patterns between the periods. At the point KKW was introduced into the region, the organizational landscape of Northern Palestine was also slightly different from that seen in the Amuq or the Malatya-Elazığ, in that most sites were already arranged along inter-regional routes of communication in an urban landscape. However, there are some general patterns of note, particularly when examining the distribution of KKW. First, there is a general differential or patterned distribution to the ware, with sites bearing the widest repertoire concentrated to the north in the Galilee, Jezreel, and Beth Shean Valleys. Although the full complement of KKW forms is present at Hazor, and in large concentrations, we can further refine Esse’s general core zone, restricting it to two EB polities: Beth Yerah and Megiddo. Sites bearing KKW are generally located in the lowlands on fertile soils with good access to water, along traditional routes through the region, often at strategic points or junctions. Rank-size and K-means analysis suggest two or possibly three moderate settlement systems that seem to correspond to Finkelstein’s peer-polities. Finally, the larger sites produce a mixed assemblage of local EB III wares and KKW (which might have a differential distribution of KKW across the site), while most smaller sites produce only KKW, once again, suggesting varying levels of integration. 133 Discussion of Settlement Patterns There are several important similarities in the settlement patterns of the different regions examined. At the regional level, the distribution of sites that have ETC wares exhibits a clear patterning. Despite earlier suggestions, it is not found in a homogenous crescent across the Near East. There are undeniable gaps, with dense clustering of sites within certain regions. There is a concentration of sites in prime agricultural territories, especially when sites that are non-sedentary in nature, or contain infrequent examples that can be attributed to exchange mechanisms, are factored out. The sites also appear to be dispersed along traditional transportation corridors. This pattern recurs in the intra-regional analysis, particularly at the major nodes or intersections of transportation routes. These patterns suggest a particular landscape that was being targeted for settlement, possibly with the objective of finding a region to which a group with a focused subsistence strategy might be pre-adapted (Rothman 2003). These clusters may also result partially from inherent problems in dealing with survey data, as well as the diverse topography. The best example of this is along the coast of modern Lebanon (see Fig. 38). A number of sites can be seen on the Syrian littoral, but this essentially ends when one comes to the modern political boundaries of Lebanon, a region that due to modern political circumstances has not been explored in great detail. What work that has been done is poorly published.13 Although Marfoe’s work in the Beqa’ Valley (1979) is well known, the archaeological record along the Lebanese coast is poorly known. The precise route of transmission for KKW into northern Palestine has always been a less important concern, with the general acceptance of a southward movement, usually assumed to 13 Philip would suggest a specific rejection of KKW on the Lebanese coast attributed to the prosperity of Byblos at the time (2000:286). However, the fact that the gap falls almost specifically within the modern political boundaries of Lebanon (See Fig. 38) are more suggestive of the gap being the result of more recent political phenomena – a true case of a ‘gap’ in our survey data. 134 Fig. 38 Distribution of sites with KKW in the Northern Levant and the relationship to transportation systems and the modern political boundaries of Lebanon.Topographic features derived from SRTM data have been via the Orontes Valley, through the Beq’a and into the North Jordan Valley (Callaway 1972; Esse 1991). However, as we have seen, this route is not supported by the data. One of Philip’s primary contributions to the debate was his observation that a greater concentration of sites with KKW can be found along the Syrian coast than in the Orontes Valley, prompting his suggestion of a possible seaborne mechanism as responsible for the movement of the ware from 135 the Amuq and northern Syria to northern Palestine (1991:49). The lack of ETC wares at the site of Byblos, the major port on the Mediterranean in this period and at sites on the Palestinian coast, calls this theory into question. Nevertheless, as Philip notes, the period when KKW is introduced into northern Palestine is the period when the northern Levant, in particular Ras Shamra, had its greatest cultural affinities with the south (1991:49). Byblos appears to have had its greatest cultural contact with Egypt rather than the northern Levant (Sagieh 1983). Centers in northern Palestine such as Megiddo and Beth Yerah, which arose along trade routes, do not appear to have had exclusive contact with Egypt (Esse 1991; Mazar 2000). Thus, the lack of KKW at Byblos may not be as troublesome as initially thought. This shift of attention to the Mediterranean coast, I believe is important. Movement along the coast was not restricted to the sea, there were as well, long and well-established north-south coastal routes (the best example of course being the Egyptian Way of Horus). This is where the distribution of ETC sites is important. South of the Amuq Valley, the next site that produces ETC wares in abundance is Tell Qarqur, a site at a juncture of routes north-south through the Orontes Valley, east towards Ebla, and just south of the route that leads through the mountains towards Ras Shamra (Fig. 38). Courtois’ surveys (1963) identified two sites in addition to Ras Shamra along that route that produce ETC wares: Qalat Siriani and Rouset al-Amir. Also, as Philip correctly notes, there are a number of sites along the Syrian coast. The coastline was a natural transportation corridor that allowed for the movement of significant traffic well documented in later Assyrian campaigns in the region.14 ETC Wares also have been found at Tell Gamus (Assaf 1978/79) and Tell ‘Arqa (Thalmann 1991), both sites at junctures of the northsouth route and east-west routes leading to the Syrian interior. Following this coastal route south 14 Ahurnasirpal II, after his campaign in Pattina, travels through the mountains to Luhutu (location unknown) to the Great Sea, from which he continues down the coast possibly as far as Tyre receiving tribute. (Grayson 1991:218-9). 136 into northern Palestine, the sites are again situated at the intersections of the major east-west routes. That KKW is rarely found on the northern coastal plain is of interest. Finkelstein proposes that the northern coastal plain was under the control of inland polities (1995:62). One could then suggest that these overland routes were of greater importance than the sea routes, which could explain why KKW has not been found in quantities until the site of Megiddo, a major nexus of trade routes from the coast for the region. These observations by themselves are not necessarily of particular note if seen in isolation, but taken together, they portray a significant pattern on an inter-regional scale. This is not to say that every site identified attests to an ETC settlement. Rather it attests to some sort of contact, be it migration, exchange, or cultural diffusion, and it provides a more viable model than the traditional view of direct contact via the Orontes Valley. At the inter-regional level, in two of the three regions under examination, the appearance of ETC wares is tied to a significant change in settlement patterns. In the Malatya-Elazığ region, ETC wares first appear in the Late Chalcolithic period, but in limited quantities. In the EB, the appearance of RBBW/Karaz ware is significantly more pronounced, and marked by a dramatic increase in settlements on alluvial plains. A series of small, loosely integrated settlement systems with fairly autonomous sites emerge along transportation corridors and with good access to water. Although these settlement systems were loosely integrated, there is evidence of a general two-tiered site hierarchy, which is represented in the distribution of ceramics, and a possible third tier based on settlement data. The larger sites in the system tend to produce a mixed assemblage, while the smaller sites (generally 2.5ha and smaller) produce RBBW/Karaz wares. Within these larger sites, there remains the possibility of isolating zones, or perhaps neighborhoods, where RBBW/Karaz where is found in concentration. 137 An almost identical pattern is replicated in the settlement system of the Amuq Valley. RBBW first appears in small amounts in the Phase G levels at excavated sites in the region. In the ensuing Phase H, there is an increase in the number of sites, primarily on the outer edges of the plain, but still situated in prime agricultural area, with good access to water, and situated along transportation corridors. Again, the evidence suggests a number of loosely integrated settlement systems, with a significant level of autonomy for the various sites in the settlement systems. There is also an almost identical pattern in the distribution of ceramics, with the larger settlements in these systems producing a mixed assemblage of Phase G pottery and Phase H RBBW. The data available at present does not allow for the examination of intra-site distribution patterns. The data from Northern Palestine is unfortunately not as clear. This is due mainly to difficulty of effectively differentiating between EB II and EB III ceramic indicators. We cannot say for sure what changes occurred in the settlement systems of the region with the appearance of KKW, especially since the region prior to its introduction was significantly different to what was seen in the Amuq and Elazığ. However, there is still patterning evident in the distribution of the ware, which is concentrated in the Galilee region, most probably in two of the loosely integrated polities identified by Finkelstein: Megiddo and Beth Yerah. In addition, the same inter-site differential distribution occurs, with larger sites producing mixed assemblages, and smaller sites (2.5ha or less) producing almost exclusive assemblages of KKW Wares, as evidenced in both the Amuq and the Malatya-Elazığ regions, and perhaps the same intra-site variation attested in the Malatya-Elazığ settlements. Although the comparisons are not unequivocal between northern Palestine and the other two regions examined, they are still too similar to be the result of mere coincidence. Settlement patterns are a rather intangible aspect of 138 a cultural assemblage that are tied to subsistence strategies, an aspect that does not lend itself easily to diffusion or emulation, and something that cannot be traded. We are left with the important question of which mechanism might be responsible for the repeated appearance of identical changes in settlement patterns in three different regions. 139 140 Chapter Five The Red Black Burnished Ware of the Amuq Valley Introduction No discussion concerning the distribution of Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) can be complete without an examination of the ceramics, since this is where the issue first emerged. KKW was always seen as foreign to the ceramic assemblages of the southern Levant, and as I have shown (Chapter 2), investigating the affinities of this ware led researchers to Anatolia (see Wright 1926, Hood 1951, Amiran 1952, Lamb 1954, Hennesy 1967). However, the parallels that have been drawn to support the northern relationship have been built superficially on similarities in form and surface treatment. Furthermore, these parallels have been drawn unsystematically from a variety of geographical and chronological contexts, further weakening the arguments for a connection (see Amiran 1952, Lamb 1954). Because of these often unconvincing arguments, scholars such as Todd (1973) and Yakar (1989) have been able to argue effectively for a reevaluation of the relationship. Sagona has assembled a comprehensive typology of ETC ceramics based on published material, as well as the ceramics he had access to during his research in the Republic of Georgia (1984). His was the first attempt at a more systematic pooling of the ceramics for the entire distribution zone of the ETC, and it still remains an authoritative source for comparison. However, his study does not fully alleviate the problem, as it suffers from the confines of the publication record, which at the time of its formation was still somewhat limited. Only recently have publications begun to appear that treat Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW), and Red Black Burnished Wares (RBBW), more systematically as a ceramic tradition. As Burney described it, “the links between the ETC zone in its western sector and the densest concentration of Khirbet Kerak occupation, in the Amuq plain remain all too tenuous” 141 (1989:338). Braidwood’s work, as thorough as it was, was not intended to be the final publication on the ceramics of the region. A final report on the ceramics, specifically dealing with RBBW, was to be published in a volume dealing with technical studies (see Matson in Braidwood and Braidwood: 1960:361). Also, there are discrepancies evident between the assemblages of Tabarat al-Akrad (Hood 1951), and the material published by Braidwood. Some of the shapes, particularly the footed conical bowl (Hood 1951: Fig. 7:15), are found only in the Phase I assemblages defined by Braidwood (1960: Fig. 305:3, p. 401), suggesting that perhaps Akrad can be dated to both Phases H and I. This chapter presents a re-evaluation of the RBBW ceramics of the Amuq, based on the results of the Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP) survey, in an effort to further refine the typology and technical characteristics of the RBBW ceramic tradition in the Amuq. Nature of the Sample and Order of the Presentation The material presented in this chapter represents a combination of the ceramics collected during the American and British excavations in the Amuq Valley during the 1930s, and the collections of the more recent AVRP survey. It is supplemented by a small collection from a damaged section along the north-east side of Tell Judeideh made during a visit to the site during the 2002 AVRP survey season. A general typology of RBBW will be presented first. Unfortunately, as most of the material is from surface collections, stratigraphic and phasing considerations cannot be dealt with in any detail. As a result, a more synchronic approach to the RBBW traditions is taken, drawing data from all three phases of the Amuq which produced RBBW. As in the previous chapter, these data will be compared and contrasted with material from the Malatya-Elazığ region of eastern Turkey, and the North Jordan Valley to the south. The morphological parallels presented are by no means intended to be complete. Given the 142 geographic distribution of ETC wares, and the shear volume of data, such a work is well beyond the scope of this thesis. References to Sagona’s original typology will be made as often as possible, in an effort to relate the Amuq data to the larger ETC corpus. The following typology is based on a collection of 369 sherds gathered from 28 of the 73 sites that have produced RBBW in the Amuq Valley. It represents an assemblage gathered from the AVRP collection, as well as from the excavated material in the collections of the Antakya Museum studied during the 1999 through to 2002 seasons. The typology was created independently of Braidwood’s original work, and then compared to that of both Braidwood (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960) and Hood (1951). In general, the typology agrees with Braidwood’s initial assessment, but with a further refinement that has some interesting technological implications. The typology may appear more divisive than necessary, with an excessive amount of sub-types. This was done initially to see if any patterning might emerge in the spatial distribution of vessel forms. In the end, however, it simply highlighted the idiosyncrasies of the assemblage. Both Braidwood and Hood state that bowls predominate in the RBBW assemblage, and the present analysis agrees with their assessment. The present typology identifies eleven basic forms in the RBBW assemblage of the Amuq Valley, all but one of which was previously identified by Braidwood. I. Bowls – (Plates I-VIII) Bowls are the most represented form in the RBBW assemblage and in the ETC wares in general. The following series of bowls have been separated from the Cyma Recta bowls, because of the latter’s distinctive shape. Of the remaining bowls in the assemblage, six bowl types have 143 been identified, with an addition of several subtypes. Although the divisions of the typology are logical, they are on the whole unnecessary. The divisions are probably more representative of the idiosyncrasies in the assemblage as a resulting from multiple production centers than from divergent ceramic types (see Chapter Six). One of the defining characteristics of many of the bowl types is what Braidwood referred to as a “parabolic thinning at the lip” (1960:361). However, I would prefer to use the term “profiled rim” as they have a very distinctive profile that I believe is linked to the manufacture of the vessel. The profiled rim is characterized by one indistinctive side (generally the outside), followed by a lip that is either rounded or comes to a tightly rounded point. From the lip, the thickness of the sherd expands in a parabolic arc, where it then thins to the general thickness of the vessel. At this point, there is frequently a carination in the vessel wall. This rim profile only appears on bowl and basin forms (basins are basically defined as bowls with a rim diameter greater than 35cm; see below). It is a curious profile that is not depicted in great detail in Braidwood’s illustrations, but is very noticeable in the collections of the AVRP survey and the excavated material in the Antakya Museum (AM). Particular attention was paid to illustrate the profile correctly, in an effort to see if there is any patterning to the measurements. The result suggests a significant level of regularity, with the length of the arc generally measuring 3.5-5 cm (mean average 4.04 cm). This pattern is significant because the parabolic arc of the profile fits comfortably in the natural arc that is formed when placed between the thumb and the first two fingers. This could be an ergonomic feature, making it easier to grip and carry empty vessels, but it is more probably a reflection of the manufacturing process of the vessels. In both the macroscopic and microscopic analyses of these sherds, there is no evidence to suggest that this profile was achieved through 144 the addition of clay to the body which was then molded into shape. The vessels are known to be hand made, usually by coil or slab construction (Kelley-Buccellati 1978:68). Evidence from a number of different sites illustrates the use of baskets as moulds in the manufacture of ETC wares (Sos Höyük, Sagona 2001; Korucutepe, Kelly-Buccellati 1978:68; Kvatskhelebi, Dzhavakhishvili and Glonti 1961:62; Zguderi, Dzhaparidzhe 1961 Fig. 8:1). There are two likely possibilities for the formation of the profile. The first is that it is the result of the compressing of the clay into baskets when the fingers are held on the outside of the basket for support and the thumb is used to apply pressure. The clay naturally forms to fill the curve of the thumb. The second possibility is that it was formed by compression of the body between the thumb and fingers, but as the rim and body were manipulated to form the carination. The few examples where the profile is on the exterior of the vessel exhibit an in-turned profile, such as the Holemouth vessels, where the thumb would logically have been placed on the exterior to take advantage of the greater wrist movement possible to push the vessel wall inward. Bowl Type 1 (Plate I:1-15) These bowls have a very slight and rounded carination, giving them a hemispherical shape. They have a slightly in-turned rim, reminiscent of the Holemouth vessel shape. The majority of the rims have the aforementioned profiled rim, with the parabolic arc on the interior of the vessel. They vary in size somewhat, but the majority of the examples encountered have a diameter around15-20 cm. They are heavily slipped, generally a solid red colour. However, a few examples do have the red-black colour combination. Some examples also are decorated with fluting in a zigzag pattern. Numerous examples of this bowl form are found in KKW. This form, like the holemouth jars, is virtually unknown in the regions to the north of the Amuq. Sagona classified these as Form 68, and suggests two parallels were found at Karaz and Geoy Tepe. The 145 Geoy example is convincing, however the Karaz example is a much deeper vessel and does not make a good morphological comparison. One example can be identified from Level VI B2 at Arslantepe, and others can be found in the Aşvan Sites. Parallels: Arslantepe (Frangipane 2000, Fig. 13:3) Aşvan Sites (Sagona 1994, Fig. 16 Type 3); Beth Shean (Mazar et al. 2000, Figs. 14.3:10-1, 14.10; Fitzgerald 1935, Pl. VII:1,3); Beth Yerah (Esse 1991, Pl. 5c); Geoy Tepe (Burton-Brown 1951, Fig. 7:549); Karaz (Koşay and Turfan 1959:392); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1992, Fig. 234:7,8,11); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1991:52, Pl. 12:15, 14:12-5, 15:1-6, 17:13-5) Bowl Type 2 (Plate I: 16-25) These bowls are hemispherical in shape, similar to Bowl Type 1, but with a somewhat vertical or slightly everted rim. They are differentiated from Type 3 bowls because of their more rounded shape which generally lacks the profiled rim and pointed lip. Although reminiscent of Bowl Type 5, they can be differentiated by their rounded nature and the limited vertical portion of the rim (see Type 5). Of the examples in the AVRP and AM collections, these vessels, more than any other in the corpus, tend to have the red-black colour combination. A few examples produce a fluting decoration, with a similar zigzag pattern. Curiously, this shape appears to have only one morphological parallel in the Shuneh assemblage. A number of examples occur at Ras Shamra. The form is found at other sites in the southern Levant, such as Affula and Jericho. The vessel shape is reminiscent of Sagona’s Form 6915 and therefore perhaps Ai and Beth Shean can be included in its distribution. Sagona does not identify any Form 69 vessels from northern 15 Although some of Sagona’s illustrated examples for Form 69 are good morphological comparisons, some of his associations (e.g. Type C5, from Callaway 1972, Fig. 60:8) do not make for good examples. The majority of Sagona’s Form 69 might be better compared to Type 5 Bowls as they tend to be less rounded and have more of the vertical sided nature. 146 assemblages, but a version can be identified from Arslantepe Level VI B2 and perhaps Korucutepe and the Aşvan sites. The shapes in the north tend to be slightly more convex, and deeper with more of a vertical stance, and may be best seen as a shape somewhere in between Type 2 and 5. Parallels: Affula (Sulkenik 1948 Pl. 10:18); Arslantepe (Frangipane 2001, Fig. 13:5); Aşvan sites (Sagona 1994, Fig 16 Type 2 and 3); Jericho (Kenyon 1960, Fig. 38:35); Korucutepe (KellyBuccellati 1978, Pl. 112:U); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1992, Fig. 234:6,10); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1991, Pl. 17:18); Bowl Type 3 (Plate II:1-7) This version, with its vertical sides, is similar to the Type 2 bowls. However, these vessels never produce the profiled rim and tend to be more angular and less hemispherical. The vertical side is straighter and emerges from a more pronounced carination. All examples of this form are coloured red only. Exact parallels do not occur in any of the assemblages to the north or south suggesting that it is a type unique to the Amuq. Bowl Type 4 (Plate II:8-18, Plate III:1-19, IV:1-18) This vessel type can be called the “Profiled rim Bowl”. They are the most common type of vessel in the entire RBBW assemblage, and can generally be characterized as a straight sided bowl. Due to their large number, there are several subdivisions within this group. Type 4A Bowls have an exterior profile, and Type 4B Bowls have an interior profile. Type 4A vessels (Pl. II: 8-18) are relatively rare, and are distinguished by having the parabolic arc on the outside of the vessel and a straight sided interior. Type 4B Bowls (Pl. III-IV), with the parabolic arc on the interior of the vessel, are more numerous, and can be subdivided morphologically even further: 147 Type 4Bi – Profiled Rim with pointed lip (Pl. III: 1-19); Type 4Bii – Profiled Rim with a semirounded lip (Pl. IV: 1-7); Type 4Biii Profiled Rim with rounded lip (Pl. IV: 8-18). The majority of these vessels are covered in a thick red slip. Morphological parallels for this vessel are difficult to find due to the subtle nature of the shape. As mentioned earlier, although the parabolic arc of these profiled rim vessels was identified and discussed briefly by Braidwood (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:361), it is not well represented in his illustrations. When making comparisons with illustrations from other sites, it is difficult to know how much attention was paid to the subtleties of the rim profile. These profiles do not appear in any of the forms published by Sagona. De Contenson (1992) does not publish any similar profiles from Ras Shamra. However, the material from stratum III A1-3 includes a clearly visible profiled rim (Schaeffer 1962). The material from Beth Yerah published by Esse (1991) and from Beth Shean (Mazar et al. 2000) does not include detailed depictions of rim profiles, rendering it difficult to determine the presence of the profiled rim. However, the published material from Shuneh clearly includes profiled rim vessels in its assemblage, albeit in a limited quantity. One example of this profile is found at Jericho. The vessel type is completely absent from the assemblages to the north, suggesting that this form is an innovation of the RBBW assemblage of the Amuq. The form of this vessel type tends to be thinner and more elegant, generally with finer inclusions. The RBBW assemblage on the whole tends to be underfired producing a section of oxidized fabric surrounding a core of reduced clay. Type 4 vessels, more than any other vessel type, are found with a completely oxidized core. This form is not isolated to any particular site or part of the Amuq Valley and petrographic analysis (see Chapter 6) suggests a variety of production centers. These characteristics, with their more elaborate profiles, could indicate that 148 more time and energy was expended in the creation of these vessels, perhaps also suggesting that these vessels had a more specialized function. Parallels: Jericho (Kenyon 1960:121, Fig. 38, type R5a); Ras Shamra (Schaeffer 1962: 205, Fig. 17); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992, Pl. 15:1,4,11,23) Bowl Type 5 (Plate V:1-21, VI:1-15, VII:1-20) This type is similar to Bowl Type 4 in that it falls under the category of straight sided bowls. However, it lacks the profiled rim that is characteristic of the Type 4 Bowls. Instead it has a plain rim of more or less even thickness and a rounded lip. It is also similar to Type 2 bowls, but is differentiated by a less hemispherical shape and a longer (> 2.75 cm) straight side to its profile. This form can be divided into two groups: 5a – with pointed rims (Pl. V: 1-8), and 5b with rounded rims (Pl. V: 9-21, Pl. VI). The 5b forms can be further subdivided into: 5Bi vertical sided (Pl. V: 9-21); 5Bii – everted (Pl. VI), and 5Biii – strongly everted (Pl. VII). The few bases that have been found tend to be omphalos shaped. Parallels for these vessels are somewhat complicated by its similarity to Type 2 Bowls. However, many parallels do occur in the KKW assemblage, although the examples tend to be of a thinner and finer quality than those in the Amuq. Esse provides a good example from Beth Yerah (Esse 1991, Pl. 5a), and numerous illustrations of this form can be seen in the Shuneh assemblage (Leonard 1991). Curiously, only one Type 5 bowl (Type 5A) has been found at Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1989). Close parallels of the straight sided bowl do not occur in the assemblages north of the Amuq. There are numerous examples of bowls with straight sides, but they are considerably more everted (See Sagona Form 121-4, 1984:470-5, Fig. 55-6) in comparison to Type 5 bowls, which for the most part are quite vertical in their rim stance. The majority of the bowls in the 149 northern assemblages have a tendency to be of a more rounded nature. However, two examples of a red burnished bowl from Taşkun Mevkii, identified by Sagona as “Peripheral Ninevite V”, might be seen as possible inspiration for the form (1992, Fig. 23). Parallels: Beth Yerah (Esse 1991, Pl. 5a); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1989, Fig. 9:3); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1991, Pl. 17:1,2,9, 13, 14, 16, 17). Bowl Type 6 (Plate VIII:1-18) This form can also be called a shallow bowl. It has a more rounded shape, compared to the Type 5Biii everted bowls, and has an exterior angle (measuring from the top of the vessel) of less than 75 degrees. On average, they tend to be quite shallow and frequently have a thickened and or in-turned lip. They can be divided into two groups 6A – shallow bowls (with an exterior angle less than 60◦) (Pl. VIII: 1-15) and 6B – deep bowls (with exterior angles between 75-60◦) (Pl. VIII: 16-18) which tend to be significantly less frequent. These vessels are always burnished with a red slip. The fabric of this type tends to be oxidized. However, a large number are underfired. This vessel form is significantly less frequent in the Amuq assemblage than the Type 4 and 5 bowls, something also observed by Braidwood, who noted that it became more frequent in Amuq Phase I (1960:399). The vessel type does have a wide distribution across the valley, indicating that the lack of frequency is not because it was restricted to one site. Braidwood also cites some examples with pierced (horizontally) and unpierced handle lugs attached to the body (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:361, Fig. 281:7-8). These variations, however, are curiously not present in the AVRP survey collection. The shape is well known from the assemblages in the south. It is well represented at Shuneh where the form is divided between shallow bowls with rounded rims and horizontally 150 flattened rims (Leonard 1991:51). The division between the two types of in-turned bowls was not made in the present typology because they were not frequent enough to warrant doing so. These shallow inverted bowls can be found in Ras Shamra (De Contenson 1969:76) and at Rosh HaNiqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1959:76). Hennessey illustrates an example from ‘Affula (Hennessey 1967:76). The shape is generally unknown from the northern assemblages, with only a few examples of the Type 6A bowls occurring in the Lower Euphrates Surveys. Once again, it appears to represent an innovation from the Amuq Valley that was continued in the southern Levant. Parallels: Affula (Hennessey 1967:76, Pl. LXIII:3); Imamoğlu (Özdoğan 1977 Site P 50/3, Pl. 67:11); İmikuşaği (Özdoğan 1977 Site O 51/1, Pl. 72:22); Rosh HaNiqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1959:76, Fig. 5:14); Ras Shamra (De Contenson 1969:76, Fig. 18:1,2,8); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1991:51, Pl. 13:1-17, 15:7,25). II. Basins (Plate IX:1-14) This vessel type is essentially a large bowl with predominantly Type 4 profiled rims, or less frequently Type 5. The distinction between bowl and basin has been made based on the rim diameter of the vessel. A majority of the bowl types produced a diameter of less than 30 cm, followed by a second group with a diameter equal to or slightly larger than 36 cm. Consequently, the larger vessels were into the separate category of basins, as their size and volume is assumed to suggest a different function than that of bowls. All examples were slipped and coloured red. Of curious note was that every example was underfired and tended to be of a slightly more coarse fabric. The group can be subdivided into three sub-types: Bn 1 – profiled rim (Pl. IX: 1- 151 7), Bn 2 – inverted (Pl. IX: 8), and Bn 3 – everted (Pl. IX: 9-14). There are no parallels for this form (or bowls with this diameter) in other assemblages, with the possible exception of Beth Shean. Mazar describes a form which he called Deep Platters. The description of one, Platter 22, is similar to the basins found in the Amuq (Mazar 2000:262). Unfortunately, the example is not illustrated, and therefore a detailed comparison cannot be made. The shape is also not well attested in the north. Although unlikely, it is possible that the diameter size was miscalculated, since the sherds came from hand made vessels. III. Kraters (Plate X:1-3) Large, open vessels with everted rims or flaring necks are well represented in the RBBW assemblage. They are slipped and burnished on the interior and exterior, although the interior burnishing has a tendency to be more carelessly applied. Generally, the rims are also thick compared to most other forms. They are covered with a slip frequently red, but also with the redblack colour combination. They tend to have a medium coarse fabric and are moderately to poorly fired. Similar shapes occur in the assemblages of the southern Levant, but they are not overly common north of the Amuq, although this could be the result of how this vessel type has been defined. There are numerous large open jars that could have similar uses to a krater, and therefore could be classified as such. However, I have decided to group these vessels, the majority of which have more of a sinuous sided profile, under the category of jar. Parallels: Beth Shean (Mazar 2000:263, Fig. 14.3:12; Fitzgerald 1935, Pl. VII:8); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992, Pl. 16:8). 152 IV. Cyma Recta Bowls and Cups (Plate X: 4-18) This rather cumbersome term was used by Braidwood to describe vessels with perhaps the most distinctive shape in the RBBW repertoire (Form 65, 66 and 67 in Sagona 1984:425-7, Fig.32). A Cyma Recta shape occurs when the upper section of the vessel is concave, and the lower section convex, resulting in an S-shaped profile. The form is divided between cups and bowls, mainly based on the ratio between diameter width and vessel height. Cyma Recta bowls have a larger diameter to height ratio, usually in the range of 2:1. Cups generally have a 1:1 ratio, but some have a maximum of 1.5:1, and should still be considered cups based on their diameter. These vessels occur in the red-black colour combination more routinely than other forms. Omphalos bases and/or plastic application also typically appear. More often than not, Cyma Recta cups also appear to have fluting decorations, usually in horizontal ridges below the rim of the vessel. A combination of horizontal and zigzag ridges is also common, sometimes with the lower portion of the vessel completely covered in vertical fluting. In the KKW assemblages, this form is generally known as a bowl with ‘S shaped profiles’, or a sinuous sided bowl, and is one of the most frequently occurring vessel forms. In Sagona’s typology they occur as Forms 6 and 10 for cups, and Forms 59 A-C Variants and Forms 64-7 for bowls (1984:353-9, 415-427; Figs. 3, 4, 7, 8, 29-32). The bowls usually have some sort of plastic decoration, or a lugged handle. Numerous examples of the bowl form can be found in the southern assemblages, but they tend to have a more sharply defined “S” shaped curve the further south they are encountered. They were identified by Hennessey as “bowls with marked shoulders and flaring rims” (1967:76 Pl. LXIV), and as Type 2 bowls by Amiran (1952:92, Fig. 1:2). The Cyma Recta cup does not appear to be represented in the southern assemblages. Interestingly, it is only known sporadically in the regions to the north of the Amuq, where once again, bowls are 153 more frequent. The examples from the north tend to have a more pronounced shoulder carination. A few examples have been found in the Lower Euphrates surveys, as well as at sites in the Keban region. Sagona cites numerous related forms with this distinctive profile from Armenia, Georgia and Iran. The Cyma Recta, or “s” shaped profile, occurs in jar forms as well, and in all probability should be seen as the most distinctive form in the ETC ceramics repertoire. Parallels: Cyma Recta Bowls - ‘Ai (Callaway et al. 1980, Fig. 108:18,19,22); Beth Shean (Mazar 2000 Fig. 14.3:4,5); Beth Yerah (Esse 1991 Pl. 5B); Jericho (Kenyon 1960 Fig. 44:10,11,18,30,41); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969 Fig. 18:3-5, 1989 Fig. 5:3-5, 1992 Fig. 234:1-5); Tell eshShuneh (Leonard 1991:52, Pl. 15:8-9,16,18,26,27; 16:9,14-7). Cyma Recta Cups - Karababa Harabesi (O 50/20) (Özdoğan 1977:212, Pl. 64:3); Keban Survey (Whallon 1979, Fig. 12:b-d; 13:tt, uu, vv); Pirot Höyük (ibid.: 218, Pl. 70:11); Taşkun Mevkii (Sagona 1992 Type 7, Fig. 37). V. ‘Rail’ Rimmed Jars (Plate XI: 1-3) These vessel types is quite common in the regions to the north (Burney 1958:167), but Braidwood notes that it is not common in the RBBW assemblage of the Amuq (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:364). The Rail Rimmed jar is identified by a relatively vertical side wall, with a flattened exterior lip, producing an almost squared off effect. The collections of the AVRP Survey produced no examples of rail rimmed jars, suggesting that Braidwood was correct in his initial assessment of the vessel type. Consequently, it can be suggested that this vessel form started in the north, but did not continue south of the Amuq. 154 Parallels: Muş Region (Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Fig. 10a). VI. Holemouth Vessels (Plate XI: 4-13) This vessels form, known more from southern Levantine contexts, are surprisingly more common than Braidwood, who found only a few examples at Judeideh, had initially observed (1960: 364). They have been identified in the assemblages of a number of sites visited by the AVRP survey, but the form is still relatively rare. Braidwood identified two rim forms: one with an incurved rim, and the other with a straight in-turned rim. The incurved rim is less frequent, and tends to be less rounded and more pointed then the example produced by Braidwood (1960: Fig. 283:1, p. 365). Examples have been found in all red, or the red-black combination. No completely black examples have been found. This vessel form is virtually unknown in the ETC assemblages to the north of the Amuq. The closest morphological parallel is Sagona’s Form 71 Type B, which has been found at Pulur and Kamıklı. It appears infrequently in Ras Shamra Level III A1 (de Contenson 1969:76), and in some KKW sites in northern Palestine (Leonard 1992:54) Parallels: Beth Shean (Mazar et al. 2000:263, Fig.14:4.4); Beth Yerah (Esse 1991:52); Kamikli (Özdoğan 1977, Pl. 72:25); Pulur (1984: 431-2; Fig. 34:7, Koşay 1976b, Plates 40:55, 42:61, 72:151, 73:55 ); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:12; 1992 Fig. 234:11); Tell eshShuneh (Leonard 1992:54, pls. 17:7-8, 19-21; 18:1-3, 9-11). 155 VII. Jars: (Plates XI:14-21; XIII) Esse curiously does not include any jars (other than a few examples of Holemouth jars in KKW) in his typology of the material from Khirbet Kerak (1991:51-3). Amiran does note some vessels that she describes as jars, but essentially names only one form, which she describes as consisting of “pots of small and medium size, with S-line profiles” (1970:69). The perception is that jars do not appear in the southern assemblage, an observation that was first put forward by Mellaart (1966:81), and repeated by Todd (1973:187), who noted that it is rare in the Amuq and Palestine. Sagona’s typology includes a number of jar forms, suggesting that it is a significant form in the larger ETC corpus. However, in the Amuq assemblage, jars represent a significant population with five subtypes identified. Significantly, the Tell esh-Shuneh KKW assemblage (Leonard 1992) also includes a variety of jars which provide close morphological parallels to the material from the Amuq. Jars Type 1 (Plate XI: 14-21) This group generally consists of rounded, bag-shaped jars with a slightly out-turned and beaded rim. The result is a subtle “s” shape in the vessel form. They are slipped; most often are red in colour, with the occasional example with the red- black colour combination. This form does not appear in the KKW assemblages of the south, and is difficult to identify in assemblages to the north. However, two morphological parallels for the form occur: at Korucutepe, but this is a singular example and is of a larger size, and at the Aşvan sites, with Sagona’s Type 5 RBBW form (Sagona 1994, Fig. 16). Some vaguely similar examples come from the Lower Euphrates survey. A better example comes from Tell esh-Shuneh. Overall, this form would appear to be a local development that draws its inspiration from shapes in the Plain Simple Ware (henceforth PSW) tradition (see Braidwood 1960: 354, Fig. 270:3, 4, 12). 156 Parallels: Aşvan Sites Type 5 form (Sagona 1994, Fig. 16); İmikuşağı (Özdoğan 1977 O 50/1, Pl. 72:2,3); Korucutepe (Van Loon 1978: Plate 116:I); Maltepe (Özdoğan 1977 Site O 50/21, Pl. 64:3); Pirot Höyük (Özdoğan 1977 Site P51/15, Pl. 69:9); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992: Plate 17:4). Jars Type 2 – Plate XII: 1-5 The second jar type is characterized by a low everted neck that forms a separate entity from the rest of the body, with a generally rounded lip. It can best be seen as a cross between Jar Type 1 and the fully necked Jar Type 3. They generally are covered on both the interior and exterior with a thick red slip, with the exception of the example from Tabarat al-Akrad, which was rather poorly slipped and had a black-grey colour. This jar, which is the only complete example from this group, has a small loop handle and an omphalos base. Once again, the best parallels occur in the Shuneh assemblage. The type is comparable to Sagona’s Form 21 Variants A-D (1984:383-7, Fig. 12-3), or Forms 32-40 (1984:395-405 Figs. 19-24), which are found at numerous sites throughout the ETC distribution zone. Although the definitions of these forms are vague, the shape could also be derived from a local PSW form (Braidwood 1960: 354; Fig. 270:10-12). Parallels: Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992: 35; Plate 16:7, 12, 13, 18-20 and perhaps 7). Jar Type 3 (Plate XII: 6-9) These vessels are distinguished by the strong carination at the base of the neck. They are also covered with a red slip, and have a more generously everted rim than Jar Type 2. Although carinated necked jars are quite common in the ETC assemblage (see Sagona 1984 Types 26, 33, 157 37, 38, 40), they do not seem common in the RBBW assemblage of the Amuq, or in the KKW of the south. The singular example from Tell esh-Shuneh is not wholly convincing, as the carination is extremely sharp, forming a small extruding ridge. Parallels: Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992 Fig. 16:6). Jar Type 4 (Plate XII: 10-20) This form is the most common of all jar forms in the RBBW assemblage. It is characterized by a slightly everted rim followed by a generally straight body. The profile of the body usually is almost completely vertical, save a small outward slant. This form more than others seems to occur with the red-black colour combination. Parallels are difficult to find. The form does not appear in the other assemblages of the Amuq, or in the KKW repertoire, with only one example found at Tell esh-Shuneh. It may relate to Sagona’s Form 32 (Sagona 1984), but the examples he provides tend to be larger and with a wider diameter. The closest parallels occur in the Royal Grave at Arslantepe (Frangipane 2000, Fig. 16:3-6). Parallels: Arslantepe (Frangipane 2000, Fig. 16:3-6); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992 Plate 16:8). Jar Type 5 (Plate XII:21-25) This jar form is characterized by its flaring rims, with a lip that is either rounded or flattened in shape. Examples often appear to have a straight body similar to the Jar Type 4, but are distinguished from the previous category by the rim. These vessels tend to be quite heavily slipped and all red in colour. The shape itself is quite straight forward, but is not represented in the other assemblages of the Amuq. It is found with some frequency in the southern 158 assemblages. The pronounced flare also appears to be out of character for the assemblages north of the Amuq. The form may simply be a local development. Parallels: Beth Shean (Mazar et al 2000: Plate 14:3:12); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1991: Plate 16:7, 12, 13, 18). Jar Type 6 (Plate XIII: 1-6) The final jar form appears to be found only in large store jars. This form is characterized by a gentle “S” shaped curve, reminiscent of the Cyma Recta cups and bowls. Several examples were found in the various excavations in the regions, but examples are also found in the AVRP survey collection as well. The majority of the examples are decorated with the red-black colour combination, ribbing, and or plastic decoration. It is unclear whether this is a defining characteristic of this form, or simply an accident of preservation, but it is something of note nonetheless. There is also regularity in the vessel diameter, with the majority of the vessels having a rim diameter in the range of 23-28 cm. This form, like the cyma recta bowl, is well represented in the KKW repertoire, and shares similar characteristics in vessel diameter. They often have a plastic decorative application, and ribbing, but the red-black combination is not as frequent. Some of these identical cited examples were categorized by Sagona as Forms 21 and 22, and can be found at numerous sites to the north, particularly Arslantepe (Palmieri 1973, Fig. 53:1, 6, 7, 10-15; Frangipane 2000, Fig. 16:5, 6) and Karaz (Koşay and Turfan 1959, Fig 389,394). In the northern examples, however, the neck has a much stronger carination and is marked by a more straight-sided neck. 159 Parallels: Afula (Amiran 1969 Plate 19:7); Beth Shean (Amiran 1969 Plate 19:5); Beth Yerah (Esse 1991 Plate:5d); Jericho (Amiran 1969 Plate 19:6); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992: Plate 16:20, 21, Plate 17:6). VIII. Pot Stands - Plate XIII:7-14, Plate XIV:1-2 Pot stands come in two forms: 1.) Biconical stands and 2.) Collared stands. Type 1: Biconical Stands (Plate XIII:7-14) Biconical stands are the more common of the two forms. They occur in all three phases in the Amuq and have been found at a number of sites throughout the plain. All examples are fully slipped and hand-burnished, forming black, red, and red-black colour combinations. They are decorated frequently with shallow fluting, typically with four horizontal ridges just below the rim on both sides, with a series of flutings in the center at the vessel’s narrowest point. Several examples have produced fluting in a zigzag pattern at the ends as well, either below the horizontal fluting or in place of it. Vessels of this type are identified as Form 216 in Sagona’s typology (1984: 545-6, Fig.98), and they are well represented in the KKW assemblages of the southern Levant. This shape does not occur in the assemblages north of the Amuq, with one possible exception from the Lower Euphrates region at Değirmantepe (Özdoğan 1977:216, Pl. 68:4). However, this example is identified as Chaff Faced Simple Ware (CFSW). This shape does not appear in the CFSW of the Amuq, so the origin of this shape is unclear. Parallels: Type 1 - ‘Affula, Arqub el Dahr, Beth Shan, Beth Yerah, Hazor, Qishon, Tell esh-Shuneh, and Tell Yaqush (Esse 1991:137); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1989:325, Fig. 9:4). 160 Type 2: Collared Stands. (Plate XIV:1-2) Collared stands are rare in the assemblage, although because of their rather inconspicuous shape, fragments in the survey collection could have been mistaken as other vessel forms. They are essentially collars or rings with slightly out-turned rims that are slipped and heavily burnished. The two examples from the Amuq are both red in colour, with no further decoration. The first example came from the Chicago excavations, and according to Braidwood this form does not appear in Amuq Phases G or H, and seems to be isolated to Phase I (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:402). The second example comes from the AVRP survey of Tutlu Höyük (AS 105), and presents a number of horizontal ridges on the interior, which appear to be marks left from the partially smoothed coils made during the manufacturing of the vessel. This vessel form, identified as Form 215 by Sagona (1984: 543-5, Figs.96-7), is unknown in the assemblages of the southern Levant, but is relatively common in the north, particularly at the Keban sites in the Elazığ region. There, they are often decorated with incisions and filled with a white paste. They are very common at Korucutepe, but isolated examples can be found at Norşuntepe, Tepecik and Aşvan Kale. The Amuq appears to be the southern most appearance of the collared stand form, where it perhaps develops into the Biconical Stand form, which is then found in the assemblages further south. Parallels: Type 2 - Aşvan Kale (Sagona 1994 Fig. 108:5,9,10); Korucutepe (Kelly-Buccellati 1978 Pl. 118); Norşuntepe (Hauptman et al. 1976b Pl. 52:3; Hauptman 2000, Abb.5:6); Tepecik (Esin 1979 Pl. 64:30). 161 IX. Lids (Plate XIV:3-10) The RBBW assemblage curiously appears to be the only ceramic group tradition in the Amuq to produce lids. They can be sub-divided into straight sided lids (Pl. XIV: 3, 5, 7, 9, 10) and lipped lids (Pl. XIV: 4, 6, 8). The lids generally tend to have a medium coarse fabric, but are heavily slipped and burnished. A few examples from Braidwood’s soundings had incised decoration that was filled with a white paste (Pl. XIV: 3). The remainders, for the most part, were a plain red colour, although one example from the survey collection had a red-black colour combination, and one had a subtle ribbing. There appears to be no real regularity in the size of the lids, which range in diameter between 16 and 32 cm. The shapes of the lids tend to be conical, and they usually have knobs on top for handles. When looking for parallels, an interesting pattern emerges. Good examples of these conical lids can be found in the regions to the south of the Amuq. Many examples of these conical lids are lightly slipped and do not bear any decoration, but several examples have the red-black combination and/or incised decoration. What is particularly interesting is that these conical lids cannot be found in any region north of the Amuq. Lids are found, however, but they are all flat, disc-shaped, and a loop handle in the center (Sagona Form 223. 1984:553-7, Fig. 102-3). These disk-shaped lids, however, are not found in the RBBW or KKW assemblages. This variant occurs at sites in the Aşvan and Keban regions (Sagona 1992; Whallon 1979). The conical shape, therefore, appears to be yet another innovation of the Amuq, which was then continued in the KKW assemblages to the south. Parallels: ‘Affula (Sukenik 1948: Pl. XI:3,4,6); Beth Shean (Fitzgerald 1935, Pl. X:2,3; Mazar et al. 2000:265, Fig. 14.4:6,10); Beth Yerah (Esse 1991, Pl. 5:1); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1970a:5, Fig. 1; 1969, Fig. 19-5); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992:54, Pl. 19:10-14). 162 X. Bases (Plate XIV:11-16) Bases are poorly represented in the AVRP survey collection, but the few that are found mirror Braidwood’s initial findings. Omphalos bases are most frequent, but ring bases are also present. Omphalos bases are not attested to in the regions to the north, but are frequently found in the KKW assemblages of the south. Both Braidwood and Hood also provide examples of a pedestaled bowl (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, Fig. 305:3; Hood 1951 Fig. 7:15), which Braidwood dated to Phase I. The form is unknown in KKW assemblages and in the ceramic traditions to the north. It could be a derivative form of the pedestaled bowls found in the Level VIA assemblage at Arslantepe (Frangipane 2001, Fig. 10), but these examples have a much taller base. Pedestal and omphalos bases thus appear to be another innovation of the Amuq region, with only the omphalos form continuing into the KKW assemblage. XI. Andirons (Plate XIV:17-9) These horseshoe shaped objects have been a significant topic in every discussion regarding the ETC (see for example Hood 1951 139-40, Amiran 1952:93, Plate 1 Henessey 1967:78, Todd 1973:188). They have been a source of fascination because of their distinctive appearance, and the fact that they have been found in every region with a dense concentration of ETC ceramics. They are characteristically horseshoe shaped, with two vertical projections on the “feet” and a taller vertical projection in the center. Measurements vary, but the best preserved example from the Amuq, that from Tabarat al-Akrad, measures approximately 15 cm in height, and approximately 30 cm from foot to foot, each of which are about 6 cm wide (Hood 1951:139). On the interior arc, there are generally three cone-like horizontal projections (one on 163 each vertical projection) that point towards the center of the horseshoe. Presumably, these would hold the vessel in its place. There appear to be three classes, all represented in the Amuq assemblage: anthropomorphized, stylized, and miniature. Fragments of the anthropomorphic versions have been found in Phases H and I in the Amuq at Tayinat, Judeideh, Dhahab (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960) and Tabarat al-Akrad (Hood 1951). The classic anthropomorphic type has a face consisting of two eyes carved in relief, a projecting nose and sometimes a button-shaped mouth. They are often also covered with incised decoration in a diagonal lattice design below the facial depiction. This ornamentation will appear on the central vertical projection, and often also on the two projections for feet. An almost exact parallel was uncovered at Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1989 Fig. 9:5). One example from Judeideh has the decoration only on the two “foot” projections and not in the center (see Braidwood 1960:374 Fig. 290). They appear to become more stylized in Phase I, replacing the facial decoration with simple punctures. Good morphological parallels can be found at a number of sites in eastern Anatolia. The stylized version is similar in shape, but has no decoration on the faces of the projections, and the two feet projections are more or less the same height as the central projection, making the connection less pronounced (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:374). Based on Braidwood’s excavations, it would appear that they are more a product of Phase I than Phase H. The miniature versions are often decorated like the anthropomorphic versions (Plate XIV: 18), but they also may be undecorated (Plate XIV: 19). Two possible examples have been found in the Amuq, but in a fragmentary state, with only the feet preserved. They measure 2.5 -3.2 cm. By analogy to the better preserved example from Akrad, they would be 12.5 - 16cm across. 164 When one includes the conical projections on the interior, it leaves a space of 6.5 - 8cm between the two feet upon which to place a vessel. Although small, it is conceivable they could be used for a small cup of some sort, though such a proposal would be unlikely as vessels of this diameter are extremely rare in the corpus. These miniature andirons are not unique to the Amuq, and have been found in other regions of Anatolia. They are too small to be of any practical use, and it has been suggested that they served some cultic purpose (Sagona 2003). Interestingly, the two miniature examples that have been found were collected at Tell Dhahab (AS 177), and are possibly suggestive of the distinctive nature of this settlement. Very good parallels to these miniature versions have been found at Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992 Plate 19:21-23). There has tended to be a general acceptance of the cultic function for these objects (Lamb 1956, Amiran 1989, Takaoğlu 2000). Although clearly a domestic utilitarian object, given the lack of any structures that are of a decidedly cultic nature, Sagona has recently suggested that the hearth, which bore a prominent position in almost all structures that could be associated with the ETC culture, might have served as the focus of cultic activity (Sagona 2003, see also Yakar 1985: 279). Parallels: Cinis (Takaoğlu 2000); Pulur (Koşay 1976); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1989, Fig. 9:5); Tell esh-Shuneh (Leonard 1992 Plate 19:21-23). 165 The RBBW of the Amuq RBBW is a highly distinctive ware, easily recognizable in the AVRP survey collections. It appears for the most part to be hand made, often with completely burnished surfaces both on the interior and exterior. The majority of the examples are covered in a well levigated slip that Matson says reaches a maximum thickness of 0.2mm (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:361). However, many examples in the present collection have a slip with a maximum of 0.3 and 0.35mm. The colour scheme ranges from red to tan, black and a combination of red and black, from whence the ware receives its name. Because of its distinctive character, it may be over represented in the survey collections, but Braidwood suggests that it comprises about 52-55% of the selected sherd bulk in Phase H. However, this percentile may be skewed by a variation in the sherd bulk depending on the site type. The statistics reported by Braidwood are based on selected field samplings of 1806 sherds and 61 complete or reconstructible pots. The stated proportions are based on the selected field samplings (1188 sherds) from Judeideh JK3 and Tayinat T4 alone, since these two operations each yielded a significant succession of Amuq Phase H floors (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:351). However, in Hood’s report on the excavations at Tabarat al-Akrad, a slightly different picture emerges. Hood does not provide the percentages of RBBW found in Levels IV-I, he only reports that the bulk of it belongs to the RBBW tradition (1952:132), and that a “certain amount” of the green and orange wheel-made (presumably Plain Simple and Brittle Orange wares) wares were found in these levels (1952:140). In the published examples, RBBW also dominates, with very few examples of the wheel-made wares illustrated. These observations by themselves cannot suggest that the statistics provided by Braidwood do not apply to Akrad. When the site was visited by the AVRP Survey in 1999, RBBW dominated the collection. Moreover, this 166 pattern was not isolated to Tabarat al-Akrad. It was also observed at Tutlu Höyük (AS 105), Tell Saluq (AS 138) and numerous other sites in the AVRP survey. As has been mentioned earlier (see Chapter 3), there is a strong correlation between site morphology and ware type distributions. At large sites (8-20 ha) like Tell Tayinat and Tell Judeideh, the assemblages reveal a mixture of RBBW (52-55%) and Phase G wheel made wares, while smaller sites (approximately 2-3ha) such as Tabarat al-Akrad or Tutlu Höyük, the assemblage is almost exclusively comprised of RBBW. In essence, the statistic cited by Braidwood applies to the first group of larger sites, with small sites reflecting a more homogenous assemblage comprised almost exclusively of RBBW. Discussion Todd discussed at length the contrast between KKW assemblages from the southern Levant and assemblages from central and eastern Anatolia (1973). Although, he acknowledged that there were shared elements between the regions, he emphasized significant differences, and argued for caution in attributing any direct relationship. Earlier treatments by Amiran (1952) and Hennessey (1967) made comparisons based on what they saw as similarities in pottery types, which in Amiran’s case (1952) were reinforced further by purported parallels in architecture. Moreover, these parallels, both ceramic and architectural, tended to be drawn unsystematically from anywhere within the ETC distribution zone. Even Burney notes that such studies fall short because they are based mostly on two categories of pottery, that although similar, contained significant differences to weaken the argument (1989:333). Sagona (1984) has produced the only study to deal with the ceramic corpus over the entire distribution zone of ETC. His pottery typology is important in that it identifies a number of similarities in the ceramics throughout the entire distribution zone. All previous studies, however, could not successfully resolve the issue 167 of the underlying explanations for this vast distribution. Migration was generally assumed, and to his credit, Sagona did attempt to outline possible movements based on relationships in forms and ceramic motifs (1984: 138-9). Nevertheless, no intensive examination of a mechanism for these movements was ever undertaken. Although useful, these previous works, due to the limitations of their source data, need to be used with caution. The foremost problem with these studies is their level of resolution. Given the vastness of the geographic and chronological distribution of the data, it is difficult to establish convincing parallels. Comparing the assemblages from Khirbet Kerak with those of Yanik Tepe, as Amiran attempted (1952), for example, is not convincing, due to their geographical and chronological disparity. By focusing on the western region of the ETC cultural zone, from the Malatya-Elazığ region to the southern Levant, focused comparisons are possible and the parallels identified therefore more meaningful. When the RBBW assemblage of the Amuq is compared morphologically with assemblages from the north and south, interesting patterns appear. Of particular importance is the lack of good parallels with the assemblage from the Malatya and Karababa (Lower Euphrates) region, geographically, the closest concentration of ETC sites to the Amuq. Instead, most of the parallels come from the Elazığ region further to the north-east. Even more interesting is the patterning that has emerged in the morphological parallels. Types found in the Keban and Amuq assemblages do not appear further south, and there are a number not found in the Keban assemblages, but which appear in the Amuq and KKW assemblages of the southern Levant. Thirdly, there are vessel types that occur in the Keban and Amuq regions, but undergo some morphological changes in the Amuq, and these new types are then found in the north Palestinian assemblages to the south. 168 Sagona has argued that much of the cultural development that happens in the ETC culture from the Chalcolithic and EBA are due to both local and foreign influences (Sagona: 1994:15). This observation was first made regarding the ceramic assemblages of the sites in the Aşvan region, but in many respects this also appears to be typical of the regions where a dense concentration of sites producing ETC wares is found. As noted in Chapter 2, Braidwood suggested that the RBBW may have been a development out of the Dark Faced Burnished Ware tradition of the region, perhaps alluding to a similar pattern (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:360). The Holemouth vessels, a form that appears to enter the ETC assemblages in the Amuq, is well attested in other assemblages of the region. The form first appears in Phase E cooking pot wares (Braidwood 1960, Fig. 139), but continues at a diminished level in both the Smoothedfaced and Chaff-faced Simple Wares traditions (Braidwood 1960, Fig. 173:2, 8, 9; Fig 176:1, 2, 4; Fig 180:6, 8, 9). It therefore, seems reasonable to assume that some of the vessel forms in the RBBW of the Amuq incorporate local influences. The result is something of a ‘trickle down effect’ with gradual, but progressive change in the relative morphology of vessel forms as the industry is traced from north to south (see Table 5). The best example of this trend is illustrated with the Pot Stands (Vessel Type VIII). The collared pot stand (Pot Stand 2) is found in significant numbers in the Keban region, but only in limited numbers in the Amuq, and is completely absent in the KKW assemblages of the southern Levant. The Biconical pot stand (Pot Stand 1) does not appear in the north, but rather appears to be a local development of the Amuq, which is then found in KKW assemblages. A similar pattern can be seen with lids (Vessel Type IX).Flat, circular lids are the norm in all the regions north of the Amuq. In the Amuq the conical lid form is first introduced, and is also common in 169 Vessel Type I 1 II 2 3 4 5 III IV V 6 VI VII 1 VIII 2 3 4 5 IX X XI 6 Keban Amuq Palestine Table 5: Chart of the geographical distribution of vessel forms from the Amuq Typology. Solid lines show forms that start in eastern Anatolia and continue through to the southern Levant. Dashed lines indicate forms that start in eastern Anatolia and are found as far as the Amuq. A single solid dash represents a form unique to the Amuq, and dotted lines indicate forms that start in the Amuq and are found in the KKW assemblages. Combinations of dashed and dotted indicate forms that start in eastern Anatolia, are found in the Amuq, but undergo a morphological change which is found in the south. the KKW assemblages Conversely, northern forms that are found in the RBBW of the Amuq, do not seem to continue into the KKW repertoire of northern Palestine, while innovative developments that first appear in the Amuq make their way into the assemblages of the south (see Table:5). At the same time, there are also special forms – perhaps better described of as themes, such as the Cyma-recta or “S” shaped vessels, which run throughout the assemblages of all three regions. Though exact vessel forms that bear this characteristic shape are not found in all three regions, the theme itself is. Thus, one cannot effectively understand the relationship between these assemblages, if they are seen as static monolithic assemblages, and examined in isolation. The evolution of each vessels type must be seen as dynamic within each region, absorbing influences from other ceramic groups and neighboring regions. 170 Chapter Six The Petrology of the Early Transcaucasian Tradition “Where possible, theories of the movements of people and artifacts must be sustained by the application of scientific analytical techniques to the artifacts in questions” (Todd 1973:181). Introduction Materials analysis of Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) pottery has been conducted in the past (Matson in Braidwood 1960:36, Esse and Hopke 1986:332, Mason and Cooper 1999, Mazar et al. 2000:27-6), but with the exception of Esse and Hopke, these studies were generally undertaken on a site specific basis with little or no inter- and supra-regional comparison (for discussion of individual projects, see below). The following represents the results of the petrographic investigations of ETC ceramics from three different regions of the ETC distribution zone. A regional analysis was undertaken for the Amuq Valley, the Bayburt region of eastern Anatolia, and a site specific examination was undertaken for the ceramics from Tell esh-Shuneh in the North Jordan Valley. These petrographic results were then compared to analyses done by others at sites in the southern Levant to form a more regional study (see Esse and Hopke 1986, Greenberg and Porat 1996, and Mazar et al. 2000). The objectives of the study are to answer the following questions: Were ETC ceramics all produced locally, or could inter-regional trade be seen as a possible explanation for the distribution of the wares? If produced locally, what were the likely centers of production, and how can the regional ceramic industry be classified? Were there any shared characteristics in the manufacturing processes or patterns in the local industries shared between the three regions? Methodology Petrographic analysis has been a component of materials analysis in archaeological research for more than forty years. The technique was initially developed in the earth sciences. 171 Simply put, it entails the grinding and polishing of a sample to a thickness of 0.03mm so that the mineral inclusions are effectively transparent. The sample is then examined under a polarizing microscope to identify the mineralogical inclusions based on their optical properties. In pottery sections, other observations such as grain size, roundness and angularity can be observed which can shed light on the natural or anthropogenic inclusions in the fabrics. For a description method employed see Shepard (1957:139-40) and Mason (2004: 5-22). The sherds examined petrographically in this study were thin-sectioned either by the Department of Geology, University of Toronto, or by the author using the lab in the Department of Near East and Asian Civilizations at the Royal Ontario Museum. The petrofabric descriptions, photographs, regional summaries and interpretations are included in this chapter. The basic methodology for the analysis can be summarized as follows. First the samples were mounted and thin sectioned. 101 sherds were selected from the collections mentioned above. Selection was based on the following prioritized criteria: ware type, site, and vessel form (where possible). Variations in sampling strategies are described in each regional discussion below. The samples were then analyzed and photographed using a polarizing microscope, and then classified based on fabric groups. Inter- and intra-regional patterns for the ETC ceramic tradition were identified through comparisons between sites and regions. The final stage of analysis consisted of a brief examination of samples from other ware groups in order to clarify any emerging patterns. However, specific characteristics were not recorded. Characterization of the fabrics was based on the relative mineral abundance visible in the thin section. This value, expressed as a percentage, was identified by the use of comparison charts (Terry and Chillinger 1955). This methodology is less precise than point counting, but it has the advantage of allowing for relatively quick assessments of percentages. In the petrofabric 172 descriptions, inclusions are listed from the highest concentrations to the lowest. Comparison charts were also used in the estimation of roundness and angularity (Pettijohn et al. 1973), and grain size measurements were obtained through the micrometer built into the microscope, and classified using the Udden-Wentworth Scale (Wentworth 1922). Grain shape generally is only provided in the petrofabric descriptions for the minerals of larger concentrations, unless there is something particularly characteristic. Degrees of sorting were also obtained through the use of comparison charts (Pettijohn et al. 1973). Distinction between the various petrofabric groups was based on the geology, and the shape, size and relative abundance of the minerals in the fabrics. As the regions under study are relatively small geographic units, the main sources of distinction between groups are the shape and size of the minerals and most importantly, their abundance. All photographs that accompany the fabric descriptions have a scale embedded in the image and, unless otherwise stated, were photographed in cross polarizing light. The sample base Ideally, the sample base for any study should consist of diagnostic sherds from well stratified contexts, but neither life, nor science always manages to be ideal. The material for this study was drawn predominantly from surface collections. In several cases, the number of sherds available overall from a site was small, and often there were very few ETC sherds to sample. Furthermore, due to restrictions imposed by the various institutions involved, the samples were taken generally from body sherds. As a result, the sample base for this study consisted of an opportunistic sample base, involving a low number of sherds (in many cases only one) from a number of different sites in an effort to obtain an acceptable sample size from as wide a variety of vessel forms as possible. Due to the large body of material available, the Red Black Burnished Ware (RBBW) of the Amuq will serve as the base study with which to compare the 173 Fig 39 Geological map of the Amuq with the sites sampled in this study. material from eastern Anatolia and the southern Levant. A total of 67 sherds from the AVRP Survey were examined, as well as a few sherds from the original Chicago excavations. Of these 67, 61 were of RBBW, and therefore consisted of predominantly serving vessels (see Chapter Five for the Typology of RBBW), while the remaining were Plain Simple Wares, Chaff-Faced Simple Ware, Grey Burnished Wares (all serving vessels) and Cooking Pot Wares. This sampling strategy allowed for further comparison of the RBBW with other ware groups (both preceding and contemporaneous with Phase H), and the possibility of identifying potential diachronic changes in the ceramic industry. The 61 samples of RBBW were collected from 27 different sites in the Amuq (see Fig. 39), with the largest number of samples drawn from Tell Judeideh (AS 176), Tabarat al-Akrad (AS 137), and Tutlu Höyük (AS 105) to provide a 174 greater variety of vessel forms. The samples were collected during the 1999-2002 seasons of the AVRP survey, with an emphasis placed on RBBW sherds from the greatest number of sites and the greatest number of vessel forms. Not every vessel form and sub-type was sampled, as the typology was created after the sample selection. Fig. 40 Map of Bayburt region with sites sampled in the study. In 1988, a team from the University of Melbourne initiated a survey in the region of Bayburt and Kelkit in the Gümüşhane province of northeastern Anatolia. The survey occurred in August and September of 1988, and was followed by excavations in the form of brief sondages at the site of Büyüktepe, also known as Ikiztepe (Sagona: 1991, 1992, 1993 Sagona and Brennan 1995). A collection of sherds from this survey was kindly provided by Antonio Sagona for this 175 study. Twenty-two sherds from seventeen different sites that produced ETC wares were selected from the Bayburt collection and examined (see Fig. 40). Since the sherds provided were body sherds, it was impossible to select samples based on vessel form, consequently, emphasis was placed on their ware type (almost all ETC wares) and provenience (that is a selection from a number of different sites in the survey region). Fig. 41 Sites in the Southern Levant sampled or discussed in the study. Since a great deal more work in the field of material analysis has been done on the Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW) of the southern Levant, less emphasis was placed on the analysis of samples from this region. The southern Levantine sample group consisted of twelve sherds from the site of Tell esh-Shuneh (with ten sherds being of KKW bowls, one of grain washed ware, and 176 one of a plain orange buff ware), and a single KKW bowl sherd from Tell el-Umayri, Jordan. The Tell esh-Shuneh examples were obtained from the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum, and are believed to have been donated to the museum by Mellaart. The Umayri sherd was provided by T.P. Harrison and came from the earliest EB III levels in the field D excavations at the site (Harrison 2000). As with the other collections, emphasis was placed on ware type because sampling was restricted to body sherds by the respective museums. The data obtained from this examination will be compared to the data from other studies (Esse and Hopke 1986; Mazar et al. 2000) to create a more regional synthesis (See Fig. 41). The Amuq Valley Petrofabric Groups Amuq Petrofabric A: AS 137_B3_1016 A fired-clay matrix, with 30% well-sorted, sub-rounded to sub-angular carbonates. Of the carbonates (predominately limestone), 15% are coarse silt grain size, 8% very fine sand; 6% medium sand (generally consisting of sub angular Fig. 42 Microphotograph of sherd AS 137_B3_10 fragments of sparry calcite); 8% fine and medium sand quartz, predominantly clear with some slightly cloudy17, straight and undulose extinction, moderately well sorted sub-angular to sub-rounded; 6% sub-angular to angular granules and 16 Sample numbering follows the sherd numbering procedures of the AVRP survey collections, where AS stands for Amuq Survey, the following number represent the site number in the AVRP database, followed by the collection year, then sometimes by a transect or field number, finally by the recorded sherd number. The two major exceptions occur with the material from the excavation Tabarat al-Akrad (AS 137) found in Woolley’s depot at Atchana, where the site number is directly followed by the trench number that was found on the bags, and the material from the Antakya Museum which are numbered with the Antakya Museum’s (AM) registration number. A similar procedure was used for the Bayburt collections with BS representing Bayburt Survey, followed by the site number, and then the sherd number recorded on the sherd by Sagona. The Tell esh-Shuneh samples are numbered according to the ROM registration numbers, and the Umeyri sherd was numbered by the sherd number as recorded by Harrison. 17 For description and fuller discussion on “cloudy quartz” see Mason 1995 177 coarse sand of grog (evidence of the use of at least three different petrofabrics); 4% moderately sorted, sub-rounded to sub-angular fine sands of opaques; and 3% well sorted fine and medium sands of serpentine and cherts with traces (less than 1%) of olivines, and biotite. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its high limestone content, with low levels of serpentine. Moderate levels of fine quartz with a significant amount of large angular pieces of grog and no pyroxenes. Amuq Petrofabric B: AS 137_99_33, AS 137_B1_07, AS 137_B3_08, AS 137_B3_09 A fired-clay matrix, of 12% moderately-sorted sub-rounded to angular grains of carbonates with 6% being of very fine sands, 6% mediums sands and approximately 2% very coarse sand. The 8% serpentine and the 4% cherts are of equant Fig. 43 Microphotograph of sherd AS 137_B3_09 grain size to the carbonates. 8% angular to sub-rounded, well sorted quartz, principally slightly cloudy with straight extinction and grain sizes of coarse silts to medium sand with the greatest majority being of a medium sand grain size. There are also fine and medium sands of basalt and pyroxenes. Straw tempering appears frequently, evidenced from moderately sorted, large but thin angular voids (6%). Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its fine grained carbonate nature and the striking uniformity in the medium sand sized grains of the various inclusions. 178 Amuq Petrofabric C: AS 176_96_6, AS 176_99_9, AS 176_99_2, AS 176_98_1, AS 176_99_2 A fired-clay matrix, of 12% moderately sorted sub-rounded carbonates. The carbonate grains are generally a fine micritic coarse silt (10%), but with fine and medium sands of forminiferous limestone and shell. 12% well-sorted coarse silt and very fine sands of quartz principally clear with straight extinction with 6% moderately sorted sub- Fig. 44 Microphotograph of sherd AS 176_96_6 rounded coarse sands of serpentine and 6% moderately sorted medium sands of opaques, 2% of chert, basalts and pyroxenes. Small amounts of granules of grog (2%) were sometimes added to the paste. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by the fine grain carbonitic nature of the matrix, with a frequent appearance of foraminifers and moderate to high levels of serpentine with low levels of small angular fragments of grog. Amuq Petrofabric D: AS 105_01_04, 105_01_02 – 2nd slip 0.15 mm, Primary slip 0.025 mm A fired-clay matrix, comprised of 30% well-sorted rounded to sub-angular grains of carbonates of a bimodal grain size with 22% coarse silt, and 7% very coarse sands. 25% well sorted angular to sub-rounded quartz, clear with straight Fig. 45 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_01_04. Photo taken in cross polarizing light, and with the Half wave length lens. extinction – some of the larger grains appear “sheared”. 4% moderately sorted angular to subrounded medium sands of chert, and 4% sub-angular to sub-rounded fine sands of serpentine, and trace amounts of (1%) medium sands of opaques and less than 1% pyroxenes,. basalt, and 179 plagioclase. Also included were well sorted medium sand-sized, sub-angular clay pellets. The pyroxene fragments curiously tended to be isolated to the exterior zone, and basalt fragments are different from other examples from the region consisting of very fine lathes of plagioclase and olivines, with no iron oxides. Also of peculiarity were the very fine and string-like voids, almost suggestive of a very fine fiber used for a temper – perhaps hair. Distinction: This fabric is easily distinguishable by its curious string-like voids that might be suggestive of hair used as a tempering agent. No other fabric produces it. It also has a very high level of carbonates and quartz, with few pyroxenes and a very different basalt source. Amuq Petrofabric E: AS 105_98_1_16, AS 105_98_1_17 A fired-clay matrix, consisting of 13% moderately to well sorted carbonates of medium silt, pieces of limestone and some shell. 10% find sands of quartz, clear to somewhat cloudy with straight extinction. 4% moderately sorted, sub-angular fine sands of opaques, with 4% serpentine and 3% cherts of the identical grain size. Traces (less than 1%) of biotite and Fig. 46 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_98_1_16 pyroxenes. Voids (5%) are sub-rounded to sub-angular and might be the result of the disintegration of calcite fragments. The serpentine fragments tend to have undergone less alteration than seen in other samples, resulting in less altered serpentine than is usually observed. Distinction: This fabric is similar to Petrofabric B in that it has a surprising regularity in grain size distribution, but differs in its lower levels of serpentine inclusions, which appear to be of a different source due to the lower amounts of alteration in the population. 180 Amuq Petrofabric F: AS 105_98_1_20 A fired-clay matrix, of 15% well sorted sub-angular to rounded medium silt (10%) and medium sand (5%) grains of carbonates, 13% very well sorted fine and medium sands of quartz, mainly clear to somewhat cloudy with straight extinction, 6% very fine sand-sized inclusions of serpentine, Fig. 47 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_98_1_20 4% cherts, and traces of (less than 1%) fine sands of pyroxenes and biotite. The carbonates are primarily limestone, but frequently the larger grains are sparry calcite. The grain sizes are particularly equant in size and evenly distributed. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its almost equal percentages of carbonates and quartz. The serpentine, although moderate in volume, is more fine grained and even in grain sized than is generally seen. The larger grains of carbonates are almost exclusively sparry calcite and might be anthropogenic in nature. Amuq Petrofabric G: AS 105_98_1_19, AS 105_98_9/12, AS 105_98_2_8, AS 105_98_2_10, AS 105_98_4_4, AS 105_01_07, AS 105_98_1_1, AS 105_98_1_14 A fired-clay matrix composed of an equal mix of well sorted sub-rounded to sub-angular medium silt particles of Fig. 48 Microphotograph of sherd AS 105_98_01_07 carbonates and quartz, clear with straight extinction (7% each), and well sorted sub-rounded medium silt particles of chert and serpentine (4% each), with fine sand inclusions of opaques. Carbonates comprised of micritic and fossiliferous limestones. Voids (6%) vary from medium silt to coarse sand and tend to be sub-angular possibly the result of decomposed calcite. 181 Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its generally fine nature, with lower levels of inclusions than other groups. The carbonates are distinctive in that they frequently are comprised of a fine grained grey micritic material. Amuq Petrofabric H: AS 126_99_TB1, AS 126_99_TB8, AM 4772 (Tell Tayinat), AM 4734 (Tell Tayinat) A fired-clay matrix of 20% very well sorted sub-round to sub-angular carbonates and 8% quartz angular to subangular well sorted quartz, somewhat cloudy with straight and undulose extinction. 7% moderately sorted, subrounded medium sands of serpentine of fine to medium sand Fig. 49 Microphotograph of sherd AM 4772 grain size. Traces of olivines and biotites (often partially altered) are also found as well as fine sand angular fragments of basalt and plagioclase. Grog and or clay pellets are also sometimes found in fine and medium sand sizes as well as larger - 2 mm in size -- angular and sub-angular fragments. Carbonates are predominantly fossiliferous limestone with micro fauna - ostracada -and the serpentine has a greater tendency to be found in a half altered state resulting in a larger amount of iddingsite than other serpentine fabrics. Distinction: This fabric is immediately distinguishable by the micro-fauna and the greater than normal levels of altered serpentine (iddingsite). The use of large fragments of grog, and argillaceous clay pellets as tempering is also of note. Amuq Petrofabric I: AS 126_99_TB9, AM 4763 (Tell Tayinat) Fired-clay matrix, comprised of low levels (5%) of moderately sorted sub-rounded to rounded carbonates and sub-rounded to sub-angular grains of moderately sorted serpentine (5%) in medium to coarse silt sizes and very fine and fine sands of sub-rounded cherts (4%) Quartz is 182 found in very low levels (2%); principally clear with straight extinction and only in a fine silt size. Traces of medium sands sized fragments of opaques, pyroxenes and olivines (less than 1%) that are often found in a partially altered state. Angular pieces of grog are infrequently found, and serpentine is frequently partially altered. Fig. 50 Microphotograph of sherd AM 4763 Distinction: This fabric is similar to Petrofabic G, but differs in that it has an equal level of both carbonates, serpentine and very low levels of fine grained quartz, and both are even lower levels than what are observed in Fabric G. It also differs by the appearance of olivines and grog tempering. Amuq Petrofabric J: AS 86A_1, AS 86C_99_03 Fired-clay matrix, with 25% moderately sorted sub-angular carbonates, 8% somewhat cloudy quartz with straight extinction with 6% medium sand-sizes angular grains of serpentine and 4% moderate to poorly sorted rounded to subrounded fine sands of cherts. Traces of (less than 1%) Fig. 51 Microphotograph of sherd AS 86C_99_03 plagioclase, pyroxenes, partially altered biotite and basalt. The carbonates consist of limestone, sparry calcite, and some foraminifers and range in size from granules to coarse silt, but the majority being fine sand in nature. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive for its relatively high levels of carbonates – predominantly limestone and moderate levels of both quartz and serpentine. There is a significant amount of regularity in grain size, however, this regularity occurs in the smaller grain sizes of fine sand. 183 Amuq Petrofabric K: AS 9_96_21 A fired-clay matrix composed of 30+% very well sorted subrounded to rounded carbonates, 5% well sorted coarse silt inclusions of quartz, somewhat cloudy with straight and undulose extinction. In addition, 4% well sorted sub-rounded and angular grains of serpentine, generally coarse silt in grain Fig. 52 Microphotograph of sherd AS 9_96_21 size and 3% moderately sorted, sub-rounded very coarse sand of cherts. Traces of (1%) fine to medium sand inclusions of plagioclase and basalts (very few examples, but one quite large 3.1 mm). The carbonates consist of limestone, sparry calcite and possibly some bone fragments. They are generally coarse silt to very fine sand, but coarse sand fragments of limestone are also found. Long linear voids ranging from 0.25 to 6 mm are suggestive of chaff tempering. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive by its very high carbonate content that is generally quite fine, but punctuated by large fragments of limestone, as well as what might be bone fragments. Amuq Petrofabric L: AS 166A_99_01, AS 166_99_10 A fired-clay matrix, comprised of equal levels of moderately to well sorted quartz and carbonates (15%) with a high level (10%) of moderately sorted angular fine to coarse sands of cherts, 8% sub-rounded fine to coarse sands of serpentine and traces of (1%) fine sands of basalt and pyroxenes. Quartz Fig. 53 Microphotograph of sherd AS 166_99_01 grains are well sorted, clear to somewhat cloudy with straight extinction and are predominantly fine sand grain sizes, while the carbonates (limestones and micrite), range from medium silt to 184 coarse sand in grain size but are more characteristically medium sand. The vast majority of the serpentine is altered into iddingsite. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive first by its high levels of angular chert fragments and the large sub-rounded altered serpentine, but in general, the mineral inclusions have a fair degree of regularity of grain size. Amuq Petrofabric M: AS 173A/B 96_1, AS 173_99_36 A fired clay matrix of 10% well sorted sub-angular and angular quartz generally of medium silt and very fine sand grain size, but about 5% of a coarse sand size. 1less than 12% moderately sorted angular to sub-rounded carbonates of Fig. 54 Microphotograph of sherd AS 173_99_36 bimodal grain size distribution, and about 5% angular coarse sands of cherts, with 2% subrounded coarse sands of serpentine and 2% angular sands of olivines and traces of opaques, 2% angular coarse sands of pyroxenes and basalts (less than 1%).There is a general uniformity of medium silts of carbonates, quartz and chert, with a secondary population of larger medium and coarse sands of carbonates, quartz serpentine, cherts, basalts and olivines. There is a preponderance of partially altered serpentine, having a dark orange-brown color, and a high percentage of the chert is of a fine grained variety suggestive of silicified limestone. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive due to its bimodal grain size distribution which is immediately visible, as well as the large fragments of pyroxenes and fine grained chert, which has an almost reddish brown accumulation on it. 185 Amuq Petrofabric N: AS 186_96_1 Fired-clay matrix, with 6% of carbonates, 5% very well sorted and clear quartz with straight extinction and 5% opaques, 13% sub-rounded serpentine and 2% chert, all of which are moderately sorted, sub- rounded and range from medium silt to medium sand sizes Traces of medium fine Fig. 55 Microphotograph of sherd AS 186_96_1 sand grain sizes of plagioclase, pyroxenes, basalts and predominantly well sorted and again subrounded. Sub-angular voids of medium and coarse sand sizes are quite abundant (8%) possibly the result of a sparry calcite tempering that has been burnt away. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive by its uniformity in grain size and shape, but also for its comparatively high levels of opaques. Amuq Petrofabric O: AS 181_6_68 A fired clay matrix consisting of 37% well-sorted, subrounded carbonates -- the vast majority of fine to coarse silt grain size -- but also very find sand grains composed Fig. 56 Microphotograph of sherd AS 181_99_6_68 predominantly of limestones, but some micrite and sparry calcite. 2% well sorted sub-angular quartz, clear with straight extinction, and 1% coarse silt of serpentine. Distinction: This fabric is easily distinguished by the almost exclusive appearance of carbonates. 186 Amuq Petrofabric P: AS 108_99_18 A Fired-clay matrix, comprised of 27% moderately sorted rounded to angular carbonates, 5% moderately sorted subrounded to rounded opaques ranging from medium silt to medium sand in size and 3% very well sorted sub-angular quartz, clear with straight extinction. 2% serpentine, and Fig. 57 Microphotograph of sherd AS 108_99_18 traces of cherts, biotite, olivine and plagioclase. Voids (7%) are both long (up to 3.5 mm) and fibrous suggestive of some chaff tempering as well as angular coarse sand sized possibly the result of burnt out calcite tempering. The carbonates consist of limestone, sparry calcite and shell and range from medium silt to coarse sand, with the greater portion of the population being medium sand. Some of the larger (1 mm) sized fragments of limestone are quite angular and could be anthropogenic in nature. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its large fragments of shell, relatively high levels of opaques and low levels of quartz. The chert grains are covered with a reddish-brown accumulation. Amuq Petrofabric Q: AS 180_D_2 Fired-clay matrix, consisting of 20% moderately sorted subrounded carbonates, 15% well sorted angular quartz, clear and cloudy with straight extinction, medium silt to medium sand in grain size, and 15% moderately sorted sub-rounded to angular serpentine medium silt to medium sand, 6% well sorted rounded and sub-rounded opaques, 3% well sorted 187 Fig. 58 Microphotograph of sherd AS 180D_99_2 fine sands of chert, 3% very well sorted angular medium silt to medium sand olivines, 2% well sorted very fine to medium sands of pyroxenes and traces (1%) of twinned plagioclase, biotite and basalts The carbonates consist of limestone, sparry calcite and shell, and vary from medium silt to very coarse sand. Very coarse sand fragments of carbonates are also included with significant pieces of shell (1.2 mm). The larger pieces of limestones and shell are quite angular and are poorly sorted. The greater majority of the serpentine is altered with a significant percentage of it found as sub-angular fragments of iddingsite Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its large fragments of shell and the altered quality of the serpentine. The chert grains are covered with a reddish-brown accumulation. Amuq Petrofabric R: AS 108C_99_4 Fired-clay matrix, consisting of 20% moderately sorted subrounded to sub-angular fine and medium sands of carbonate, 12% moderately sorted round and sub-rounded medium to coarse sands of serpentine, 10 % well sorted angular to subrounded medium sands of quartz, clear with straight Fig. 59 Microphotograph of sherd AS 108C_99_4 extinction, 3% well sorted sub-rounded fine sands of opaques, 2% well sorted sub-angular fine sands of chert, and traces of (less than 1%) olivines and pyroxenes and basalts. Carbonates consist of limestone, sparry calcite, micrite, and some foraminifers, but micritic limestone predominates. Almost the entire population of quartz is uniform in size – 0.375 mm. Long fibrous voids reaching sizes of up to 4 mm suggestive of chaff tempering. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by the prominence of micritic limestone over other carbonates and the general uniformity of the fine quartz. 188 Amuq Petrofabric S: AS 139_B_1, AS 139_A_1 A fired-clay matrix, consisting of 15% moderately sorted sub-rounded carbonates ranging from coarse silt to medium sand, but principally fine sand, 4% moderately sorted subrounded fine to medium sand inclusions of serpentine, and 3% moderately sorted angular quartz, clear with straight Fig. 60 Microphotograph of sherd AS 139_99_A_1 extinction, with traces (1%)basalt, cherts, olivines, plagioclase and pyroxenes (very few – less than 1%). Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by a general uniformity in the grain sizes with most inclusions being fine sand in size, giving the impression of a somewhat coarse paste. Amuq Petrofabric T: AS 177_98_A4_21 Fired-clay matrix, consisting of well-sorted, large and even concentrations of 20% quartz, and 20% carbonates ranging in sizes from fine silt to very coarse sands, but with the principal grain size of both populations being coarse silt. 7% moderately sorted coarse sands of serpentine, with 3% medium and very coarse sand sized clay nodules, with traces (less than 1%) of twinned and untwined plagioclase, basalt, and epidote. Carbonates are frequently sparry calcite and serpentine tends to be subrounded to rounded pieces and is commonly altered in to large pieces of altered serpentine. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by relatively high and even concentrations of coarse silts of carbonates and quartz. The traces of epidotes are also generally unseen. 189 Fig. 61 Microphotograph of sherd AS 177_98_A4_21 Amuq Petrofabric U: AS 11A_96_07 Fired-clay matrix, comprised of 17% sub-angular and rounded carbonates medium silt to coarse sand in grain size with 12% sub-rounded medium sands of serpentine and 7% sub-rounded medium sands of quartz, somewhat cloudy with straight and undulose extinction, 3% sub-angular coarse silt Fig. 62 Microphotograph of sherd AS 11A_96_07 and very fine sand opaques, 3% sub-rounded medium sand cherts, 2% rounded medium sand size basalt grains with traces of plagioclase and pyroxenes. Carbonates are generally fossiliferous limestones, with very little calcite. Voids long (2+mm) and fibrous are suggestive of chaff tempering. Some other sub-angular also appear partially filled with some sort of post depositional carbonatic in-fill. Distinction: This fabric is similar to Petrofabric R with its high carbonate and serpentine to low quartz ratio, but is distinguished by its comparative lack of regularity in quartz grains, and its general lack of calcite. Amuq Petrofabric V: AS 252_A2_01_05 A fired-clay matrix, consisting of 22% very well sorted subrounded carbonates ranging from medium silts to very coarse sand, but principally fine sand grain sizes. 12% well sorted sub-angular to sub-round quartz, somewhat cloudy with straight extinction of coarse silt to medium sand, 8% Fig. 63 Microphotograph of sherd AS 252_A2_01_05 moderately sorted rounded and sub-rounded coarse silt to very coarse sands of serpentine 190 primarily of fine sand grain sizes, 7% sub-rounded fine sand opaques, 3% sub-rounded to subangular cherts, about 2% very fine sand pyroxenes, traces of olivines, basalts and very coarse sand sized clay nodules. Carbonates consist of fossiliferous limestone, a significant amount of sparry calcite, and some minor amounts of shell. Voids, although large (sometimes reaching 2.6 mm), are more sub-angular and not suggestive of chaff tempering, and may be suggestive of larger grains of some sort of organic material (perhaps seeds) used as temper since calcite is still present in significant levels. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive if not for the fact that it is populated with a large variety of inclusions; it is also distinctive for the moderately high carbonates and almost equal levels of quartz, serpentine and opaques. Amuq Petrofabric W: AS 253A_01_20 A Fired-clay matrix, comprised 20% of well-sorted angular quartz, clear with straight extinction of mediums silt to medium sand grain size of carbonates, 17% moderately sorted sub-angular to sub-rounded coarse silt to very coarse sand carbonates with the greatest majority of a fine sand grain Fig. 64 Microphotograph of sherd AS 253A_01_20 size. 7% moderately sorted well rounded cherts, 6% well sorted sub-round to sub-angular coarse silts of serpentine and traces of pyroxenes and biotite. Clay nodules were also added varying in size from 0.25-1 mm in size (5%). Voids are elongated and thin suggestive of chaff tempering, but they tend to be clustered in the center of the profile. About 80% of the quarts are medium silt in size, and carbonates comprise of almost exclusive limestone with traces of calcite. 191 Distinction: This fabric is distinctive primarily for the well rounded chert nodules which are not seen in any other fabric, along with the high percentage of medium silt size quartz particles. Amuq Petrofabric X: AS 17B_98_7 Fired-clay matrix, of 25% moderately sorted medium silt to coarse sand carbonates, 17% well sorted sub-rounded to angular quartz, clear with straight extinction of medium silt to medium sand grain size, 8% sub-rounded to sub-angular fine sands of serpentine, 4% sub-rounded medium sand opaques, 4% sub-rounded to angular fine sand cherts, and Fig. 65 Microphotograph of sherd AS 17B_98_7 traces of plagioclase, pyroxenes and biotite Carbonates comprise of micritic and fossiliferous limestone. Voids comprise of 25% of the fabric with a median size of 1.25 mm but reaching a size of 4.24 mm, and are both elongated and small and angular in shape suggesting a chaff and possibly calcite tempering. Distinction: This fabric is distinctive by its high level of chaff tempering and a general uniformity in size and shape of the serpentine. Amuq Petrofabric Y: AS 156_99_06 Fired-clay matrix, with 15% well sorted sub-rounded and sub-angular quartz with clear, with straight and undulose extinction. Some quartz can also be characterized as ‘sheared’ and tends to have a strong undulose character. 6% sub-angular carbonates, 6% chert, and 6% serpentine – all 192 Fig. 66 Microphotograph of sherd AS 156_99_06 well sorted with almost identical grain size distribution ranging from coarse silt to coarse sand, with the exception of one very large angular fragment of serpentine measuring 4.25 mm. Traces (1%) of pyroxenes, basalts and olivines Carbonates comprise of limestone and small amounts of sparry calcite, and some cherts are of the fine grained varieties of silicified limestone. Voids are sub-angular to sub-rounded and are not suggestive of chaff tempering. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished mainly by it quartz content. The quartz grains show significant variation, with some straight as well as undulose extinction and many of the larger examples being “sheared” (these examples reach a maximum size of 1 mm). The similarity in grain size distribution of carbonates, cherts and serpentine is also unusual. Amuq Petrofabric Z: AS 164_96_5 Fired-clay matrix, with 10% well sorted sub-rounded to rounded carbonates, 6% well sorted serpentine, and 5% well sorted quartz, clear, with straight extinction. 2% sub-rounded opaques, 2% angular grains of basalt with traces (1%) of pyroxenes and epidote. The majority of the minerals have Fig. 67 Microphotograph of sherd AS 164_96_5 equal grains size distributions: medium silt to coarse sand. The larger grains of chert and carbonates are rather poorly sorted, being found in well spread out clumps throughout the sherd. Carbonates are primarily limestone, with some micrite, and basalts are different in that they are almost exclusively lathes of plagioclase with very few opaques or iron oxides. Interestingly no stray plagioclase lathes were found in the fabric. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished primarily by the unique basalts, but also the generally low levels of the inclusions and the uniformity in the grain size distribution. 193 Amuq Petrofabric AA: AS 164_99_18 Fired-clay matrix, with 40% sub-angular to sub-rounded serpentine and 35% angular quartz, clear with straight and undulose extinction, 12% angular to sub-angular cherts, 5% pyroxenes, and only one fragment of lime stone. The serpentine comprises 4 ranges from medium silt size grains to Fig. 68 Microphotograph of sherd AS 164_99_18 very coarse sands, and the quartz range from medium silt to medium sand size grains. Cherts tend to be quite angular and vary in size from coarse silt to granules in size – one reaching a size of 4.5 mm. Many examples are of a fine grained nature and appear to be a silicified limestone. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its very high serpentine content and the almost complete lack of carbonates which is generally uncharacteristic of any of the RBBW examples examined. The high levels of fine grained chert is also quite exceptional. Amuq Petrofabric BB: AS 147_99_06 A fired-clay matrix, with 17% well sorted, sub-rounded carbonates, 14% rounded serpentine, 5% angular quartz, clear with straight extinction, and traces of plagioclase, olivines and chert. Carbonates consist of limestone, micrite but mostly sparry calcite, ranging from medium silt to coarse Fig. 69 Microphotograph of sherd AS 147_99_06 sand, with the larger grains quite angular. Serpentine likewise ranges from medium silt coarse sand but the larger coarse sand size particles predominate, and are frequently partially altered. 194 Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its low level of mineral inclusions, similar to Petrofabric Z, but without the basalt inclusions, and it has a higher concentration of sparry calcite. Amuq Petrofabric CC: AS 27_96_1 A fired-clay matrix with 20% very well sorted, sub-angular to sub-rounded quartz, clear with straight extinction of coarse silt to fine sand grain size, 10% moderately sorted, medium silt to medium sand, sub-rounded carbonates, 7% well sorted rounded and sub-rounded fine and medium sands of Fig. 70 Microphotograph of sherd AS 27_96_1 serpentine, 5% well sorted sub-angular cherts, and traces of plagioclase and pyroxenes. The carbonates predominantly consist of limestone with a few pieces of micrite. 3% of the cherts are of the fine grained silicified limestone variety. Voids are abundant (12%), moderately sorted and are sub-rounded to fully rounded in shape generally of a medium sand grain size, but some larger (more probably cracks as opposed to voids) reach 2 mm in size. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished primarily by the high quartz to carbonate ration. Although not a unique pattern, this combination with the fine grained cherts and abundant voids are indicative of a unique fabric group. Amuq Petrofabric DD: AS 76_98_12, AS 76_98_14, AS 76_98_15 Fired-clay matrix, with 1less than 12% moderately sorted, sub-rounded to rounded carbonates, 6% well sorted angular 195 Fig. 71 Microphotograph of sherd AS 76_98_14 fine sands of quartz, 4% medium and coarse silts of serpentine, 4% sub-angular very sine sand opaques, 2% plagioclase and traces of basalts and biotite. Carbonates consist of limestone and sparry calcite but no fossiliferous limestone, and range from medium silt to coarse sand, but principally of fine sand grain sizes. The traces of biotite are frequently in a partially altered state. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its general low levels of inclusions, similar to Petrofabric BB, but lacks the micrite, the larger grains of unaltered serpentine, and iddingsite. Amuq Petrofabric EE: AS 120_2 A fired-clay matrix with 12% rounded to sub-rounded fine silt to medium sand carbonates, 7% moderately sorted medium silt to fine sands of serpentine, with 5% coarse silts to very fine sands of quartz and sub rounded opaques (2%) and traces of pyroxenes, epidotes, and cherts. All the Fig. 72 Microphotograph of sherd AS 120_99_2 inclusions are generally only moderately sorted with some minor clumping of inclusions into groups. Carbonates consist of limestone, sparry calcite and shell, with a significant number of foraminifers. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by the comparatively high levels of forminifers, similar to Petrofabric DD, is separated by the higher levels of serpentine, and the presence of cherts and epidote. Amuq Petrofabric FF: AS 133_2 A fired-clay matrix with 8% well sorted sub-angular quartz, clear and somewhat cloudy with straight extinction, with a 196 Fig. 73 Microphotograph of sherd AS 133_2 range of grain size from medium silt to coarse sand, but predominantly medium sand sizes. 6% moderately sorted, rounded to sub-rounded medium silt to coarse sands of carbonates, 4% well sorted sub-rounded medium sands of opaques, 3% poorly sorted sub-rounded grains of chert and 3% moderately sorted very fine sands of serpentine and traces of coarse sands of plagioclase and epidote. Voids are sub-rounded and moderately sorted of fine silt to coarse sand in size. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its higher quartz to carbonate levels and plagioclase and epidote inclusions, but more by its regularity in inclusion sizes, with the modes of the various populations being fine and medium sands. Amuq Petrofabric GG: AS 169_B_3, AS 169_B_2 Fired-clay matrix with 13% moderately sorted rounded to sub-rounded medium silt to medium sand grains of carbonates, 5% well sorted silts of quartz, clear with straight extinction, poorly sorted coarse silt to medium sand grains of serpentine (5%), moderately sorted fine sand opaques (4%) with a surprisingly high level (4%) of coarse silt to medium Fig. 74 Microphotograph of sherd AS 169_99_B3 sand grains of pyroxenes and fine sands of chert (3%). Medium sand traces of biotite (1%) and fine to coarse sands of basalt (1%) are also attested. Of the two examples of this fabric, one also produced moderately sorted medium to coarse sand sized fragments of grog. Carbonates consist of limestone and sparry calcite but some microfauna. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished primarily by its relatively high levels of pyroxenes which generally never exceed 2% in RBBW. 197 Amuq Petrofabric HH: AS 253A2_01_29 – Non-RBBW fabrics A fired-clay matrix consisting of 40% moderately sorted angular quartz, 90% of which is highly angular, the remainder sub-angular, ranging from fine to coarse sands, clear and somewhat cloudy with straight and undulose distinction, and 10% moderately sorted , sub-rounded to subangular fine quartz ranging from coarse silt to fine sands. 3% Fig. 75 Microphotograph of sherd AS 253_A2_01_29 moderately sorted fine sands of chert, with traces of twinned plagioclase, olivines, carbonates, and a few very coarse sand grains of grog which is comprised of a carbonatic clay. Voids are long and horizontal, suggestive of chaff tempering, and comprises of about 20% of the sample. Distinction: This fabric is easily distinguished by the high levels of angular coarse quartz that is undoubtedly anthropogenic in nature. This vessel is a cooking pot ware. Amuq Petrofabric II: AS 101_4, AS 101_3, AS 176_99_8 – Non-RBBW fabrics Fired-clay matrix with 17% very well sorted, sub-angular to angular fine to medium silt grains with a few medium sands of serpentine, 12% sub-angular to angular ranging from medium silt to very fine sand quartz grains, clear with straight Fig. 76 Microphotograph of sherd AS 101_99_4 extinction, and traces (less than 1%) of plagioclase, amphiboles, pyroxenes and cherts are also found. In a few examples, carbonates are found in fine silts and very trace amounts (less than 1%) but appear to be concentrated to the exterior ranges of the sherds. 198 Distinction: This fabric appears to be used for Simple Wares and Plain Simple Wares. This fabric is distinctive in that it is comprised of a well-levigated, silty serpentine clay of very fine inclusions. Amuq Petrofabric JJ: AS 80_4 – Non-RBBW fabric A fired-clay matrix of 22% moderately sorted angular fine silt to granule sized particles of serpentine with the greatest percentage of the grains being of coarse sand size and quite angular, bordering on sheared. 17% well sorted quartz of coarse silt to coarse sand grains, somewhat cloudy with Fig. 77 Microphotograph of sherd AS 80_99_4 straight extinction, 12% well-sorted olivines, all angular and of medium sand to granule in size, a relatively high percentage (5+%) of both ortho- and clinopyroxenes, generally of coarse silt to coarse sand in grain size. Angular sands of cherts and opaques (3%) and traces of angular sands of basalt and plagioclase (less than 1%). Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its high levels of olivines and pyroxenes, and complete lack of carbonates which produces a very distinctive fabric. This vessel is identified as Grey Burnished Ware by TPH. Amuq Petrofabric KK: AS 176_99_8 – Non-RBBW fabric A fired clay matrix with 17% well sorted sub-angular to sub-rounded serpentine of a bimodal grain size distribution, with the greater portion of the population being medium silts and a minor portion with medium sand grain size. 12% very 199 Fig. 78 Microphotograph of sherd AS 176_99_8 well sorted sub-angular to angular quartz of the same grain size distribution as the serpentine. 2% well-sorted rounded fine sands of chert, and traces of plagioclase, olivines, carbonates and pyroxenes. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its high serpentine content and very low carbonate. The vessel belongs to the Smeared Washed Ware group. Amuq Petrofabric LL: AS 108C_99_16 – Non-RBBW fabric A fired clay matrix of 15% very well sorted sub-angular quartz, clear with straight extinction, coarse silt to very fine sand in grain size, and 15% moderately to well sorted subangular coarse silt to medium sands of carbonates, 8% well Fig. 79 Microphotograph of sherd AS 108C_99_16 sorted sub-angular coarse silt size opaques, 3% very well sorted rounded to well rounded medium and coarse sands of chert, 3% very well sorted, sub-angular fine sands of serpentine, with traces of plagioclase and pyroxenes. Voids comprise 8% of the fabric, and are long and linear, ranging from coarse sands to granules in size, suggestive of chaff tempering. Carbonates consist of exclusively micritic limestone. Distinction: This fabric is not out of place with other RBBW fabrics with the exception of the high level of fine opaques, and one form of carbonate. Observations The Braidwoods’ work in the Amuq was groundbreaking in its interdisciplinary approach to archaeological investigations. Of the various specialists involved in the project, Prof. Frederick Matson provided both an infield macroscopic approach, and a microscopic analysis of the ceramic fabrics of what Braidwood called the “apparently indigenous ‘Amuq wares”. 200 Matson’s work for the most part comprised of a few paragraphs inserted along with each ware definition, providing a brief description of the predominant clay types used in the various wares. As well, wherever possible, comments on the manufacturing techniques were offered. Matson’s reports were considered preliminary, with further discussion reserved for a “final reports” that has not materialized. His description of the mineralogy of RBBW is worth quoting in full: This ware was manufactured from at least two different types of clay: the serpentine type, to which clay pellets may have been added as tempering material, and a variant of the calcite type. The well purified slip has a maximum thickness of 0.2, but 0.1 mm is common. Further discussion of the paste and slip is likewise reserved for the final report. If the ware had been fired much above 800˚C, the calcite in the paste would have decomposed. However, it was well fired. It is interesting that in Phase H there is a marked departure from the use of traditional clays and manufacturing techniques. The procedures used are very similar to those employed at the same time in the regions to the north and south of the ‘Amuq (Matson in Braidwood 1960:361). The present examination of the RRBW fabrics agrees in many ways with Matson’s brief characterization. However, Matson’s analysis appears to have been restricted to sherds from the three excavations, while the present work has incorporated material from 27 different sites across the valley, providing a slightly different picture (see below). Given the geology of the region, with the southern portions of the Amanus (the Kızıldağ range) comprised for the most part of serpentine, and the other surrounding hills composed of Pliocene and middle Miocene deposits (a good source of limestone), it is not surprising that two clay types are found, one of serpentine and one of carbonates. Matson’s definition of the second clay group, the calcite variant is somewhat problematic. Although sparry calcite was present in many of the samples, it hardly appears to be a dominant characteristic of the fabrics. Other forms of carbonates, predominantly fossiliferous and micritic limestone, along with sparry calcite and 201 shell are also found in the wares. Consequently, it is more suitable to classify the second fabric type as carbonate rather than calcite. While the identification of only two types of clays used in the manufacture of RBBW would appear to be largely correct, there were also a significant number of different fabrics in use in the region. Examination of the Phase G Chaff Faced Simple Wares (CFSW) and Plain Simple Wares (PSW), as well the Grey Burnished Wares shows that these wares were all made from a serpentine clay that would fit within the geology of the region. The carbonate clay, the main clay used in the manufacture of RBBW, represented, as Matson noted, a significant departure from the traditional local clays used (read serpentine clays). The CFSW and PSW ceramics are wheelmade and generally well levigated, comprised of silty clay with serpentine and quartz inclusions, and with little or no carbonate. Curiously, the carbonate found in PSW has a tendency to be located in the outer margins of the vessel. Although too few examples were analyzed to say that there was one production center for the region, the PSW and CFSW samples examined, although from different sites in the region, all appeared to be made of the same fabric, which can be suggestive of a centralized production of the wares. The RBBW assemblage represents a significant change in the manufacturing of ceramics in the region. All examples appear to be hand-made, apparently using both the coil and slab technique. Some examples show a radial distribution in the inclusions suggestive of coil manufacture. Other examples preserve joins of slabs, evident from long angular voids along seams or through abrupt changes in the orientation of inclusions. Evidence from both Korucutepe (Buccellati in van Loon 1978:70) and Sos Höyük (Sagona 2002) suggests that ETC wares were formed by both these methods, using baskets as moulds. It is very probable that the same technique was employed in the manufacture of the vessels from the Amuq. It should be kept in 202 mind, however, that RBBW represents only one ware type in the Phase H assemblage, and all other ceramic industries appear to continue local wheel thrown technologies. The vessels are heavily slipped with a well levigated slip that has a Fig 80 Microphotograph of sherd 105_98_1_19, showing the ‘Second Slip’ phenomenon. maximum thickness of 0.2 mm, and, contrary to Matson’s report (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:361), an average thickness of 0.05 mm. There are also several examples that can best be described as having a double skin. Clearly visible in thin section is the regular fabric of the vessel, then a slip or second layer of more finely sieved clay, usually 0.5 mm in thickness (Figs. 80, and 81), followed by the outer finely levigated slip. In some examples, this practice is found both on the interior and exterior margins of the sherd, but in other Fig 81 Microphotograph of sherd 169_99_B_3, showing the ‘Second Slip’ and the ribbing decoration. examples only on the outer face of the vessel. This second layer appears to be made of the same clay as the rest of the vessel, having the same general inclusions as the remainder of the body, only significantly finer. The function of this ‘second skin’ is unclear. It is found predominantly 203 on bowls, but also on jars and pot stands. It is often found on sherds that have preserved evidence of ribbing or incision. Thus, it is possible that this secondary level of clay was applied specifically to achieve this form of decoration. It can be suggested, that the more finely sieved clay was applied if the decoration was an afterthought, allowing for a fresh skin upon which to incise the design. However, the general uniformity of this layer would suggest that it was more deliberately applied. More finely sieved clay would have fewer large mineralogical inclusions that would be susceptible to physical changes in firing conditions (i.e. calcite or organics). One can only hypothesize that by removing these inclusions, it was possible to prevent any changes in the condition of the surface finish and preserve any ribbed designs. The identification of numerous petrofabric groups; although from a geological view might be seen as unnecessary splitting, appears warranted from a technological standpoint, and has permitted the identification of several patterns in the production of the wares. First all the ceramics were composed of clays and inclusions typical to the geology of the Amuq. Second, a variety of tempering practices are evident, with some vessels tempered with sands of local minerals and or stones, as well as clay nodules, grog, chaff, and other organics, possibly even animal hair. Third, within the RBBW tradition, there is no uniformity to these tempering practices. They can appear individually or in different combinations. No specific tempering practice can be isolated to any specific vessel form, except in one case. Grog tempering has so far only appeared in bowls. The grog fragments have all been derived from vessels made of local materials. Grog tempering appears to have been frequent enough that some fragments were from vessels that were themselves tempered with grog. The second set of observations concerns a pattern that appears to be typical of ETC in general. The Amuq pottery indicates that from a technological standpoint, there appear to have 204 been multiple workshops involved in the production of the ware in the region. Of the 61 sherds examined from 29 different sites in the Amuq region, 33 different fabrics have emerged. These variations are based on different inclusions, inclusion percentages and grain sizes. At some sites, more than one fabric group can be observed. At the small site of Tutlu Höyük (AS 105), for example, four different petrographic groups emerge from the examined samples. It could be argued that since the wares are handmade, one should not expect the same degree of uniformity in the fabrics as one might see in more technologically advanced ceramic industries, and thus that numerous petrographic families may be an artificial construct resulting from excessive splitting. However, the variations in the fabric, the preparation of the clay and the tempering practices are different enough to suggest that they are the result of diverse clay sources in the RBBW industry. It can be suggested that each site produced its own ceramics to fulfill its individual needs. Multiple fabrics at single sites, especially small sites like Tutlu Höyük, can be seen as the result of either multiple workshops, or more probably, household production. The Bayburt Region Petrofabric Groups Bayburt Petrofabric A: BS_101_2 Fired-clay matrix with 30+% angular and sub-angular moderately to poorly sorted felsic volcanics in grain sizes ranging from granules (2%), very coarse sand (2%), coarse sand 10%, to predominantly medium sand (20%). 20% angular to sub-rounded fine sands of twinning and non- Fig. 82 Microphotograph of BS 101_2 twinning plagioclase, with 2% amphiboles, 2% angular very coarse sands and granules of grog, 205 and traces of epidote, and carbonate. Amphiboles are frequently large (very coarse sand) and often metamorphosed with a brownish colour; carbonates consist of sparry calcite. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its very high levels of felsic volcanics, the second highest of any sample from the Bayburt survey. The example with the highest level of felsics (Petrofabric L) in contrast has a high level of amphiboles. Fabric A also has among the highest levels of plagioclase. This combination is not encountered in any other sample. Bayburt Petrofabric B: BS_68_3 A fired-clay matrix with 27% angular and sub-angular well sorted felsic volcanics, principally of fine and medium sand grain size, but often found in sub-rounded very coarse sand size grains as well. 8% angular and sub-angular plagioclase, 2% sub-angular amphiboles, 2% sub-rounded opaques, with Fig. 83 Microphotograph of BS 68_3 2% very coarse sands of grog, and traces of (1%) olivines. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by the rather high level of felsics and plagioclase. Bayburt Petrofabric C: BS_23_4 A fired clay matrix with 20% well-sorted angular and subangular fine to coarse sands of felsic volcanics, 12% well- Fig. 84 Microphotograph of BS 23_4 sorted, angular to sub-rounded quartz, clear and somewhat cloudy with straight extinction, 3% sub-rounded very fine to fine sands of opaques, with traces (less than 1%) of amphiboles, and grog. 206 Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its rather high level of quartz which is generally unseen in the Bayburt petrofabrics. Bayburt Petrofabric D: BS_29_2 Fired-clay matrix with 20% well sorted sub-rounded grains of carbonates, predominantly of fine sand grain sizes, but also coarse sand sizes, with 6% moderately sorted angular and sub-angular very coarse sands of grog, 3% sub-rounded fine sands of felsic volcanics, with 2% very well sorted sub- Fig. 85 Microphotograph of BS 29_2 angular quartz, somewhat cloudy with straight extinction, and traces of plagioclase. Carbonates are almost exclusively limestone, and the grog might be of a different source as it has very little limestone in its matrix and more quartz. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its high carbonate content and very low levels of felsic volcanics. Bayburt Petrofabric E: BS_102_1 Fired clay matrix with 17% moderately sorted sub-angular medium and fine sands of felsic volcanics, 10% well sorted sub-angular fine sands of predominantly non-twinning Fig. 86 Microphotograph of BS 102_1 plagioclase, about 2% moderately sorted sub-angular coarse sands of grog,2% moderately sorted sub-angular fine sands of epidote, traces (less than 1%) of biotite, carbonate, and fine quartz. Some grog has a completely different granulometry than the others. 207 Distinction: This fabric is somewhat difficult to distinguish from some others, but generally stands out by its high levels of epidote. Bayburt Petrofabric F: BS_59_2 Fired-clay matrix with 27% moderately to well sorted, subangular to sub-rounded fine to very coarse sand felsic volcanics: 10% well-sorted sub-angular fine sands of nontwinning plagioclase, and 3% sub-rounded opaques, 3% angular coarse sands of grog, with traces of muscovite, and Fig.87 59_2 Microphotograph of BS carbonates. Grains of olivine can be seen within felsic volcanics, carbonates consist of predominantly limestone. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its high levels of felsic volcanics the traces of olivine found inside. Muscovite is also generally rare. Bayburt Petrofabric G: BS_89_1 A fired-clay matrix with 22% well sorted, sub-angular medium and coarse sands of felsic volcanics, with 12% well sorted sub-rounded and rounded carbonates ranging from fine to coarse sand, 2% very well sorted sub-angular non- Fig. 88 Microphotograph of BS 89_1 twinning plagioclase, 2% moderately sorted coarse sands of grog, traces (less than 1%) of amphiboles, biotite and muscovite. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its moderately high levels of felsics and carbonates – a unique combination 208 Bayburt Petrofabric H: BS_78_2 Fired-clay matrix consisting of 20% well sorted, subrounded felsic volcanics with generally even grain sizes of fine sand. 20% well sorted sub-angular and sub-rounded twinning and non-twinning plagioclase, principally of fine sand grain sizes, but frequently coarse sand, with 3% moderately sorted sub-angular coarse sands of grog, 3% Fig.89 Microphotograph of BS 78_2 sub-angular opaques, and traces (1%) of amphibole, epidote and altered feldspars that have undergone sericitization. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its equal grain size distribution of felsics and plagioclase, as well as the appearance of feldspars that have undergone sericitization. Bayburt Petrofabric I: BS_74_5 Fired clay matrix with 20% moderately sorted sub-rounded to sub-angular felsic volcanics, very fine to medium sand in grain size, 12% well-sorted sub-angular fine sands of plagioclase, 6% moderately to poorly sorted, sub-angular fine sands of amphiboles, 4% angular to sub-rounded Fig.90 Microphotograph of BS 74_5 medium sand size grains of grog, 3% well sorted, subrounded to sub-angular very fine sands grains of opaques, and traces of muscovite, schist, epidote or zoisite, carbonite, and possibly chlorite. A significant potion of the population of amphiboles are partially altered resulting in a brown colour, and has a tendency to be found in a 209 well sorted ‘clump’. Also, there is quite a bit of unidentifiable grey mass and an equant crystalline structure, with a very slight degree of green pleochroism. Not amphibolite, very low birefringence, very high relief, no cleavage. Possibly orthoquartzite. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by it containing the greatest variety of different mineral inclusions, including the unidentifiable gray mass. Bayburt Petrofabric J: BS_97_6 – No Photo Fired-clay matrix with 20% well sorted sub-angular felsic volcanics, generally all fine to medium fine sand in grain size, with 15% moderately sorted medium sands of biotite and traces of plagioclase, feldspars, opaques and muscovite. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished primarily by its very high levels of biotite, but also by the fine-grained nature of the felsics. Bayburt Petrofabric K: BS_46_4 Fired-clay matrix with 25% well sorted felsic volcanics of medium coarse to coarse sand grain size, with 1less than 12% sub-angular to sub-rounded medium sand of amphiboles, 2% well-sorted sub-angular coarse sands of grog, Fig. 91 Microphotograph of BS 46_4 and traces of plagioclase and opaques. Amphiboles found in the felsic volcanics generally have undergone partial alteration to brownish color while the amphiboles found in matrix tend to be medium coarse sand. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its rather high level of amphiboles and the difference in their grain size between their inclusion in the felsics and in the matrix of the vessel. 210 Bayburt Petrofabric L: BS_49_2 Fired-clay matrix with 35% well-sorted, angular to subrounded fine to coarse sands of felsic volcanics, with 8% well sorted, angular coarse silt to fine sands of amphiboles, 7% sub-sounded and sub-angular non-twinning plagioclase, 4% sub-rounded opaques. Amphiboles are almost exclusively Fig. 92 Microphotograph of BS 49_2 partially altered to a brown colour, and found either in a coarse silt size or in larger ‘shards’. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by having the highest levels of felsic volcanics, and a high level and shard-like nature of the amphiboles. Bayburt Petrofabric M: BS_73_3 – Non-ETC ware Fired-clay matrix with 17% well sorted sub-rounded fine to coarse sand of felsic volcanics, 8% well sorted, sub-angular coarse silt of plagioclase, 5% well sorted, sub-rounded very fine sands of opaques and traces of quartz, amphiboles, Fig. 93 Microphotograph of BS 73_3 carbonate, chert. Notes: Fine grain carbonate mixed with quartz. This sample was not believed to be ETC, oxidized fabric, no slip, no burnishing. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its uniform and general fine grain size of the inclusions, particularly the quartz. Bayburt Petrofabric N: BS_75_2 211 Fired-clay matrix with 15% moderately sorted sub-angular to sub-rounded felsic medium and coarse sands of volcanics, with 15% well sorted angular and sub-angular medium and coarse sands of twinning and non-twinning plagioclase, 4% well-sorted sub-rounded fine sands of amphiboles. 4% sub-rounded fine sands of opaques. Amphiboles are generally found half altered with brownish Fig.94 75_2 Microphotograph of BS color. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by equal level of felsics and plagioclase which share the same grain size and distribution. The moderately high level of opaques are also different. Bayburt Petrofabric O: BS_48_1 A fired-clay matrix with 40% moderate to poorly sorted sub-rounded coarse to medium-coarse grains of carbonates: 2% moderately sorted, sub-rounded grains of plagioclase, and 2% felsic volcanics, traces of amphiboles. Carbonates consist of micritic limestone, most frequently fossiliferous limestones with microfauna. Fig. 95 Microphotograph of BS 48_1 Distinction: This material is most probably not from this area. Fossiliferous limestone is not seen in any other examples. Large grains, fossils very visible. There is also very few felsics, and the amphiboles very small and fragmentary which are all very uncharacteristic of the region. 212 Bayburt Petrofabric P: BS_48_7 Fired clay matrix with 20% well sorted, angular to subrounded felsic volcanics, ranging from very fine to coarse sands, 7% well sorted angular twinning and non-twinning plagioclase, 5% very well sorted sub-rounded opaques, 2% sub-angular quartz, clear with straight extinction, 2 % sub- Fig. 96 Microphotograph of BS 48_7 rounded amphibole, traces of hornblende, olivine. Felsics contain plagioclase, but also amphibole, biotite, hornblende, and quartz. Plagioclase in matrix often is found in conjunction with biotite. Distinction: This fabric is quite different from Fabric P, but fits well within the geology of the Bayburt region. It is distinguished from the other fabrics by its high variety of inclusions, similar to Fabric I, but lacking the unidentifiable gray mass. Bayburt Petrofabric Q: BS_66_8, and BS_66_6, BS_66_2 A fired-matrix with 17% well sorted angular and sub-angular felsic volcanics, principally coarse sand in grain size, 8% well-sorted angular fine sands of quartz, clear with straight extinction, 8% well sorted angular and sub-angular fine and medium sands of non-twining plagioclase, 3% sub-rounded Fig. 97 Microphotograph of BS 66_6 very fine sand opaques, traces of amphiboles, biotite, muscovite, carbonate and probably talc. Carbonates consist of micritic limestone surrounded by fine grain quartz. Muscovite found inside the felsic volcanics only, along with plagioclase, quartz. 213 Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its rather high level of fine quartz (generally not seen in the other fabrics) as well as the talc. Bayburt Petrofabric R: BS_47_4 , BS_47_1 Fired-clay matrix with 17% well-sorted sub-rounded to subangular fine to coarse sands of felsic Volcanics, 17% moderately sorted, sub-rounded carbonates, 5% well sorted angular twinning and non-twinning plagioclase, 2% subrounded very fine sands of opaques, 2% coarse sand grains of Fig. 98 Microphotograph of BS 47_4 grog and traces of quartz, muscovite, basalt, sparry calcite. Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its equal levels of felsics and carbonates, which is otherwise not seen. Observations The preliminary characterizations of the wares from the Bayburt survey have been discussed elsewhere (Batiuk 2000). Since the 21 sherds examined were body sherds, it is impossible to equate any of the following observations with vessel types. No vessels of diffinitively non-ETC fabrics were examined. Therefore, observations regarding changes in the ceramic industry of the regions similar to what was observed in the Amuq cannot be made. The analytical results correspond in many ways to the patterns emerging from the analysis of the material from the Amuq. A major distinction between the wares of the Bayburt region and those of the Amuq is the rare use of slips in the Bayburt ceramics. When a slip does occur, it is a levigated slip with a maximum thickness of 0.075 mm and an average thickness of 0.06 mm. 214 More frequently, the vessels appear simply to be burnished without a slip. The ‘second skin’ phenomenon discovered in the Amuq wares has not been observed in the Bayburt ceramics. The vessels examined were generally tempered with mineral inclusions, sometimes with grog, and rarely with organics. The clays and mineralogy of the inclusions correspond to the geology of the region, once again suggesting that the vessels were made locally. That being said, one example from Çayırolu Tepe (BS 48 sherd no. 7) is of an exotic fabric, containing significant amounts of fossiliferous limestone and no felsic volcanics, the predominant inclusion in all of the wares examined from the Bayburt region. All the other samples examined from the site, however, do correspond to the geology of the plain. When the sherds examined were organized into petrofabric groups, a similar pattern to those observed in the wares of the Amuq emerges, with multiple subtly different petrofabric groups. Once again, these divisions are based on slight variations in mineralogical inclusions and their sizes and tempering practices. They can also be the result of excessive splitting. However, once again, from a technological standpoint the division would appear to have valid. Southern Levantine Petrofabric groups Tell esh-Shuneh Petrofabric A: ROM Accession No. 955.213.40.118, 955.213.40.13 A fired-clay matrix consisting of 25% moderately sorted carbonates (micritic limestone and sparry calcite) with a bimodal distribution, with about 10% angular and subangular granules and very coarse sand, and about 15% Fig. 99 Microphotograph of KKW Sherd. ROM accession no.:955.213.40.118 rounded coarse silts. 5% well-sorted quartz, generally clear with straight extinction with a 215 maximum coarse sand grain size, but predominantly fine sand. 3% well- sorted angular cherts, and 2 % moderately sorted sub-rounded opaques, both of similar granulometry as the carbonates, with traces (1%) of very fine sands of clino-pyroxenes, and angular very coarse sands of basalts (less than 1%). Distinction: This petrofabric is distinguished by its high carbonate to low quartz content ratio. Grog does not appear to be used in this group, but clay nodules with rather fuzzy boundaries have been observed. Shuneh Petrofabric B: ROM Accession No. 955.213.40.79, 955.213.40.90, 955.213.40.123, 955.213.40.39, 955.213.40.86, 955.213.40.81, 955.213.40.100 A fired-clay matrix of 17% well-sorted, round to subrounded carbonates, ranging from medium silt to granule but Fig. 100 Microphotograph of KKW Sherd. ROM accession no.:955.213.40.86 principally coarse sand grain size, 12% well-sorted subrounded to angular quartz, clear with straight extinction, medium silt to medium sand, but principally very fine sand grain size, 4% well sorted angular medium sand chert, 3% angular granule size grains of grog. 3% moderately sorted sub-rounded to rounded very fine sands of basalt, 2% well-sorted angular very fine sand plagioclase, traces of (1%) pyroxenes – frequently angular with a coarse sand grain size -- sub-rounded opaques, and rounded olivines. Carbonates consist of limestone and sparry calcite, of which the calcite is frequently larger and more angular. Distinction: This petrofabric is distinguished by its high carbonate and high quartz ratio, as well as the use of angular fragments of grog. 216 Shuneh Petrofabric C – Non-KKW Fabric ROM Accession No. 955.213.40.82 A fired-clay matrix consisting of 12% moderately sorted angular grains of basalt, ranging from fine sands, but more frequently granule in grain size, 6% very well-sorted, angular and sub-angular quartz, clear with straight extinction, medium silt to medium sand in grain size, 4% well sorted Fig.101 Microphotograph of Grain Wash Ware Sherd. ROM accession no.: 955.213.40.82 sub-angular fine and medium sand carbonates, 3% sub-angular opaques, 2% angular fine and medium sands of twinned plagioclase, and traces of pyroxenes. Carbonates are predominantly sparry calcite, but regularly limestone. The basalt grains are large and angular and are undoubtedly anthropogenic in nature. Distinction: This petrofabric is distinguished by the large angular grains of basalt that appear to have been used as a tempering agent. Shuneh Petrofabric D – Non-KKW Fabric ROM Accession No. 955.213.40.183 A fired-clay matrix consisting of 22% very well-sorted subangular to sub-rounded quartz, clear with straight extinction with grain sizes ranging from very fine to coarse sands, but principally very fine sands. 13% well-sorted angular to subrounded opaques, generally fine sand in grain size, 4% Fig. 102 Microphotograph of Orange Buff Ware sherd. ROM accession no.:955.213.40.183 angular coarse sands of basalts and traces of carbonates. Opaques are generally red in colour, 217 either hematite or glauconite. The basalts are also populates with more red coloured opaques rather than black. Carbonates are generally sub-rounded grains of limestone, but also some subangular sparry calcite. Distinction: This petrofabric is distinguished by its unusually high levels of red opaques, as well as its very distinctive basalts. Tell el-Umeyri Petrofabric A: UD 5K87 Fired-clay matrix with 17% very well sorted, angular to subangular quartz, coarse silt to medium sand, with a grain size mode of medium sand, and 1less than 12% sub-rounded to rounded carbonates of coarse silt to coarse sand, but principally of fine sand grain size, with 4% moderately sorted, Fig. 103 Microphotograph of KKW Sherd. From Tell el-Umeri UD angular granules and pebbles of grog, 2% sub-rounded fine sands of opaques, with traces (1%) of pyroxenes and amphiboles (less than 1%). Distinction: This fabric is distinguished by its high quartz and carbonate content with no traces of cherts, and basalts. Observations Twelve sherds from Tell esh-Shuneh in the collections of the Royal Ontario Museum were examined. One sherd of EB I Grain Wash Ware was examined for a point of comparison with the Khirbet Kerak Ware. The vessel was composed of non-carbonatic clay with quartz and some sparry calcite. Large angular granules of basalt of clearly anthropogenic nature were also found. The orange buff ware examined also appears to be basalt tempered, but differs slightly; with very few larger than silt size grains of limestone and sparry calcite. The KKW sherds 218 appear to be from a different clay source than the previous two examples, belonging to more carbonatic clay having significantly higher percentages of limestone and calcite, and generally lacking large angular basalt inclusions. However, within this carbonatic clay, there appear to be at least two fabric groups identified for the KKW in the samples from Shuneh. Based on the geology, this ware would appear to be local in origin. Tempering material consists of subrounded mineral inclusions, angular fragments of grog, and clay nodules with some evidence of chaff tempering. Slips tend to be much finer than those observed in the wares of the Amuq, with a maximum thickness of 0.075 mm, and an average of 0.025 mm. One example was identified of what could be a ‘second skin’, but the secondary layer of clay is not as well levigated as seen in the northern examples. Similar studies undertaken by others in the region exhibit similar patterns. Mazar and Goren’s work at Beth Shean has identified two separate fabrics used at the site for the production of KKW. They were based on the travertine fragments, probably belonging to the Beth Shean region (Mazar et al 2000:271). A study by Esse and Hopke of the chemical composition of clays in KKW from the sites of Beth Yerah, and Hazor as well as material from the Amuq has shown that the wares were made locally at each site examined (1986:332). Thus we have independent lines of evidence of a dispersed ceramic industry in the region, an observation that now is becoming a reoccurring pattern18. Working with the material from Hazor and Tell Dan, Greenberg has identified significant changes in the ceramic industry from EB II to III in the northern Levant (Greenberg and Porat 1996; Greenberg 2000). Using the example of Metallic Ware, Greenberg characterized the EB II 219 ceramic assemblage as the product of a centralized and organized industry with a “broad regional unity” (2000:193). According to him, this unity disintegrates in the EB III with the introduction of KKW, resulting in decentralization and local ceramic production. This observation suggests a significant change in the ceramic industry, similar to that noted in the Amuq. The ultimate question that emerges concerns the role of the appearance of KKW in the region in bringing about this extreme disintegration. Was the appearance of KKW causal, or was its appearance dependant on this change? With the present data, however, such a questions will have to remain unanswerable for the time being. Finally, both of Goren’s petrographic families of KKW exhibited grog as a tempering agent (Mazar et al. 2000:272), as do most of the sherds sampled from Tell esh-Shuneh, and the example from Tell al-Umayri. Although grog is by no means universal in all vessels examined, it is relatively common in all the regions studied, and this reoccurring pattern is meaningful, albeit not in the same manner as proposed by Mason and Cooper (1999). Discussion From a statistical standpoint, given the size and character of the sample base, it cannot be said with 100% certainty that the material under examination was made locally in each region. However, given the fact that the wares do correspond to the geology of each region under investigation, and given the patterns for local manufacture established in the previous studies (Esse and Hopke 1986; Mason and Cooper 1999; Mazar et al. 2000), it is reasonable to assume that these patterns are reflective of local production. On a regional level, the same previous studies have identified multiple production centers within a region. Building on these studies, from a technological standpoint, the variety in tempering practices and clay preparation, argue 18 The pattern of autonomous production of ETC wares in Iran can also be seen in Mason and Cooper’s work with the Godin IV ceramics where Godin Tepe, Sangalan Tepe and Baba Qassim each produce different petrofabrics. 220 that the patterns observed are reflective of localized ceramic production, and were probably were largely the result of a household industry. There are therefore several points of importance which emerge from the petrographic evidence presented: First, the results infer that where ETC wares occur in quantity, they were made locally; undermining the possibility that trade was the primary mechanism for their distribution. Second, the variation in the use of clays and tempering practices both between sites and even within sites argues against standardization, and therefore weakens a case for itinerant pottery production. Third, the production of ETC wares appears to have been a dispersed or autonomous production, and very probably the result of a household industry. Taking a larger view of ETC wares, the most particular characteristic of the wares as a whole, is the complete lack of particularity. As Greenberg rightly states, when describing the KKW of Northern Palestine, “innovations abound – idiosyncrasies of local potters, whether in form, or decoration, can be observed at most sites where it is found in quantity” (2000:189). To this we can now add innovations and or deviations in clay and temper sourcing. Compared to the amount of energy put into the finishing of vessels, very little energy appears to have gone into procurement of the clay for their construction. For such a specialized craft industry, there appears to be little organization in that respect. Any nearby clay source seems to have been sufficient for the construction of ETC wares, and just about any material available (sand, grog, clay pellets, chaff, even animal-hair) seems to have been used19. The variation of clay sources within sites suggests a lack of preference or even a lack of communication amongst potters regarding which clay sources were more preferable. This lack of emphasis is well attested in ethnographic studies (Mason and Cooper 1999) 19 J.S. Holladay has also suggested that given the relative small size of the chaff fragments, animal dung could also be suggested as a tempering agent as organic matter found in dung tends to be of a finer nature than that of a directly anthropogenic nature. 221 of potters. Longacre’s study of the Kalinga potters of the Philippines documents just such a pattern (1981:54). The significant contrast is of course the energy expended in the finish of the vessel. This may at first seem highly curious, but within certain contexts it can make perfect sense. Temper is used to modify the characteristics of both wet and dry clay both before and after firing (Rice 1987:407). There are a multitude of different materials that can be used, both organic and inorganic, to change a variety of properties in the clay. Among the more important are: workability, permeability/ porosity, and thermal characteristics. From the perspective of the form and finish of ETC wares, several general observations can be made. First, when analyzing the ceramics, it is important to consider the function of the finished vessel. There is no specific cooking pot form that can be said to belong to the ware group. Virtually all of the forms could be utilized as serving or storage vessels and some specialized objects such as pot stands. Such vessels lack the need for a fabric to withstand thermal shock of constant reheating. Grog tempering, which appears to have been a recurrent technological aspect of ETC wares, is frequently used for the reduction of thermal stresses in ceramics, because it generally has thermal coefficients similar to or less than the rest of the matrix (Rice 1987:229). However, since many of the ETC examples contain sparry calcite in the fabric, this would suggest that the wares were fired at a temperature below 800˚C. Otherwise the calcite in the fabric would have decomposed. This would suggest that the thermal properties of the clay were not of primary concern to the potter when firing the vessels. Second, along with giving the ware its highly distinctive finish, the highly burnished finish of the ceramics has a more practical application. Burnishing a vessel compacts the paste on the surface by re-orienting the particles (Rice 1987:138). This eliminates any surface marks from 222 the forming processes (e.g. basket marks), but it also reduces the permeability of the vessels, making them more suitable as serving and or storage vessels for liquids. This would eliminate the need for any specialized clay or temper procurement to help adjust for porosity and permeability. This leaves only the question of the malleability of the clay, which does not need any specialized substance to be altered. As the vessels are handmade, workability is of great importance, because the potter needed the clay to hold its shape, and withstand the pressures of forming. Furthermore, plasticity must be reduced so that the clay does not stick to the hands of the potter. Any material can be used to alter these properties, including sand, grog, chaff, or even animal hair, the range of tempering material observed in the ETC corpus. This interpretation puts significantly less importance on the technological development represented in the use of grog as a tempering agent in the Godin IV ceramics identified by Mason and Cooper (1999). They suggest that the introduction of grog tempering in the Godin IV ceramics can be seen as a technological development that might be indicative of the introduction of new populations to a region, since it was a technological innovation introduced to the local ceramic industry with the appearance of the ETC. Perhaps this is true in the Godin IV context, but it appears not to be a uniform characteristic of ETC wares in general. In the Amuq and in some respects for the southern Levant as well, the evidence shows that grog tempering is not present in the local ceramic industries just prior to the introduction of ETC wares. However, the use of grog tempering in the later two regions was not as uniform as that of Godin. Nevertheless, the general theoretical concept proposed by Mason and Cooper may still apply. Namely that the overall patterns reflected in the manufacturing process perhaps, can be indicative of the introduction of a new population. 223 In summary, the local autonomous manufacture of ETC wares in all three regions investigated is evident. In two of the three regions, we can safely link the introduction of ETC wares (in these cases RBBW and KKW) with changes in the organization of the ceramic industry. In both cases, an intrusive tradition appears alongside the pre-existing indigenous ceramic industry. This new industry appears to be dispersed and autonomous, and used completely different manufacturing procedures. These broader technological developments, when combined with the patterns observed in the typological development of ETC pottery, argues strongly in favour of the introduction of a new population group bringing with them their own distinctive ceramic traditions. 224 Chapter Seven The Return of a Simple Explanation Occam’s razor – the principal of parsimony: One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps in logic. Introduction Those looking for the ‘smoking gun’ to solve the Early Transcaucasian ‘problem’ will not find it within these pages. As in most archaeological reconstructions, a case must be based on a wide range of circumstantial evidence. When trying to identify migrations in the archaeological record, that is the only recourse possible. What I have attempted to present here are the empirical data, and patterns derived from that data that can be used to evaluate the different causal mechanisms invoked to explain the distribution of ETC wares across the Near East. The challenge is to identify the most compelling interpretation. As reviewed in Chapter Two, there are three traditional and one more recent explanation for the distribution of ETC wares: (1) Trade, (2) Diffusion of a cultural style, (3) Migration, and (4) Social identity formation. Given the diversity of the data, the simplest answer to the question of the underlying mechanism might best be seen as including all of the above, or essentially an eclectic model. Such a suggestion at first might seem inconsistent with the overall research so far presented, but from a broader perspective, it fits well within the Neo-migrationists model as outlined by Anthony. One of the most important factors in Anthony’s model concerns information flows. These are constructed primarily through small scale movements, such as pastoralists or traders. Migrations are then directed along these information flows to a target destination. If the region is inhabited, a pattern of co-residence is established, followed usually by a process of assimilation or acculturation. When we look at the data for the Early 225 Transcaucasian Culture, we see exactly this pattern. In some instances, the appearance of ETC wares can be attributed to a form of exchange, evidence of information flows. In other examples, ETC wares are imitated, or local regional forms entering the ETC repertoire. Consequently, one can safely argue for the diffusion of a cultural style, evidence for cultural diffusion possibly by means of a co-residence pattern. Finally, in some cases, the appearance of ETC wares in a region can be attributed to the movement of groups of people from one region to another, in which they continue to produce pottery in their traditional manner in an effort to display and maintain their cultural identity as an intrusive group in a foreign land.20 In essence, one cannot explain the greater distribution of ETC wares by a single mechanism. However, some mechanisms may be seen as secondary events to one dominant process, that of a migration. In instances where only a few individual examples of ETC pottery are found, this can be attributed to some sort of exchange. If this is not from trade, then perhaps it is from some form of indirect exchange.21 The best example of this occurs in the southern Levant, where the distribution of KKW outside of Esse’s ‘core’ region can be attributed to some sort of exchange (1991, see also Miroshedji 2000). Other examples can be seen across the distribution zone, including Tell Banat in Syria, where a single vessel was found in a grave (Porter, A. 1995), or Gedikli and Tilmen Höyük in Anatolia, where a few examples were found in the excavations (Alkım 1966).22 Nevertheless, in each case analysis indicated that on a regional level, the wares were all made locally. This observation alone precludes the possibility of long distance trade serving as the primary mechanism for the distribution of ETC wares. One can suggest, however, that it was the initial stimulus (See below). 20 This topic in itself is a subject or tremendous research that could not be dealt with in this dissertation. By exchange, I would not suggest an organized exchange of ceramics per se. Rather they might be seen as residual evidence of some other organized exchange – be it raw materials, or secondary products derived from agricultural or pastoral activities. 21 226 The petrographic analysis undertaken in this study has compared the manufacture of wares on both an inter-regional and intra-regional scale. Moreover, it has shown clearly, that the material was made locally in each region under investigation. This complements the analyses conducted by other researchers (Esse and Hopke 1986, Mason and Cooper 1999, Mazar et al 2000), and illustrates that the pattern is not isolated, but rather appears to be reflected in the entire distribution of ETC wares. For those who would argue that the data suggests the distribution of the wares could be attributed to the diffusion of an art form, or cultural style, the answer is simple. In a few instances, it was. There are a few examples of imitation KKW found in the southern Levant, including three vessels in the ‘Ai citadel (Callaway 1972:193), and in the tombs of Jericho (Garstang 1932 pl. VI: 1,2,3,9 for the tombs and Kenyon 1960:158-9, fig.57 settlement excavations). However, this does not appear to have been a common phenomenon. The vast majority of examples tend to be produced in what appears to be the ‘traditional’ fashion; including common procurement strategies of raw materials, manufacturing technology, finish and to some degree, form. It is possible that there was small scale movement of itinerant potters. However, the analysis shows that in each region examined, there was a complete lack of standardization, and significant variation in the use of clays and tempering practices. This variation is not only seen between sites, but, also within a given site. These observations would argue against itinerant potters, as one would expect some degree of standardization The RBBW assemblage from the Amuq is when compared at the regional level with the assemblages from both the Malatya-Elazığ region and northern Palestine, has shown progressive morphological development moving from north to south. Moreover, comparisons were significantly more meaningful, and a better understanding possible of the local innovations in 22 These are but a few examples. For further examples, consult Appendix A for class three settlements. 227 each regional assemblages, a development predicted by migration theory to occur in cases of coresidence. This format allows for some forms to be seen clearly developing from north to south, but with a significant level of local innovation occurring. As Greenberg has stated, “Innovations abound. Idiosyncrasies of local potters, whether in form, or decoration, can be observed at most sites where it is found in quantity” (2000:189). These patterns suggest the more dispersed, or autonomous production process typical of a household industry, rather than again of itinerant potters. In the Malatya-Elazığ and Amuq regions, the appearance of ETC wares is tied to an increase in settlement, while in the Levant, although the general settlement patterns reveal a decrease in the number of settlements due to agglomeration, the appearance of KKW is tied to an increase in the number of small sites that only produce KKW. An increase in settlement numbers is generally indicative of an increase of population, usually very good supporting evidence for a migration. Furthermore, the parallels in settlement patterns are much more difficult to attribute to emulation. What are the social mechanism that would foster the copying and institution of another’s settlement patterns? In many respects, this question leads directly to the fourth mechanism. Philip suggests that the KKW “assemblage was indicative of a particular way of behaving, of specific social and cultural practices” (1991:44). ETC assemblages are inherently domestic. Vessels that had a functional role in agricultural societies (large storage pithoi, narrow necked jars) seen in other EB assemblages are lacking from the KKW wares, suggesting to Philip that their occurrence at a site is more symbolic of a group ‘opting out’ of the standard socioeconomic structure (1999:46). Although plausible, this explanation is not without its problems. Such vessels can be constructed out of perishable material such as baskets, for which there is significant evidence in ETC settlements (Sagona 228 2001, Kelly-Buccellati 1978:68, Dzhavakhishvili and Glonti 1961:62, Dzhaparidzhe 1961 Fig. 8:1). Therefore, large storage vessels need not necessarily be lacking, they are more probably poorly preserved in the archaeological record. However, Philips proposal also begs the question: what was the particular behavior the groups were opting out of, and what mechanism could explain its occurrence in three distinct regions, in groups that do not appear to have had direct relations with each other? Also, it does not explain why the mechanism would have only been concentrated in specific clusters. Philip’s model of the use of KKW, although fascinating and methodologically sophisticated, is an unnecessarily complex construction. It has been argued by Renfrew and subsequently Anthony (1987;1991), that it was not the concept of migration that was being rejected by recent scholarship, but rather specific cases, and the data being used to support them. The concept of migration was still compelling, it had only to be saved from its theoretical ambiguity and refined into a workable model. In retrospect, Todd appears to suggest a similar view: If the last view (migration) is taken it is then necessary to examine the possible types of migrations and the routes which were available for migrating people. Further the archaeological evidence for sites located on or near these routes must be analyzed for evidence of their passage. A movement of people, rather than artifacts or ideas, can only safely be postulated when all the considerations listed above clearly point to this end. (1973:187) Anthropological theories regarding migration have been significantly refined since the 1970s, and it is within this framework that one can now return to the ETC phenomenon. One of the most important changes in the understanding of migration is that it represents a patterned event, usually a result of push and pull factors. The pre-eminent question therefore should be, what push and pull factors might account for the migration of people bearing the ETC culture? 229 Sagona has suggested that environmental changes, which would have affected their economy, could have provided a stimulus for groups to migrate to a new region (1984:138-9). Such a hypothesis is plausible, but there are two problems that must be considered. First, it is difficult to see this hypothesis as helping to explain a multi-episodic population movement such as that attested to in the ETC data. Second, it does not explain why there was no evidence of a major depopulation of the ‘home’ regions. Rather, a push-pull mechanism must be sought that could account for multiple episodes of the small scale migration suggested by the chronological data as well as the continuity of settlement amidst the indigenous populations in the target regions, following the purported migration (Rothman 2003). There are a few overarching statements that can be made regarding the ETC culture that few would argue with. First, the ETC appears to have been organized as a series of chiefdoms (Sagona 1984, Frangipane 2001), or more probably a complex chiefdom. Wright suggests three features of spatial organization that can be used when identifying complex chiefdoms: settlement hierarchy, residential segregation, and mortuary segregation (1994:68). Wright has suggested that complex chiefdoms essentially form three tier settlement systems: producer communities, chiefly centers and a regional center. This pattern is well identified in both the Malatya-Elazığ and the Amuq regions, and to a lesser extent in North Palestine. Given the scarcity of extensive horizontal exposure at many sites that produce ETC wares, it cannot be said with certainty that there was residential segregation, but circumstantial evidence is suggestive of it. First, on a regional scale, the small 2 ha sites which only produce ETC wares (the ‘islands’ predicted in neo-migrantionist models), as opposed to the larger sites with their mixed assemblages, suggests of some residential segregation. In addition, the new evidence of a citadel at Arslantepe (Frangipane 2001), and the patterned distribution of KKW at 230 Bet Yerah (Greenberg 2003), are also suggestive of some form of residential segregation at these larger sites. Finally, although mortuary data for the ETC is sparse, the discovery of the Royal Tomb at Arslantepe provides evidence for mortuary differentiation (Frangipane 2001), which when taken altogether would appears to support the view that the ETC was organized into complex chiefdoms. The second overarching statement that can be made regarding the ETC is that there is a significant pastoral element within the culture. The faunal data collected at Arslantepe suggest a radical change in animal breeding, with a significant increase in sheep and goat and a decline in cattle and pig at the same time as the appearance of RBBW in the region (Frangipane 2001:4). Evidence such as this, along with the ‘transient nature’ of architecture associated with ETC settlements, is often held up as indicative of the pastoralist element in ETC Culture (Shimelmitz 2003:205). However, one can now add a third general statement based on the settlement data. In addition to a pastoral element, there is a significant sedentary agricultural element, and a tendency to orient settlement along transportation corridors and inhabit important nodes along these routes. The settlement data presented in this study shows a pattern of agglomeration in regions of high agricultural potential, as opposed to grazing lands. This factor, taken with the substantial and long term occupation seen at many of the sites in these agricultural territories, suggests that, although current migration models tend to focus on the movements of smaller discrete social groups such as pastoral nomads, this does not appear to be at the heart of the ETC migration model. As argued in Chapter Three, migrants do not move randomly across regions, rather they follow information flows. In such cases, they either follow the information flows of pastoral 231 nomads or, as inferred from in the settlement patterns associated with the ETC, long distance trading networks. This then could provide the ‘pull’. But what about the ‘push’? Anthony suggests that the greatest push factor usually is economic (1990:900), but there are also a number of social conditions as well. It should be remembered that the information about potential destinations has a tendency to move within kinship networks. He also argues that there is a tendency to fission and throw off migratory roots (1997:23), what Kopytoff has called lineage segmentation (1987:18-28), particularly in stratified social groups such as chiefdoms. ‘Founder status’ in chiefdoms can translate into political and economic power. This fissioning is believed to be a social response in an effort to increase the economic standing of an individual within a kin group. The eldest son will inherent the highest status through the process of primogeniture, while the other sibling(s) have reduced standing. By setting out on their own and founding a new kin group, they achieve the elevated political and economic power of founder status, the standing they were denied by their social position at birth. This dynamic provides a plausible motive for the ETC migrations. Small groups arrived in the Malatya-Elazığ region in the late Chalcolithic period, during the period when the region was part of an interregional network linked to the so-called Uruk Expansion,23 as seen in the distribution of Plain Simple, Chaff Faced and Reserved Slip Wares that extended from Elazığ to the Amuq, the Upper Euphrates and northern Syria. It is tempting to suggest that initial contact was via the pastoral elements within the ETC groups. Pastoralism encourages mobility as animals are moved from one pasture to another, in constant search of fodder. Pastoral-nomads can also be involved with craft production, agriculture, and caravan trade (Yakar 1985:377, Rothman 2000, 2003). As these pastoral elements moved from region to 232 region, they could have provided the initial contacts for trade. Furthermore, Yakar notes that in the fourth and third millennium BC the emergence of mercantile settlements in the lower Euphrates basin and along the Aegean coast could be construed as proof for the existence of organized trade in surplus food stuffs, smelted metal, textiles, dyes, animal skins (1985:379). This would have complemented any exchange between the pastoralists and the local sedentary population. Not only did this inter-regional exchange reach the Malatya-Elazığ region, but based on the Syro-Mesopotamian wares of Phase G in the Amuq, the Chalcolithic at Tell Afis, and possibly even Philip’s evidence of Anatolian metals at Tell esh-Shuneh (1999:49-50), one can safely posit that they were far reaching. Since RBBW is found in both Phase G of the Amuq, as well as Late Chalcolithic Afis, it is likely that the ETC elements were a part of this exchange network.24 With the collapse of the Late Uruk system, the Late Chalcolithic networks in the Malatya-Elazığ region were weakened with the loss of Mesopotamian contact (Frangipane 1997, 2001). Prag has suggested that there is a connection between a weak central authority and the entry of nomads into a region (1985:85). However, this does not only apply to nomads. The weakening of central authority logically can allow for any group to establish itself in a region, and not just nomadic groups. The settlement data for the Amuq Plain shows this pattern distinctively, with ETC groups moving into and settling in a region that was loosely integrated, 23 Previously the Late Chalcolithic levels at Arslantepe had been attributed to the adoption of a southern Mesopotamian model, but Frangipane would now prefer to see it as an internal development based on a shared tradition traced all the way back to the Ubaid period (2001:3). 24 Of course the most intriguing question is what exactly is being exchanged? Philip’s work at Tell esh-Shuneh in Palestine could be suggestive of evidence in the trade of metals (1990:49-50), which if the case would add a significant dynamic to our understanding of EBA trade, and might explain why the emphasis on settlements along trade routes. However, for the exchange to have covered such a vast distance without any central authority, it would suggest that the exchange was not coercive and reciprocal in some manner. But it begs the question: If the ETC groups were exchanging metals, what were they getting in return and do we have evidence of this in the northern regions? 233 drawn along the routes of communication established in the previous period as evidenced by the distribution zone of Chaff Faced Simple Wares. The same pattern can be inferred from the data in the Malatya-Elazığ region, and less conclusively from the settlement patterns of northern Palestine. When they settled, they did so in a pattern of co-residency with various indigenous groups, both on a regional level, and in some cases apparently at a site level as well. In each region there is emphasis on access to exchange networks evidenced from their placement along the traditional transit corridors. Settlement data in the Malatya-Elazığ region suggests that the population increased over the course of the EBA, but never above a level that exceeded the local carrying capacity. Two to three settlement systems then developed in each region, which might suggest the existence of two to three different kin groups, setting in motion the conditions for further migration. What followed was a fissioning off of groups, similar to the process of lineage segmentation. This fissioning could happen within a generation or two, which could account for the relative chronological contemporaneity of the settlement groups of Eastern Anatolia and the Amuq. Based on the ceramic data, it would appear that groups from the Elazığ region (rather than the Malatya region) leapfrogged into the poorly integrated region of the Amuq, drawn there by the information flows along trade networks, which would explain the ‘gaps’ in the distribution of the wares. The converse of Prag’s suggestion, that a strong central authority would have a tendency to keep nomads out of a region, could explain why settlement clusters of ETC culture may not be found between Malatya and the Amuq. Yakar suggests just this idea, that the larger population of southeastern Anatolia prohibited the ETC culture from establishing itself in that region (1990). The same can be suggested for the Gaziantep and Islahiye regions. The surveys in these regions 234 (Archi et al 1971, Alkım 1969) identified a number of mounds with long occupational histories. Although it is difficult to assign chronological periods to the various sites based on the published data, the excavations of EBA urban centers such as Gedikli (Alkım U.B. 1966, 1968, and Alkim H. 1979) and Tilmen Höyük (Alkım U.B. 1962, 1968, 1969, Alkım, H. 1976) suggest that perhaps this region as well was relatively densely inhabited. The region may have had too strong a central authority to permit the establishment of ETC settlements. The Amuq, on the other hand, was more loosely integrated and had a low enough population density to allow for another group to settle in the region without necessarily competing for resources. This would provide the proper pull mechanism for the newly fissioned kin groups, who ‘jumped’ directly to the region and set up on the perimeter of the indigenous Phase G settlement system. However, they still maintained ties and communication with their parent settlements in the north, as attested by the orientation of sites along trade routes. What is a fascinating, but unanswerable question is: do the two-three tiered settlement systems we find in Phase H of the Amuq represent the fissioning of the same two or three kin groups in the Elazığ region, or were they multiple divisions of one group? Following the same regional trade routes south would bring contact not only with the Orontes Valley, but the Syrian coast and Ras Shamra. In the EBA, as Philip correctly notes, Ras Shamra had its greatest affinities with northern Palestine, suggesting that there were open lines of communication between these two regions (1999:49). According to Anthony, one of the most important indicators for the possibility of a migration is the history of earlier migrations within the group (1997:899). The fact that a group had undergone a migration in the past is a good indicator that it would have been considered a viable adaptive strategy in the future. Therefore, one can suggest that when kin groups in the Amuq reached a point of fission, again perhaps 235 within a generation or two, these new groups followed the overland corridors of communication down the Syrian coast to northern Palestine, where three groups established themselves in the same pattern of co-residence that is seen first in the Malatya-Elazığ region, later in Amuq, and finally in northern Palestine. A final point should be made regarding the termination of ETC settlements in northern Palestine and the Amuq. The question of what happened to the ETC Culture in northern Palestine, the Amuq, and even in Western Iran is difficult to answer. The obvious explanation is cultural assimilation. However, if the migrants had managed to preserve their separate identities in different regions across the Near East for a minimum of four hundred years, what structural changes in the Near East occurred at the end of the Early Bronze Age for them to apparently lose that ability?25 Although assimilation was probably a factor, Anthony may provide yet another solution. Once again, the pattern of settlements being established along traditional corridors of communication must be stressed. It suggests that these corridors were continually active in both directions, particularly if one is to see exchange in materials from Anatolia being an important factor. Demographers such as Tilley (1978:48-74) have suggested that within long distance migrations, there is an observed counter-current or “return migration” These return migrations are often the result of economic pressure, having obtained the desired economic level in the foreign land, migrants return to their point of origin, back along the same information flows (see also Rothman 2003). One can also propose that should the pull dissipate, some of the migrants 25 Regions such as the Southern Levant undoubtedly underwent changes due to the collapse of Egyptian trade at the onset of the 1st Intermediate Period, however, this would have effected more Southern Palestine who was more deeply integrated with Egypt than the north. Again it is an interesting coincidence that the ETC settlements come to an end in regions like Northern Palestine, the Amuq, and Western Iran at the establishment of Eblite (IIB) ‘empire’ of the Akkadian period. Both, would have resulted in a substantial shift in the exchange networks, as a result of the centralization of trade and the redirection of exchange networks from the peripheral regions, back towards Northern Syria and Mesopotamia. 236 might return to their place of origin. In the case of the ETC, if the conditions changed in the new region such that the individual, or the kin group itself, could not increase their economic and / or social standing, then they would have the incentive to return back to their home regions. In the end, therefore, the spread of the ETC can be seen as the result of a series of chain migrations initiated by a process of lineage segmentation, that occurred along the traditional routes of communication across a large portion of the Near East, or as Rothman has recently characterized it, a series of ripples in a stream of migration (2003). Migration as an explanatory mechanism for cultural change has been viewed as too simplistic, and dismissed in anthropological literature for the better part of the last thirty years in favor of more diverse models. As I have argued, however, this dismissal has not been because this social and economic strategy itself is wrong or unusable. Rather, scholarly understandings and theorizing needed to be refined. Now that such refinements to migration models have started to emerge, it is possible to reevaluate some archaeological events that have been uncritically attributed to migrations. This investigation of the Early Transcaucasian Problem has shown that patterns predicted by more nuanced migration models are readily visible in the data. Although the data also suggests that exchange and emulation may have been partially responsible for the appearance of the wares in some instances, it would appear that migration played a dominant role in the transmission of ETC. These other examples can be attributed to secondary events within the primary mechanism. To attribute the transmission of ETC primarily to trade or technological (or ideological) diffusion requires a far greater leap of faith. 237 238 Abbreviations AA ASSOR Archaologischer Anzeiger Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan AEGMG Arkheologicheskie ekspeditsiî Gosudarstvenn'FaMuzefa GruziT AN GSSR AES Azerbaidzhanskiî etnograficheskiî sbornik (Baku) AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AIG Arkheologicheskie issledovanifa v Gruziî (Tbilisi) AKSAY Arkeolojik Eserlerin Spektroskopik ve Analitik Yöntemlerle Incelenmesi Ünitesi AJA American Journal of Archaeology Anadolu Anadolu. Revue des Etudes d'Archeologie et d'Histoire en Turquie. Anadolu Araş Anadolu Araştırmaları Anatolia Anatolia. Revue Annuelle d'Archeologie Anatolica Anatolica. Annuaire international pour les Civilisations de l'Asie Mineure Anat St Anatolian Studies Antropoloji Antropoloji, Paleoantropoloji, Etnoloji, Prehistorya AO Arkheologicheskie otkrytifa (Moscow) AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AraST Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı Archaeologia Archaeologia. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity Archaeology Archaeology. A Magazine Dealing with the Antiquity of the World ArkST Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı ARÜTOB Arkeometri Ünitesi Bilimsel Toplantı Bildirileri (TÜBITAK) ASPRO Atlas des Sites du Proche Orient ARIAL Annual Report of the institute of Archaeology, London Avtoreferat Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoî stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk (Synopsis of doctoral thesis) BAR British Archaeological Reports, Oxford BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BAVA Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaoloqie BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 239 Belleten Belleten. Türk Tarih Kurumu BIAA British institute of Archaeology at Ankara BIAL Bulletin of the institute of Archaeology, London BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society BO Bibliotheca Orientalis CAH Cambridge Ancient History CaMers DAFI Cahiers de la Delegation Archeo1ogique Française en iran CBT Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNI Christian News From Israel CRAIB Comptes-Rendus de l’Academie des inscriptionset Belles-Lettres DPK Druz'ĭa pamĭatnikov kul'tury (Tbilisi) DTCFD Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi Dergisi EAEHL Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. London. vol. l (1975), vol. 2 (1976). vo1. 3 (1977), vol. 4 (1978). GDAAD Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IF Istanbuler Forschungen IFZh Istoriko-filogicheskiî zhurnal (Erevan) Inst. istorii AN GSSR Insitut istoriĭ, arkheologii ietnografi' im I.A. Dzhavakhishvili, ANGruz.SSR. Iraq Iraq. British School at Baghdad IstMitt Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Deutsches Archaologischesinstitut IÜ Istanbul Üniversitesi IÜEF (Y) Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi (Yayını) IÜOFD Istanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi IZV Arm SSR Izvestiĭa Akademiĭa nauk Armĭanskoi SSR(Erevan) IZV Azer SSR Izvestiĭa Akademiĭi nauk Azerbaĭdzhanskoi SSR (Baku) IZV GAIMK Izvestiĭa Gosudarstvennĭa Akademiĭa istorii material noi kul'tury JAS Journal of Archaeological Science JDAI Jarbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen instituts JMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 240 JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society KBS Kavkazsko-blizhnevostochnyĭ sbornik (Tbilisi) Keban l Acaroğlu, İ (ed.) 1970. 1968 Yaz Çalışmaları. 1968 Summer Work (Keban Project Publications Seri s l. No. l). Ankara. Keban 2 Pekman, S. (ed.) 1971. Keban Projesi 1969 Çalışmaları. Keban Project 1969 Activities (Keban Project Publications Series l. No.2). Ankara Keban 3 Pekman, S. (ed.) 1972. Keban Projesi' 1970 Çalışmaları. Keban Project 1970 Activities.(Keban Project Publications Series l. No. 3).Ankara. Keban 4 Pekman, S. (ed.) 1974. Keban Projesi 1971 Çalışmaları. Keban Project 1971 Activities (Keban Project Publications, Series l. No. 4) Ankara. Keban 5 Pekman, S. (ed.) 1976. Keban Projesi 1972 Çalışmaları. Keban Project 1972 Activities (Keban Project Publications, Series l. No. 5). Ankara. Keban 6 Pekman, S. (ed.). 1979a. Keban Projesi 1973Çalışmaları. Keban Project 1973 Açtıvities ('Keban Project Publications, Series l. No. 6).Ankara. Keban 7 Pekman, S. (ed.) 1982. Keban Projesi 1974-1975 Çalışmaları. Keban Project 1974-1975 Activities(Keban Project Publications, Series l. No. 7). Ankara. KSIA Kratkie soobshcheniĭa o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaiĭakh instituta arkheologii AN SSSR KSIIMK Kratkie soobshcheniĭa o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniĭakh instituta istorii material noikut'tury ANSSSR KST Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı LAAA Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology MAD Materialy po arkheologii Dagestana(Makhachkala) MAGK Materialy po arkheologii Gruzii i Kavkaza.(Tbilisi) MTA Maden Tetkik Arama Enstitüsü MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft MDP Memoires de la Mission archeo1ogique en Perse. Mission de Susiane MIA Materialy i issledovaniĭa po arkheologii SSSR MJ Museum Journal, Philadelphia OA Oriens Antiquus ODTÜ Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi OIC Oriental institute, Chicago: Communications OIP Oriental Institute, Chicago: Publications 241 Origini Origini. Preistoria e Protoistoria delle Civilta Antiche OrinstRep The Oriental institute Report Orientalia Orientalia. Commentarii Periodoci Pontificii institute Biblici PZ Prahistorische Zeitschrift RA Revue Archeologique RHA Revue Hittite et Asianique PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PIDO Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv (Moscow) PIMK Problemy istorii material’noi kul’tury (Leningrad) PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society PZ Praehistoriche Zeitschrift RB Revue biblique RHA Revue hittite et asianique SA Sovetskaĭa arkheologicheskaĭa; a quarterly published since 1957 by Akademiĭa nauk SSR Institut arkeologii SAA Soviet Archaeology and Anthropology SAOC Oriental institute, Chicago: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Sov Arkh Sovetskaĭa arkheologicheskaĭa; vol 1-30 (1929-1959) published by Akademiĭa nauk SSR institut istorii material'noî kul'tury Syria Syria. Revue d'Art Oriental et d'Archeologie TAD Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi TASK Tarih, Arkeoloji, Sanat ve Kültür Mirasım Koruma Vakfı TAÜ Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi TAVO Tübinger Atlas das Vorderen Orients TAY Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri TEKDAM Tarihi Eserleri Kurtarma, Deðerlendirme ve Araştırma Merkezi Tel Aviv Tel Aviv. Journal of the institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University TAKE Trudy Kakhetskof arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsiĭ (Tbilisi) TTAED Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi TTK Türk Tarih Kurumu TTOK (B) Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu (Belleteni) TÜBA-AR TÜBITAK Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırma Kurumu 242 UVB Vorlaufiger Bericht uber di e von dem Deutschen Archaologischen institut und der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft aus mittein der Deutschen Forschungsgemei nschaft unternommenenAusgrabungen in Uruk. Marka (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft). Berlin:Vol. XII-XX. VANG Vestnik Otdeleniĭa obshchestvennykh nauk AN GSSR (Tbilisi) VDI Vestnik drevneî istorii (Moscow) Vestnik EGU Vestnik Erevanskogo Gosudarstvenn’ĭa Universiteta VI IL Arm Vestnik instituta istorii i literatury SSR Armenii (Erevan) VO Arm SSR Vestnik obshchestvennykh nauk AN Arm SSR (Erevan) WA World Archaeology ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZDVP Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins. 243 244 Bibliography Abibullaev, O.A. 1953. “Raskopki Kholma Kĭul'-tapa [1951]”. KSIIMK 51: 36-45. 1959a. Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Kĭul’ tepe. Baku (Azerbaidzhani) 1959b. Arkheologicheskie raskopki Kholma Kiul ‘-Tepe. (Avtoreferat). Baku. 1959c. “Raskopki Kholma Kiul’-Tepe bliz Nakhichevani v 1955g”. MIA. 67:431-452. (Russian with a French summary). 1961. “Eneolitcheskaĭa kultura Azerbaidzhana (Po materialam Kiul’-Tepe )”.MAD. 2:68-82. 1963. “Nekotorye itogi izucheniĭa Kholma Kiul’-Tepe v Azerbaidzhane”. SA.3:157-168 1965. “Ostatki zhilishch vo vtorom sloe poseleniĭa Kiul’Tepe okolo Nakhichevani”. MIA.125:40-64. Abramishvili, R.M. (ed.). 1978.Tbilisi. Arkheologicheskie paniatniki I. Tbilisi, (Georgian with Russian and French summaries of the illustrations). Abramishvili, R.M. et al. 1978. “Raskopki v Tbilisi”. AO 1977 goda.471. Abramishvili R.M. and Goĭsiridze, D. 1978. “Trel' skoe poselenie Kuro-Araksskoĭ kul’tury”. In Tbilisi Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki. I. Abramishvili, R.M. (ed). Tbilisi, 34-47. (Georgian with a Russian summary of the illustrations). Abramishvili, R.M., Giguashvili, N.I. and Kakhiani, K.K. 1980. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Grmakhevistavi. Tbilisi. (Georgian with a Russian summary). Adams, R. McC. and Nissen, H.G. 1972. The Uruk Countryside. Chicago. Adams, Robert McCormick. 1965. Land Behind Baghdad: a History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1972 "Patterns of Urbanization in Early Southern Mesopotamia." In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, P.J. Ucko et.al. 735-750. Cambridge. 1981 Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Adams, W.Y. 1978. “On migration and diffusion as rival paradigms” in Proceedings of the 10th Annual Archaeological Conference of the University of Calgary. 245 Adams, W.Y., Van Gerven, D.P., and Levy, R.S.1978. “The Retreat from Migrationism”. Annual Review of Anthropology. 7:483-532 Albright, W.F. 1926. “The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age”. AASOR. 6:13-74. 1944. “A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C.” BASOR 94:12-27. Aliev, V. 1978. “Issiedovaniia v Nakhichevanskoĭ ASSR”. AO 1977goda.:494. 1980. “Raskopki poseleniĭa Kiul’tepe II. AO 1979 goda.:419. Algaze,G. .1990. Town & Country in Southeastern Anatolia Vol. II: The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Algaze, G. et al. 1994 "The Tigris-Euphrates archaeological reconnaissance proect: Final report of the Birecik and Carchemish Dam survey areas." Anatolica 20: 1-86. Algaze, G. et al. 1995 "Titris Höyük, a small EBA urban center in SE Anatolia. The 1994 season." Anatolica 21:13-64. Algaze, G. et al. 1996. "Late EBA Urban structure at Titris Höyük,SE Turkey." Anatolica 22: 129-44. Alkım, H. 1976. “Explorations and Excavations in Turkey, Anatolica”. 4:1-84. Alkım, H. 1979. “Gedikli (Karahöyük) Çanak-Çomiegine” Toplu Bir Bakış, T.T. Kongresi 8:135-142. Alkım, H. 1981. “İkiztepe Kazısı ile İlgili Arkeometrik Aratİrmalar” In: Yorumu, TUBITAKARUTOB 2:137-150. Alkım, H. 1983a. İkiztepe Kazilarinda Arkeometrik ve Arkeolojik Yöntemlerin Uygulanmasi ile Beliren Kronoloji Sorunlar i, TUBITAK-ARUTOB 3:163-199. Alkım, H. 1983b. “Ein Versuch der interpretation der Holzarchitektur von İkiztepe” Festchrift Bittel: 13-27. Alkım, U.B. 1962. “Tilmen Höyük Calismalari (1958-1960)” Belleten 36:447-466. Alkım, U.B. 1964. “Tilmen Höyük”. Atatürk Konferansları: 172-178. Alkım, U.B. 1966. “Excavations at Gedikli, First Preliminary Report”. Belleten 30:27-57. Alkım, U.B. 1968. Anatolia I. Geneva. Alkım, U.B. 1969. “The Amanus Region in Turkey, New Light on the Historical Geography and Archaeology”. Archaeology 22:280-286. Alkım, U.B. 1975. Samsun Bölgesi Calismalari (1973), TAD 22:5-8. Alkım, U.B. 1979. İkiztepe Kazisi: İlk Sonuçlar, T.T. Kongresi 8:151-157. Alkım, U.B. 1981. İkiztepe, ANAT ST 31:188-191. 246 Alkım, U.B. 1983. “Einige charakteristiche Metailfunde von İkiztepe”,Festchrift Bittel: 29-42. Amrian, R. 1965. “Yanik Tepe, Shengavit and the Khirbet Kerak Ware”. Anat St 15:165- 167. 1967. “Khirbet Kerak Ware at Ai.”. IEJ.17:185-186. 1968. “Chronological Problems of the Early Bronze Age. Early Bronze I-II: The City of Arad. Early Bronze III:The Khirbet Kerak Ware”. AJA 72:316-318. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. 1977 “Te1 Qishyon”. IEJ 27:164-165. 1980. “Connections between Anatolia and Pal esti ne in the Early Bronze Age”. IEJ.2:89103Amiran, R. and Cohen, C. 1989 "A note on two items of the Khirbet Kerak Culture." In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Tasin Özguç, Mellink, M., Emre, K., Hrouda, B., Özguç, N. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurmaru. Amiranashvili, Sh. Ia. and Nadimashvili, S. I. 1961. “Itogi rabot istoriko-arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii,1956-1960 gg. na drevneîshem selishche Vnutrenneĭ Kartlii'GudabertkaTsikhiagora”. Itogi polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniĭ na territorii GruzSSR v 1960g. Tbilisi:18-19. 1962. “Itogi rabot na drevnem poselenii Gudabertka v 1961g”. Itogi polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniĭ na territoriĭ. GruzSSR v 1961g. Tbilisi 12-l5. (Georgian). Anthony, D. 1990. "Migration in Archaeology: The baby & the bathwater." American Anthropologist 92: 895-914. Anthony, D. 1992."The bath refilled: Migration in archaeology again." American Anthropologist 94: 174-176. Anthony, D. 1997. "Prehistoric Migration as a social process." In Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation. 664. BAR International, Chapman, J. & Hamerow, H. 1120. Oxford: Archeopress. Apakidze, A.M. 1967. “Razvitie arkheologicheskoî nauki v Sovetskoî Gruzii”. SA no.4:5-25. Arakelian, B. N. 1951. Garni I:resul' taty rabot. Arkheologicheskoî ekspeditsiĭ instituta istorii akademi i nauk Armianskoı SSR 1949-1950. (Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Armemii no.3) Erevan. Archi, A., Pecorella, P. E. and Salvini, M. 1971. Gaziantep e la sua regione. Uno studio storico e topografico degli insediamenti preclassici. Incumabula Graeca XLVIII. Rome 247 Areshian, G.E. 1972a. “Materialy iz raskopok Mokhrablura v 1970”. Vestnik EGU no.l.: 253258. Areshian, G.E. 1972b. “K. vydeleniiu rannezemledel'cheskikh kul'tur Armfanskogo nagor'ia i Iuzhnogo Kavkaza”. Kamenny vek Sredneî Azii i Kazakhstana. Tezisy dokladov. Tashkent. 57-8 1972e. “Nekotorye resul'taty rabot Mokhrablurskoĭ arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii”. Apud Tezisy dokladov na sessii i plenymakh, posviashchennykh itogam polevykh issledovanii v 1971. Moscow:221-222 1974a. “Kharakteristike nizhnikh sloev Mokhrablurskogo poseleniĭa”. P.M. Muradfan. (ed.) Armenovedcheskie Issledovamĭa, vol. I. Erevan:144-154. 1974b. “Rannezemledel'cheskaĭa kul’tura Armĭanskogo nagor'ĭa i peredmafa Azĭa”. Formy Perekhoda ot Prisvaivaiushego Khozĭaĭstva k Proizvodĭashemu i Osobennosti Razvitiĭa Obshestrennogo Stroiĭa. Tezisy Dokladov. Moscow. 1978. “Izuchenie stratigrafi i Mokhrablura”. AO 1977 goda.:503. Arnon, C. and Amiran, R. 1981. “Excavations at Tel Qishon, Preliminary Report on the 1977-78 Seasons”. Eretz-Israel. 15:205-212 (Hebrew); 82 (English summary). Arsebük, G. 1979. “Atınova'da (Elazığ) Koyu yüzlü açkili ve Karaz türü çanak çömlek a rasındaki ilişkiler”. VIII Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 11-15 Ekim 1976.Kongreye sunulan Bildiriler. Ankara :81-92. Aslanov, G.M., Vaidov, R.M. and lone, G.I. 1959. Drevnĭi Mingechaur (epokha eneolita i bronzy). Baku. Assaf, A. A. 1978/79. “Archaologisene gelandebegehung in den bezirken Homs, Tartus, Lataqiya und Raqqa”.AfO. 26:176-177. Ataev, D.M and Kushnareva, K. Kh. 1966. “Dva poseleniĭa v urochishche Chinna (gornykh Dagestan)”. KSIA 108 :68-73. Avestian, P., Badalyan, R., and Smith, A. 2000.“Preliminary report on the 1998 archaeological investigations of progect ArAGATS in the Tsakahovit Plain, Armenia”. SMEA. 42/1:1959 Bagratiom", V. 1947. Opisanie tsarstva Gruzii. Tbilisi, (Georgian). Baiburtĭan, E.A. 1937. “Po povodu drevneĭ keramiki iz Shresh-BIura”. Sov Arkh no.3:209-213. 1938a. “Kul’toryî ochag iz raskopok Shengavitskogo poseleniĭa v 1936-7.VDI.4:255259. 248 1938b. “Orudiĭa tryda v drevneĭ Armenii”. VIIL Arm. 1:193-231. (Armenian). Baird, D. and Philip, G. 1994. “Preliminary report on the third (1993) season of excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North”. Levant. 26:111-33 Barnett, R. D. 1963. “The Urartian Cemetery at Igdyr”. Anat St.13:153-198. Bates, D. and Plog, F. Cultural Anthropology. New York. Barth, F. 1981. “Ethnic processes on the Pathan-Baluch boundary”. In Features of person and society in Swat. Collected essays on Pathans. Selected Essays of Fredrick Barth. Vol. II, ed. F. Barth. London Batiuk, S. 2000. “Petrographic analysis of ETC Ceramics from the Bayburt Region, North Eastern Anatolia: An Exploratory Study.” ANES. 37:153-163 Behm-Blancke, M.R. 1984. "Hassek Höyük." Ist. Mitt 34: 31-149. 1985. "Hassek Höyük 1983" KST VI -1984: 181-191. Ankara 1986. "Die Ausgraben dem Hassek Höyük im Jahre 1984" KST VII -1985: 87-101. Ankara 1987a. "Die Ausgraben dem Hassek Höyük im Jahre 1985" KST VIII -1986: 139-147. Ankara 1987b. “Hassek Höyük Kazıları, 1978-1979” in Aşağı Fırat Projesi 1978-1979 Çalışmaları. ODTÜ-TEKDAM Müdürlüğü Yayları Seri 1, No: 3, TTK Basımevi, 117-28 1988. "1986 Yılı Hassek Höyük Kazıları" KST IX -1987: 71-77. Ankara 1992. Hassek Höyük. Tübingen 1997. “Hassek Höyük” In Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedsi. Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayinları: 765 1999. “Hassek Höyük”. In Kayıp Zamanların Peşinde, Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü Anadolu Kaziları. 81-89 Binford, L. 1965. “Archaeological systemics and the study of culture process”. American Antiquity. 31:203-10 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. New York Biran, A. 1965. “Archaeological Activities 1964”. CNI 16:no.3:13-17. 249 1968. “Archaeological Activities”. 1967. CNI 19: nos.3-4:37. Braidwood, R.J. 1937. Mounds in the Plain of Antioch, an Archaeological Survey. (OIP vol. XLVIII). Chicago. Braidwood, R. J. and Braidwood, L. S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I, the Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J.. Brandt, R.W. and Meijer, D.J.W. 1970. Korucutepe. Phoenix 16:381-90. Brown, G. H. 1967. “Prehistoric pottery from the Antitaurus”. Anal St. 17:123-164. Bugĭanishvili, T.V. et al. 1971. “Raboty Kakhetskoi arkheologicheskoî ekspeditsii za 1970 goda”. Apud Tezisy dokladov posvĭatschennykh itogam polevykh arkeologicheskikh issledovanii 1970g. v SSSR (arkheol.sektsii),[Inst. Istorii An GSSR]. Tbilisi.:77-81. Bunĭatov, T.A. 1957. Zemledelie i skotovodstvo v Azerbaĭdzhane v epokhu bronzy.Baku Burney, C. A. 1958. “Eastern Anatolia in the Chaicolithic and Early Bronze Age”. Anat St 8:157-209. 1961a “Circular buildings found at Yanik Tepe in North-West Iran”. Antiquity 35:237-240. 1961b. “Excavations at Yanik Tepe, North-West Iran”. Iraq 23:138-153. 1962. “The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1961, Second Preliminary Report”. Iraq. 24:134- 149. 1964. “The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962, Third Preliminary Report”.Iraq 26 :54-61. 1969. “Haftavan Tepe, Excavation Report”. Iran 7:177-179. 1970a. “Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1968: First Preliminary Report”. Iran 8:157-171. 1970b. “Haftavan Tepe, Excavation Report”. Iran 8:182-83. 1972a. Haftavan Tepe. Excavations in Iran, The British Contribution. Oxford,:11-12. 1972b. Yanik Tepe. Excavations in Iran, The British Contribution. Oxford:13-14. 1972c. “Excavations at Haftavan Tepe : New Light on the Archaeology of Iranian Azerbaijan”. Summaries of Papers to be delivered at the Sixth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, September, 1972.:10. 1972d. “Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1969: Second Preliminary Report.” Iran 10: 127142. 250 1972e. “Haftavan Tepe, Excavation Report”. Iran. 10 :169-170 1973. “Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1971, Third Preliminary Report”. Iran 11:153-172. 1974a. “Report on the 1973 Season of Excavations at Haftavan Tappeh”. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on ArchaeologicalResearch in Iran 1973. Teheran. 102111 1974b. “Haftavan Tepe, Excavation Report”. Iran 12:213-214. 1975. “Excavations at Haftavan Tepe 1973: Fourth Preliminary Report”. Iran 13:149164. 1976a. “Haftavan Tepe and Early Settlement Patterns in North-West Iran”. Apud Sieveking, G. de G., Longworth, I. H. and Wi1son, K. E. (eds.) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London : 97-100. 1976b. “The Fifth Season of Excavations at Haftavan Tappeh: Brief Summary of Principle Results”. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran 1975. Teheran. 257-271. 1976e. “Haftavan Tepe ”. Iran 14:157-158. 1979. “Meshkinshahr Survey”. Iran 17:155-156. 1980. “Aspects of the Excavations in the Altınova, Elazığ”. Anat St30:157-167. 1989 "The Khirbet Kerak question & Early Transcaucasian Background." L'urbanisation de la Palestine A L'Age du Bronze Acien: Actes du colloque d'Emamaus (le 20 à 24 d'Oct. 1986). Ed. Miroschedjii, P. Oxford, BAR International. 1993 "Arslantepe as a Gateway to the highlands: a note on periods VIA-VID." In Between the rivers and over the mountains: Archeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M. Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. 311-18. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antopologiche dell'Antichità Università di Roma La Sapienza. 1994 "Contact and conflict in north western Iran." Iranica Antiqua 29 1995. "The highland sheep are sweeter." Abr Nahrain Supplement (Louvain) 5: 1-16. Burney, C.A. and Lang, D.M. 1971. The Peoples of the Hills, Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London. 251 Burton-Brown, T. 1951a. Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948. London. 1951b. “Recent Archaeological work in Azerbaijan”. Asiatic Review 169:60-65. 1972. Geoy Tepe. Excavations in Iran, The British Contribution. Oxford. 9-10. 1979. Excavation at Kara Tepe 1957. Oxford, Callaway, J. A. Pottery from the Tombs at Ai (et-Tell). (Colt Archaeological Institute Monograph Series, No.2). London, 1964 1972. The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at Ai (et-Tell). (Colt Archaeological Institute Publications, Monograph No.l). London. 1975. “Ai”. EAEHL 1:36-52. Callaway, J.A. et al. 1980. The Early Bronze Age Citadet and Lower Cıty at Ai (et-Tell), A Report of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Ai (et-Tell): No.2. (ASOR Excavation Reports). Massachusetts. Çambel, H. and Braidwood, R.J. 1980. Istanbul ve Chicago Üniversiteleri Karma Projesi Güneydoğu Anadolu Tarihöncesı Araştırmaları. The Joint Istanbul-Chicago Universities' Prehistorıc Research in Southeastern Anatolia I (Istanbul Üniversiteri Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları No. 2589. Istanbul University Faculty of Letters No.2589). Istanbul. Campbell, Stuart. 2000. Questions of definition in the Early Bronze Age of the Tishrin Dam. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptman. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of colloquium in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Cameron, C. 1995. “Migration and the movement of Southwestern peoples:. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 14:104-24 Champion, T.C. "Migration revived." 1990. Journal of Danish Archaeology 9: 214-8. Chapman, J. & Dolukhanov, P.M. 1992."The Baby & the bathwater: Pulling the plug on migrations." American Anthropologist 94: 169-174. Chapman, J. & Hamerow, H. 1997. "On the move again: Migrations and Invasions in archaeological explanation." In Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation. 664. BAR International, Chapman, J. & Hamerow, H. 1-10. Oxford: Archeopress,. Chapman, J. 1997. "The impact of modern invasions on archaeological explanation." In Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation. 664. BAR International, Chapman, J. & Hamerow, H. 11-20. Oxford: Archeopress,. 252 Chataigner, C. 1995. La Transcaucasie au Néolithique at au Chalcolithique. 624. BAR International. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Chazan, M., & McGovern, P.E. 1984. “Khirbet Kerak pottery at Beth Shan: technological evidence for local manufacture.” MASCA Journal: 3 (1): 20-24 Chilashvili, L.A. 1964. Gorodishche Urbnisi: istoriko-arkheolgicheskoe missledovani'e.Tbilisi,.(Georgian with a Russian summary). Childe, V.G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization. London 1926. The Aryans: a study of Indo-European Origins. London 1928. The most ancient East: the oriental prelude to European Prehistory. London 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford 1933. “Is prehistory practical?” Antiquity. 7:410-8 1934. New light on the most ancient East. London 1936. Man makes himself. London 1942. What happened in history. Harmondsworth Christaller, W. 1933. Die zentral Orte in Suddeutschland. Jena Christopherson, G. and Guertin, D.P. 1996.“Visibility analysis and ancient settlement strategies in the region of Tall al-Umayri, Jordan”. Paper presented at ASOR Annual Meeting November 1996. http://www.casa.arizona.edu/MPP/viewshed/vspaper.html Chubinishvili, T.N. 1959. “Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh raskopkakh v Akhattsikhe (Raskopki 1958g na 'Amiranis Göre')”. Tezisy dokladov nauchnoĭ sessiĭa posvĭashcnennoi itogam polevykh arkheologicheskoi issledovanii v Gruzii 1958g. (inst.istorii AN GSSR).Tbilisi,:10-11 (Georgian). 1959. “Osnovnye itogi raboty Akhaltsikhskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1959”.Tezisy dokladov nauchoĭ sessiĭa posviashchennoi itogam polevykh arkheologicheskoî issledovaniĭ v Gruzn.. (Inst. Istorii AN GSSR). Tbilisi, 1960:23-27 (Georgian). 1961. “Osnovnye itogi polevykh rabot Meskhet-Dzhavakhetskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1960g”. Apud Itogi polevykh arkheologicheskoĭ issledovaniĭ na territorii GruzSSR v 1960g. Tbilisi:13-16 (Georgian). 253 1962. “Itogi rabot Meskhet-Dzhavakhetskoi ekspeditsii v 1961g”. Apud itogi polevykh arkeologicheskoĭ issledovaniĭ na territorii GruzSSR v 1961 g.Tbilisi. p.16-19. (Georgian). 1963a. Amiranis-Gora:materialy drevneishei istorii Meskhet-Dznavakhneti. Tbilisi. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1963b. “Analiz polevykh rabot Meskhet-Dzhavakhetskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii 1962g”. Annotatsifa dokladov nauchnof sessiĭa posviashchennoĭ itogam polevykh arkheologicheskoi issledovaniĭ v Gruzii 1962g. (Inst.Istorii AN GSSR).Tbilisi :14-16. (Georgian). 1964a. “The interconnections between the Caucasian (Kura-Araxes) and the Near East Cultures in the Third Millennium B.C.” VIIth internationat Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Moscow. (published later 1966a.). 1964b. “Rezul'taty polevykh rabot 1963g. arkheologcheskoî ekspeditsii v MeskhetDzhavakheti”.Tezisy dokladov XIII nauchnoĭ sessiĭa posviashchennoi itogam polevykh arkheologlcheskoĭ issledovanii 1963g. Pamĭatniki epokhi karmiia i bronzy. (inst.istorii AN GSSR).Tbilisi.:8-l0 (Georgian). 1965. Drevneîshaiĭa kul'tura v dvureche Kury I Araksa.Tbilisi,. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1966a. “The interconnections between the Caucasian (Kura Araxes) and the Near East Cultures in the Third Millennium B. C.”. H. Fie1d. (ed.) Contributions to the Archaeology of the Soviet Union:with Special Emphasis on Central Asia, the Caucasus and Armema. (Russian translation Series of The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology vol. III no.l). Cambridge, Massachusetts:167-171. 1966b. “Kuro-araksinskaĭa kul'tura v Zakavkaz'e v III tysĭacheletii do n.e.” Doklady i soobshcheniĭa arkheologov SSSR (VII Mezhdynar. Kongress doistorikov i prot-isterikov. Moscow. 1966e. “Nekotorye itogi raskopok Amiranis Gora (luzhnaĭa Gruziĭa). KSIA 106 :69-73. 1969. “Osedio-zemledel’cheskaĭa eneoliticheskaĭa kul’tura Ĭuzhnogo Kavkaza (V-IV tysfacheletii do n.e.) i nekotorye parallel i iz arkheologii Irana”. Tezisy dokladov vsesoiuznoi konferentsii po' isskusstvu dokladov vsesoivznoi konferentsii po isskusstvu1 arkheologii Irana. Moscow,10-12. 1970. “Kuro-arakskaĭa kul'tura v zakavkaz'e v III tysĭacheletii do n. e”. Actes du VIIe Congress international des sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques. Prague :139142 254 1971a. K drevneĭ istoriî Ĭuzhnogo Kavkaza. Drevniaĭa kul'tura Iuzhnoi Gruzii (V- III tysĭacheletii de n.e.) i problema stanovtemiĭa kuro-araksskoĭ kul'tury na luzhnom Kavkaze. Tbilisi. 1973. “Nekotorye osobennosti drevnikh kul'tur Ĭuzhnogo Kavkazi i ikh vzaimootnosheniĭa speredneaziatskimi kul'turami v IV-III tysĭacheletii do n.e. Voprosy drevnei istorii”. KBS 4:37-48. Chubinishvili, T.N., Tatishvili. T. I. and Gambashidze, O.S. 1957. “Arkehologicheskie razvedki v iuzhnykh raĭonakh Gruzii (Meskheti-Dzhavakheti) v 1953-1955”. SA no.4 :116-127. Chubinishvili, T.N. and Kushnareva, K.Kh. 1967. “Novye materialy po eneolity luzhnogo Kavkaza (V-IV tysĭacheletii do n.e.)”.VANG 6:336-362. Chubinishvili, T.N. et al. 1976 “Itogi polevoî raboty Kvemo-Kartliiskoĭ arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii”. Polevye arkheologicheskie issledovaniĭa v 1974 godu. Tbilisi,: 14-82 Clark, G. 1952. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis. New York Clarke, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London Contenau, G. and Ghirshman, R. 1935. Fouiiles de Tepe Giyan. Paris. Contenson, H. de. 1960. “Three Soundings in the Jordan Valley”. ADAJ. 4-5:12-98 1963. New Corretations between Ras Shamra and al-'Amuq. BASOR 172:35-40. 1969. “Leş couches du niveau III au sud de 1'acropole de Ras Shamra”. Schaeffer C.F.A.et al. Ugaritica VI: 45-89. 1979. “Nouvelles donnés sur la chronologie du Bronze Ancien de Ras Shamra” Ugarit Forshungen 11: 857-62 1980. “Nouvelles donnes sur la chronologie du bronze ancien de Ras Shamra”. UgaritForschungen 11, 1979 (Festschrift for Ctaude Schaeffer): 857-862. 1982. “Phases préhistoriques de Ras Shamra et de l’Amuq.” Paléoriente 8:95-106 1992. “Préhistoire de Ras Shamra. Les Sondage stratigraphique de 1955 à 1976” Ras Shamra – Ougarit 8. Paris. Conti, A.M. & Persiani, C. 1993 "When worlds collide. Cultural developments in eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age." In Between the rivers and over the mountains: Archeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. 361-412. Rome: Dipartimento 255 di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antopologiche dell'Antichità Università di Roma La Sapienza. Courtois, J.-C. 1962. “Contribution a l’etude des niveaux II et III de Ras Shamra (Sondages effectues a Touest du Temple de Baal, 1953)”. Schaeffer, C.F.M.et al. Ugaritica IV:329411 1963. “Deux villes du royaume d’Ugarit dans la valleé du Nahr el-Kebir en Syrie du Nord”. Syria. 40:261-72 1973. “Prospecction Archéologique dans la moyenne vallée de l”Oronte. (el-Ghab et erRoudj)”. Syria.50:53-99 Crawford, H. 1975. “Geoy Tepe 1903, Material in the Coltection of the Fitzwilliam Museum”. Cambridge. Iranica Antiqua 11:1-28. Cribb, R.L. 1991 Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge Dedabrishvili, Sh. Sh.1965.“Pamiatniki epokhi rannei bronzy iz Kakhetii”. Plan raboty i tezisy dokladov ob"edin. l-nanuchnoĭ sessii Gurdzhaanskogo kraevedcheskogo muzeĭa i inst. istori AN GSSR. Tbilisi: 19-21 (Georgian). 1969. “Pamiatniki epokhi rannei i srednei Bronzy”. TKAE (1965-1966). 1:35-75. (Georgian). 1970. Kul'tura epokhi ranneî bronzy Ioro-Alazanskogo basseina.(Avtoreferat). Tbilisi. 1971. “Raboty vtorogo otriada Kakhetskoĭ arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii”. AO 970 goda: 366-367. 1975. “Nahe und weite Verbindungen der Kura-Arax kültür”. Açta Archaeologica Carpathica. 15:217-218. Dedabrishvili, Sh. Sh. and Mirfskhulava, G.I. 1975. “Kuro-Arakskaia kul'tura i tsentral' naĭa Evropa”. Vsesoiuznaĭa konferentsĭa Antichnye, Vizantiiskie i mes tnye traditsii v stranakh vostochnogo Chernomor'ĭa, kratkoe soderzhanie (inst. istorii AN GSSR). Tbilisi: 17-19 Delaporte, L. 1934. “Malatia. Ceramique du Hittite recent”. RHA II/16:257-285. 1938. “La troisieme campagne de fouilles a Malatya”. RHA V/34:42-54. Delougaz, P.P. 1952. Pottery from the Diyala Region. (OIP LXIII). Chicago. 256 Delougaz, P.P. and Kantor, H.J. 1972. “New Evidence tor the Prehistoric and Protoliterate cultural development of Khuzestan”. The Memorial Volume of the Vth international Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, vol. l, Tehran:14-33. Dessel, J.P., Joffe, A.H. 2000. “Alternative approaches to Bronze Age pottery”. In Philip, G. and Baird, D. (eds.) Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield:31-58 De Vaux, R. 1970. “Palestine during the Neolithic abd Chalcolithic periods”. In CAH. Vol. 1 Part 1. Edwards, I.E.S., Gadd, C.J. and Hammond, N.G.L. (eds.) Cambridge p. 498-538 1975. “Tell el Far’ah North:. In Encycloperdia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land”, Vol. 1. Avi-Yonah, M. (ed.). Jerusalem. p. 395-404 Diakonoff, Igor 1984. The Prehistory of the Armenian people. Tr. Lori Jennings. New York: Caravan Books. Diamant, S. and Rutter, J. 1969. “Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and Possible Connexions with the Minoan 'Horns and Consecration'”. Anat St. 19:147177. Di Nocera, Gian-Maria di. 2000. Radiocarbon Datings from Arslantepe and Norsuntepe: The Fourth-third millennium absolute chronology in the Upper Euphrates and Transcaucasian Region. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Dolukhanov, P.V. 1994. Environment and ethnicity in the ancient Near East. Great Britain: Avebury. Dornemann, R. 1987. "Some observatons on the geographical extent of cultural areas in Syria and Transjordan." In Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan III, Hadidi, A. 275-278. Aman. 1990 The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Syria in light of recent excavations." In Resurrecting the past: A Joint tribute to Adnan Bounni, Matthiae, M., Van Loon, M., Weiss, H. 85-100. Belgium: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituutte Istanbul. Dönmez, A. and Brice, W. C. 1949. “The Distribution of Some Varieties of Early Pottery in South-Eastern Turkey”. Iraq.1:44-54. Dothan, M. 1975. “'Afula”. EAEHL 1:32-36. Douwes, W.B. 1971a. “Korucutepe opgraving in Turkije”. Post lucundam luventutem 62:9-14. 257 1971b. “Korucutepe, Archeotogische Expeditie in Turkije”. Spiegel Historiael. 6:642649. Duru, R. 1979a. Keban Projesi Değirmentepe Kazı sı 1973 Keban Project Değirmentepe Excavations 1973 (METU Keban Project Publications Series III, No. 2). Ankara:1-55 (Turkish); 59-115 (English). 1979b. “Değirmentepe Höyüğü Kazısı, 1973. Değirmentepe Höyük Excavation, 1973”. Keban V:13-18 (Turkish); 19-24 (English). Dzhaparzade, OM. 1946. “Elementy arkheologicheskoĭ kul'tury drevneĭ Mugani. IZV Azer SSR no.9:21-51. Dzhaparidze, O.M. 1955. Ranniî etap drevneT metaliurgii v Gruzii. Tbilisi' (Georgian). 1961. K istorii Gruzinskikh plemen na ranneî stadii medno-bronzovoĭ kul'tury.Tbilisi (Georgian with Russian and English summaries). 1964. The Culture of Early Agricultural Tribes in the Territory of Georgia. VIIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Moscow. :225230. Dzhaparidze, O.M. 1975. (Report on Shulaveris Gora and other Barrows). [Kvemo kartli] Otchet Kvemo Kartinskoĭ Arkheologicheskoĭ Ekspeditsiĭ (1965-1971) 137165.(Georgian; the paper has no Russian title). 1976a. Ketm'cheskoĭ istorii Gruzinskikh plemen po dannym arkheologii. Tbilisi. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1976b. “Transkaukasien im III Jahrtansends V. U.Z. (Kura-Arax-Ku1tur)”. Actes du IXe Congress international des sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques. Nice:447. Dzahparidze, O.M. and Dzhavakhishvili, A. I. 1966. “Itogi polevykh rabot v 1965g. v Kvemo-Kartti”. Tezisy dokladov na sektsii arkheologiĭ Kavkaza plenym. Instituta arkheologii AH SSR. Moscow: 12-13. 1967. Rezul’taty rabot Kvemo-Kartliiskoî arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsiĭ (1965-66). VANG. 3:292-298 (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1971a. Kul'tura drevnei shego zemiedel'cheskogo naselem'ia na territorii Gruzii.Tbilisi (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1971b. Rezultaty rabot Kvemo-Kartliiskoî arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii (1968-1969). AEGMG 2:22-30. Dzhaparidze, O.M. et al. 1974. “Otchet raboty Meskhet-Dzhavakhetskoî arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsiĭ za 1970-1971”. AEGMG. 3:54-59. 258 1980. “Otchet Kakhetskoi arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsiî za 1978-1979”.AEGMG. 7:35-41 (Georgian with a Russian summary). Dzhavakhishvili, A. I. 1968. Raskopi zhilogo kholma Irniris-Gora. AO 1967 goda:293-294. Dzhavakhishvili, A.I. 1971. “Anciennes relations du Caucase du Sud avec la Mediterranee Orientale”. Actes du VIIIe Congress international des sciences Prehistonques et Protohistonques. Belgrade:6. 1973. Stroitel’noe delo i arkhitektura poseleniĭ Iuzhnogo Kavkaza A-III tysĭacheletii done.Tbilisi. Dzhavakhisviti, A.I. and Glonti, L.I. 1962. Urbnisi I: arkheologicheskie raskopi provedennye v 1954-1961. na selisnche Kvatskhelebi (Tvlenia-Kokhi).Tbilisi.(Georgian with a Russian summary). Easton, D.F. 1976. “Towards a Chronology tor the Anatolian Early Bronze Age”. Anat St 26:145-173. Edens, C. 1995."Transcaucasia at the end of the Early Bronze Age." BASOR 299/300: 53-64. Ehrich, A.M.H. 1939. Early Pottery of the Jebeleh Region. (Memoirs of the American Philosophica1 Society XIII). Ertem, H. 1970. “Han İbrahim Şah Kazısı1970 yili on Raporu: TAD 19:87-82. 1972a. “Han Ibrahim Şah 1971”. Anat St. 22:22-25. 1972b. “Han İbrahim Şah Kazısı, 1970. Han İbrahim Şah Excavations, 1970” Keban 3:63-68 (Turkish), 69-74 (English). 1974a. “Korucutepe, 1973”. Anat St 24:38-40. 1974b. “Han İbrahim Şah Kazısı, 1971. Han İbrahim Şah Excavations, 1971”.Keban 4:59-63 (Turkish); 65-69(English). 1975. “Korucutepe, 1974”. Anat St 25:31-32. 1976. “Korucutepe, 1975”. Anat St 26:47-49. 1979. “Korucutepe Kazısı, 1973. Korucutepe Excavations, 1973”. Keban 5:33-36 (Turkish);37-41 (English). Esaian, S.A. 1964. Katalog arkheologicheskih predmetov müzeĭa istorii goroda Erevana,vol. Erevan (Armenian and Russian). 1967. Katalog arkheologicheskikh predmetov muzeĭa istorii goroda Erevana, vol.II. Erevan (Armenian and Russian). 259 1976. Drevnĭaĭa kul'tura plemen severovostochnoi Armemii (V- III tysĭacheletii do n.e.). Erevan. Esin, U. 1969. “Istanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Prehistorya Kürüsü Tepecik Kazısı1968 raporu”. TAD 18 no.1:51-60. 1970. “Tepecik Kazısı1968 Yili On Raporu. Tepecik Excavation 1968 Campaign, Preliminary Report”. Keban 1:147-158 (Turkish); 159-172) (English). Esin, U. et al. 1971. “Tepcik Kazısı, 1969. Tepecik Excavations, 1969”. Keban 2:107-117 (Turkish); 119-129 (English). Esin, U. 1972a. “Tepecik and Tülintepe, 1971”. Anat St 22:29-31. 1972b. “Tepecik Kazısı, 1970. Tepecik Excavations, 1970”. Keban 3:139-147 (Turkish); 149-158 (English). 1972c. “Orta Doğu Teknik Universitesi Keban eski eserleri kurtarma projesi ve Tepecik kazılan”. VII Türk Tarih Konaresi 25-29 Eylul 1970, Kongreye Sunular Bildirler, l. Cilt (Türk Tarıh Kurumu Yayınlarınadan, IX. Seri Sa.7). Ankara: 38-52. 1973. “İstanbul Üniversitesi Prehistorya Kürüsü Tepecik Kazılan (Elazığ)”. TAD 20 no.2:39-62. 1974. “Tepecik Kazısı, 1971. Tepecik Excavations. 1971”. Keban 4:109-121 (Turkish); 123-135 (English). 1975a. “Tepecik, 1974”. Anat St. 25:46-49. 1975b. “Tülintepe, 1974”. Anat St. 25:50-51. 1976. “Tepecik Kazısı, 1972. Tepecik Excavations 1972”. Keban 5:101-108 (Turkish); 109-117 (English). Esin.U. et al. 1976. “Tülintepe Kazısı. 1973. Tülintepe Excavations 1973” 5:119-146 (Turkish); 147-174 (English). Esin.U 1979. “Tülintepe Kazısı. 1973. Tülintepe Excavations 1973”. Keban 6:115-119 (Turkish); 121-125 (English). Esin U. et al. 1979. “Tepecik Kazısı, 1973. Tepecik Excavations, 1973” Keban 6:79-96 (Turkish) 97-114 (English and German) 1982. “Tepecik Kazısı, 1974. Tepecik Excavations. 1974”. Keban 7:71-93 (Turkish); 95118 (English). Esin U. and Arsebük. G. 1973. “Tülin Tepe Kazısı. 1971”. TAD 20no.2:63-78. 260 1974. “Kazısı. 1971. Tülintepe Excavations. 1971”. Keban 4:137-147 (Turkish); 149-159 (English). 1982. “Tülintepe Kazısı, 1974. Tülintepe Excavations, 1974”. Keban 7:119-125 (Turkish); 127-133 (English). Esse, D. 1991. Subsistence, trade and social change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. SAOC, No. 50. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1993. “Tell Yaqush” in E. Stern. ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 1501-4, Jerusalem Esse, D and Hopke, P. 1986. “Levantine trade in the Early Bronze Age: from pots to people”. In Olin, J and Blackman, M.J. Eds. Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium. Washington. 327-39 Falconer, S.E., and Savage, S.H. 1995. “Heartlands and hinterlands: Alternative trajectories of early urbanization in Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant”. American Antiquity. 60:37-58 Fargo, V.M. 1979. “Early Bronze Age Pottery Tell el-Hesi”. BASOR. 236:23-40. Fietd, H. 1948. “Contributions to the Anthropotogy of the Soviet Union. Resume of B.A. Kuftin 1944b Urartskiĭ 'Kolumbarii' u podoshvy Ararata i Kuro-Araksskiî Eneolit”, VGMG 13-B. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 60 no. 13: 75-85 Finet, A. 1979. “Bilan provisoire des fouilles belges du Tell Kannas.” Freedman, D.N. (ed.) Archaeological Reports from theTabqa Dam Project Euphrates Valley, Syria. AASOR 44:79-95. Finkelstein, I. 1992. “Pastoralism in the Highlands of Canaan in the Third Millennium BCE”. In: Bar-Yosef, O and Khazanov, A. eds. Pastoralism in the Levant. Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Contexts. Madison. 133-42 1995. “Two notes on Early Bronze Age Urbanization and Urbanism”. Tel Aviv. 22:47-69 Finkelstein, I and Gophna, R. 1993. “Settlement, demographic and economic patterns in the highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Periods and the beginnings of Urbanism”. BASOR. 289:1-22 Fish, P.R. and Fish, S. 1991.“Hohokam Political and Social Organization”. In. Exploring the Hohokam, Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest. George Gumerman ed. Albuquerque. p. 151-75. Fitzgeratd, G.M. 1935. “The Eartiest Pottery of Beth Shan”. MJ 24:5-22. Flannery, K. 1994. “Childe the evolutionist: a persepective from Nuclear America”. In: D. Harris. ed. The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. London 101-120 261 Fox, J. 1987. Maya postclassical state formation. Cambridge Frangipane, M. and Palmieri, A. 1983a“A Protourban Center in the Late Uruk Period”. Origini. 12:287-454 Frangipane, M. 1990. “Excavations at Arslantepe, Malatya. The 1989 Campaign”. KST. 12/1:209-23 1993. “Local components in the development of centralized societies in the SyroAnatolian region”. In Between the rivers and over the mountains: Archeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M.. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antopologiche dell'Antichità Università di Roma La Sapienza 133-61 1997. “A 4th Millennium Temple/ Palace Complex at Arslantepe – Malatya. North-South Relations and the Formation of Early State Societies in the Northern Regions of Greater Mesopotamia”. Paléorient. 23/1:45-73 1998a. “Arslantepe 1996: The finding of an EBI ‘Royal Tomb’”. XIX. KST, Ankara 1997. 291-309 1998b. “Changes in Upper Mesopotamia/ Anatolian Relations at the Beginning of the 3rd Millennium”. Subartu IV:71 195-218 2000. The Late Chalcolithic/ EB I sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and cultural remarks from a frontier site. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. 2001. “The transition between two opposing forms of power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the beginning of the 3rd millennium”. In TÜ-BAR. 4:1-24 French, D.H. 1971a. “Aşvan 1970”. Anat St 21:5. 1971b. “Aşvan Kasızı, 1969. Asvan Excavations, 1969”. Keban 2:31-33 (Turkish); 3537 (English). French, D.H. et a1. 1972. “Aşvan Kazılan, 1970. Aşvan Excavations, 1970”. Keban 3:45-53 (Turkish); 55-62 (English). 1974. “Aşvan Kazıtan, 1971. Asvan Excavations, 1971”. Keban 4:25-41 (Turkish);"4358 (English). French, D.H. and Helms, S. 1973. “Aşvan Kale: The Third Millennium Pottery”. French, D.H. et al. Aşvan Kale 1968-1972: An interim Report. Anat St. 23:153-158. 262 French, D. et al. 1979. “Aşvan Kazılan, 1973. Aşvan Excavations, 1973”. Keban 6:1-5 (Turkish); 7-11 (English). Fustel de Coulanges, N.D. 1956. The ancient city: a study on the religion, laws, and institutions of Greece and Rome. New York Gadzhiev, M.G. 1966. “Novye dannye o ĭuzhnykh svĭazĭakh Dagestana v IV-III do n.e”. KSIA 108:55-61. tysĭaicheletii 1969. Iz istorii kul'tury Dagestana v epokhu bronzy. (Mogil’nik Ginchi) Makhachkata. 1980. “Drevnershie poselenifa gornogo Dagestana”. A.R. Shikhsaidov. (ed.) Drevnie i srednevekovye arkheologicheskie pamîatmki Dagestana. Makhachkala: 5-27. Gambashidze, S. S. and Kvizhinadze, K. D. 1978. “Meskhet-Dzhavakhetskaĭa ekspeditsiĭa”. AO 1977goda:480. Garstang, J. 1932a. “Jericho, City and Necropolis”. LAAA 19:3-22. 1932b. “Jericho, City and Necropolis”. LAAA. 19:35-54. 1937. “Explorations in Cilicia. The Neilson Expedition, Preliminary Report”. LAAA. 24:63-68. 1953. Prehistoric Mersin:Yumuk Tepe in Southern Turkey (The Neilson Expedition in Cilicia). Oxford. Garstang, J. et al. 1935. “Jericho:City and Necropolis. Fifth Reort”. LAAA 22:143-184. Genz, H. 2000. “Grain Wash Decoration in the Early Bronze Age III? The evidence from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon”. In Philip, G. and Baird, D. (eds.) Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. :279-86 Getzov, N. 1998. “Tel Bet Yerah” ESI. 18:20-2 Givon, S. 1993. The Excavation at Beth Ha-Emeq. Tel Aviv Glonti, L.I. et al. 1968. “Nekotorye itogi polevikh rabot 1964g. Urbniskoĭ i Kviriliskoî arkkeologicheskikh ekspeditsiî”. VMG 20-B:3-14. 1970. Poselenie Kuro-Arakskoĭ Kul’tury. (Avtoreferat).Tbilisi. 1975. “Dangreulis-Gora and Gaitmazi excavations”. [Kvemo Kartli]. Otchet Kvemo Kartliiskoi Arkheologicheskoi Ekspeditsii (19feb-19/l).Tblisi:129-136 (Georgian). Glueck, N. 1935. “Tell el-Hammeh”. AJA 39:321-330. 263 1951. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Parts I and II”. AASOR 25-28. Glumac, P. and Anthony, D. 1992. “The Caucasus”. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Vol. 1. Ehrich, R. (ed.). New York p. 196-206 Gobedzhishvili, G.F. 1951. “Kholm Natsargora bliz gor. Staliniri. Kratkii obzor rezul'tatov 4 arkheologicheskikh kampanii”. Mimomkhilveli 2. Tbilisi :239-276 (Georian and Russian summary). 1959. “Osnovnye itogi rabot Tetritskaroiskoi arkheologicheskoi' ekspeditsii za 1958g”. Annotatsii dokladov na sessii posviasncnennaĭa issledovamiiam v Gruzii. Tbilisi:9.(Georgian). 1967a. “Bedelsskaĭa grobnitsa. DPK. no.12:13-22. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1967b. “Novye arkeologicheskoe otkrytie v Tetritskariiskom raîone”. XVI nauchnaĭ sessiĭa, posviashchennĭa itogam polevykh arkheologichesk issledovannii 1966g. Tblisi :25-36(Georgian). 1978. Selishche Tetri Tskaro. Tbilisi. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1980. Bedeni-kul'tura kurgannykh pogrevenniî. Tbilisi (Georgian with a Russian summary). Gobedzhishvili, G.F. et al. 1971. Arkheologicheskie raboty v sel. Koda v 1970 godu.Tezisy dokladov posviatschennykh itogam polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v 1970 godu v SSSR (arkheol. Sektsii) (inst. istorii AN GSSR). Tbilisi:63-64. Goddard, Y. 1938. “Disque en bronze decouvert en Adharbaidjan”. Athar-e Iran 3:303-306. Gogadze, E.M. 1970. Periodizatsiĭa i genezis kurgannoi kul’tury Trialeti. (Avtoreferat).Tbilisi. 1972. Periodizatsiĭa i genezis kurgannoi kul'tury Trialeti. Tblisisi.(Georgian with a Russian summary). Goldman H. (ed.). 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: from the Neolıthic through the Bronze Age Vol. II. Princeton. Greenberg, R. 1996. “The Early Bronze Age Levels”. In A. Biran. (ed.) Dan I. A Chronicle of excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, The Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem 83-160 1997 “The Early Bronze Age”. In Ben Tor (ed.) Hazor 5. Jerusalem. 17-24, 183-93 2000. "Changes in Ceramic Production Between Early Bronze II and III in Northern Israel, Based on the Pottery of Tel Hazor and Tel Dan." In Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, Graham Philip & Douglas Baird. 183-200. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 264 2002. “Tell Bet Yerah (Khirbet Kerak) Rediscovered”. Paper presented at 3 ICAANE April 18 2002 in Paris 2003a. “Tel Bet Yerah: Life in the City” Paper presented at ASOR Annual Meeting November 21 2003 in Atlanta Georgia 2003b. “Early Bronze Age at Megiddo and Bet Shean: Discontinuous Settlement in sociopolitical context”. JMA. 16/1:17-32 Greenberg, R. and Porat, N. 1996.“A Third Millennium Pottery Production Center: Typology, Petrography, and Provenience of Metallic Ware of Northern Israel and Adjacent Regions”. BASOR. 301:5-24 Grigg, D.D. 1977. “E.G. Ravenstein and the ‘laws of migration”. Journal of Histoirical Geography. 3.1:41-54 Gummela, .I. 1940. “Iz pamĭatnikov material'noĭ kul'tury”. VDI. no.1:213-216. Guterbock, H.G. and van Loon, M.N. 1969. “The Euphrataes Valley Expedition”. The Oriental institute Report for 1968/69:16-21. Chicago. 1970. “The Euphrates Valley Expedition. The Oriental institute Report for 1969/70.:1621. Chicago. 1971. “The Euphrates Valley Expedition”. The Oriental institute Report for 1970/71:13-18 Chicago. Gzelishviti, I. A. 1950. “Khadikskiî kurgan”. Soobshcheniĭa Akademiĭa Nauk Gruzii SSR XI no.l0:69t-704. Haggett, P. 1971 1971 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. New York [1966]. Harmankaya, S. and Erdoğu, B. 2002. TAY Vol. 4: İlk Tunç. Istanbul Harper, R.P. 1971. “Pağnık Öreni Kazısı, 1969. Pağnık Öreni Excavations, 1969”.Keban 2:9194 (Turkish) 45-98 (English) Harris, D.R. ed. 1994. The archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. London Harrison, T.P. 2000. “The Early Bronze Age III ceramic horizon for highland central Jordan”. In Philip, G. and Baird, D. (eds.) Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. 347-64 Harrison, T.P. and Batiuk, S. 2000. “The 1999 Amuq Valley Regiona Project Survey”. AST. 18:2 265 Harrison, T.P., and Savage, S.H. 2003.“Settlement Heterogeneity and Multivariate Craft Production in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant in JMA. 16/1:33-57 Hauptmann, H. 1969. “Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun-Tepe ”. TAD 18 no.2:111-121. 1969-70. “Norşun-Tepe : Historische Geographie und Ergebnisse der Grabungen 1968/69”. Istanbuler Mitteilungen. 19-20:21-78. 1970a. “Norşun-tepe, 1969”. Anat St. 20:11-13. _ 1970b. “Norşun-tepe 1968. Kazılan Ön Raporu. Die Grabungen aut dem Norşun-Tepe 1968”. Keban. 1:101-113 (Turkish), 115-130 (German). 1971a. “Norşun-tepe, 1970”. Anat St. 21:19-20. 1971b. “Norşun Tepe Kazısı, 1969. Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun Tepe ” 1969”. Keban. 2:71-79 (Turkish) 81-90 (German). 1972a. “Norşun-tepe, 1971”. Anat St. 22:25-27. 1972b. “Norşun Tepe Kazıları, 1970. Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun-Tepe, 1970”. Keban. 3:87-101 (Turkish); 103-117 (German). 1973a. “Körtepe, 1972”. Anat St. 23:47-48. 1973b. “Norşuntepe, 1972”. Anat St. 23:49-52. 1974a. “Norşuntepe, 1973”. Anat St. 24:43-44. 1974b. “Norşuntepe”. Antike Welt. 5 no.2:9-19. 1974c. “Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun-Tepe 1972”. Bericht uber die 5 Kampagne”. TAD. 21 no.2:59-73. 2000. “Zur Chronologie des 3. Jaetausends v. Chr. am oberen Euphrat Aufgrund der Stratigraphie des Norsuntepe”. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Hauptmann, H. et al. 1974. “Norşun Tepe Kazılan, 1971. Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun-Tepe, 1971”. Keban 4:71-85 (Turkish); 87-102 (German). 1975. “Norşuntepe, 1974”. Anat St. 25:35-38. 1976a. “Die Entwicklung der Fruhenbronzezeitlichen Siedlung aut dem Norşun Tepe in Ostanatolien”. Archaologisches Korrespondenzbiatt. 1:9-20. 266 1976b. “Die Grabungen aut dem Norşuntepe 1973 Bericht uber die 6 Kampagne." TAD. 23 no.1:65-86. Hauptmann, H. et a1. 1976a. “Körtepe Kazılan, 1972. Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Körtepe. 1972”. Keban. 5:25-31 (Turkish); 33-39 (German). 1976b. “Norşun Tepe Kazılan, 1972. Die Ausgrabungen auf dem Körtepe, 1972. Keban. 5:41-69 (Turkish); 71-100 (German). Hauptmann, H. 1979. “Norşuntepe Kazılan, 1973. Die Grabungen auf dem Norşuntepe, 1973”. Keban. 6:43-60 (Turkish); 61-78 (German). 1982. “Norşuntepe Kazılan, 1974. Die Grabungen aut dem Norşuntepe, 1974”. Keban. 7:15-40 (Turkish); 41-70 (German). Helms, S. 1971. “Taşkun Mevkii”. Anat St. 21:8-10. 1972. “Taşkun Mevkii”. Anat St. 22:15-17. 1973. “Taşkun Mevkii 1970-71. French, D.H. et a1. Aşvan Kale 1968-1972: An interim Report”. Anat St. 23:109-120. Hennessy, J.B. 1966. “An Early Bronze Age Tomb Group from Beit-Sahur”.ADAJ. 11:19-40. 1967. The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. (Colt Archaeological Institute Publications). London. Hestrin, R. 1975. “Beth Yerah”. EAEHL. 1:253-262. Hodder, I and Orton, C. 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. New York Hodder, I. 1991. The domestication of Europe. Oxford. Hodder, I. and Isaac, G, and Hammond, N. ed. 1981. Pattern of the past. Cambridge. Hood, S. 1951. “Excavations at Tabara el Akrad, 1948-49”. Anat St.:113-135. Hopkins, L. "The rise of social complexity in east central Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age." Abr Nahrain Supplement (Louvain) 5 (1995): 17-26. Howell, R. 1979. “Survey of the Malayer Plain”. Iran 17:156-157. Ierusalimskaiĭa, A.A., Kozenkova, V.I. and Krupnov, E.I. 1963. “Drevnie poseleniĭa v s. Serzhen'- Iurt v Checheno-Ingushetii”. KSIA. 94:42-53. Iessen, A.A. 1935. “K voprosu o drevneishei metallurgii medi na Kavkaze”. Izv. GAIMK 120:7-237. 267 1958. Khronotogiia Kavkazskikh kul'tur epokhi eneolita i bronzy (sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa)”. Tezisy dokladov na plenume instituta istorn materiail’noi kul'tury, posvĭashchennom itogam arkheologicheskikh issledovanii. 1957. Moscow:7-8. Iessen, A.A. 1963. “Kavkaz i Drevnii Vostok v IV i III tysĭacheletiiakh do n.e”. KSIA. 93:3-14. 1965. “Iz istoricheskogo proshlog Mil’sko-Karabakhskoĭ stepi”. MIA. 125:10-35 (Russian with a French summary). Ingholt, H. 1940. Rapport preliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles a Hama en Syrie (19321938). Copenhagen. Ingraham, M.O. and Summers, G. 1979. “Stelae and settlements in the Meshkim Shahr Plain Northeastern Azerbaijan, Iran”. Archaeologisene Mitteilungen Aus Iran. 12:67-102. Isakov M.I. 1959. “Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Dagestana”. MAD. 1:195-242. Ismailov, G.S. 1963. Iz istorii drevneĭshei kul'tury Zapadnogo Azerbabĭzhana (Mednobronzovala epokha) (Avtoreferat).Tbilisi. 1965. “Ornamentachiĭa keramiki drevnego poseleniĭa Baba-Dervish i ee vzaimosvĭazi s eneoliticheskimi pamĭatm'kami Za kavkaz'ĭa”. Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniĭa v Azerbai'dzhane. (Sbornik stalei).Baku:54-63. 1972. “Poselenie na kholme Garakepek-Tepe ”. AO. 1971 goda:480. Jamieson, Andrew. 1991. "The Euphrates Valley and the Early Bronze Age Ceramic Traditions." Abr Nahrain 31: 36-92. Johnson, G.A. 1977. “Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology”. Annual Review of Archaeology. 6:479-508 Johnson, R. J.1984. Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Geography. New York. Kaller R.B. 1943. “Khirbet Kerak Ware and its Relations to the Early Bronze Tomb Discovered at Kinnereth”. BJPES. 10:63-65 (Hebrew with an English summary). Kaplan, H. 1975. “The Tomb at Kinnereth and the date of the Alaca Royal Tombs. Museum Ha'aretz Yearbook. 17-18:16-21. 1981. “Anatolian Elements in the EBIII Culture of Palestine”. ZDVP. 97 (1981):18-35. Karapetĭan, L.L. 1964. “Formy i ornamentachiĭa eneoliticheskoĭ keramiki Armenii”. IZV ArmSSR. 6:73-81. (Russian with an Armenian summary). Kashkaĭ M.A. and Selimkhanov, I.R. 1972. Iz istorii drevneĭsheĭ metaliurgii Kavkaza. Baku. 268 Kavtaradze, G. L. 1981. Khronologiĭa arkheologicheskikh kul'tur Gruzii epokhi eneolita i bronzi v svete novykh dannykh. Tbilisi(Georgian with substantial Russian and English summaries). Kaziev, S.M. and Vadaev, I.A. 1969. “Raskopki Kabaly”. AO. 1968 goda:398. Kelly-Buccellati, M. 1973. “The Excavations at Korucutepe, 1968-70: Preliminary Report. Part III:Statistical Description of Significant Groups of Pottery”. JNES. 32:434-439. Kelly-Buccellati, M. and Elster, E. S. 1973. “Statistics in Archaeology to Ancient Near Eastern Data”. G. Bucceltati. (ed.) Approaches to the Study of the AncientNear East”. Orientalia (Nova Series) 42:195-211. Kelly-Buccellati, M. 1974a. The Early Trans-Caucasian Culture: Geographical and Chronological interaction. (Ph.D., Chicago). 1974b. “The Excavations at Korucutepe, Turkey, 1968-70: Preliminary Report. Part V: The Early Bronze Age Pottery and its Affinities”. JNES. 33:44-54. 1978. “The Early Bronze Age Pottery. Descriptive and comparative anaiysis”. M.N. Van Loon. (ed.) Korucutepe Vol.2 Amsterdam:67-88. 1980. “The Outer Fertile Crescent Culture: North Eastern Connections of Syria and Palestine in the Third Millennium B. C”. Ugarit-Forschungen. 11, 1979(Festschrift fur Claude F.A. Schaeffer):413-430. 1990. "Trade in Metals in the third millennium: Northeastern Syria and Eastern Anatolia." In Resurrecting the past: A Joint tribute to Adnan Bounni. Matthiae, P., Van Loon, M., Weiss, H. 117-132. Belgium: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut Te Istanbul. Kearney, M. 1986. "From the invisible hands to the invisible feet: anthropological studies of migration and development." Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 331-61. Kenyon, K.M. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. London Kopytoff, I. 1987. “The internal African frontier: the making of African political culture”. In. The African Frontier: The reproduction of traditional African societies. I. Kopytoff. (ed.) Bloomington. 3-84 Ketso, J.L. 1968. “The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960)”. AASOR 39. Kenyon, K.M. 1960. Excavations at Jericho. The Tombs excavated in 1952-4.Vol. 1.London. Khachatrĭan, T. S. 1974. “Iz istorii izuchemiĭa drevneishikh pamiĭtnikov sklonov gory Aragats”. P.M. Muradĭan (ed.) Armenovedcheskie Issledovaniia Vol. I. Erevan:83-114. 269 1975. Drevnĭaĭa kul'tura Shiraka. Erevan. 1979. Artikskiĭ necropol: katalog. Erevan. Khanzadĭan, E.V. 1963a. “Pervye fakty obrabotki metali ov na terntoni Armîanskogo nagor'ĭa v epokhu drevneĭ Bronzy. IFZh. no.3:297-306 (Armenian). 1963b. “Eneoliticheskoe poselenie bliz Kirovakana”. SA no.l:153-161. 1964a. Kul'tura drevneishikh plemen Armĭanskogo Ragor'ĭa (III tysĭacheletiia do n.e.).(Avtoreferat) Erevan. 1964b. “Keramika Shresh-Blura i Kĭul-Tapy i ee ornamentatsia”. IFZh. no.3:219-228 (Armenian). 1964C. “O metaliurgii drevnebronzovoĭ epokhi v Armemii. SA. no.62:92-101. 1965. “Poselenie rannebronzovogo Veka Bliz c. Armavir”. Materialy sessii, posvĭatschennoi itogam arkheologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh issledovanii, l964g. v SSSR (Tezisy Dokladov). Baku:81-82 1967. Kultura Armĭanskogo nagor'ĭa v III tysĭacheletiĭa do n.e.Erevan (Armenian with a Russian summary). 1969a. Garni IV: resul'taty raskopok 1949-1966. Erevan (Armenian with a Russian summary). 1969b. “Raskopki poselem'ĭa bliz c”. Arevik SA. no.4:157-170 (Russian with a French summary). 1973. Metsamor (issledovanie po dannym raskopok 1965-1966). Erevan.(Armenian with a Russian summary). 1979. Elar-Darani. Erevan (Armenian with a German summary). Kiguradze, T.V. 1976. Periodizatsiĭa rannezemledel' cheskoĭ kul'tury vostochnogo zakavkaz. Tbilisi. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 2000. The Chalcolithic - Early Bronze Age transition in the eastern Caucasus. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts ofthe colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Kikvidze, Ĭa. A. 1966. “Pamiatniki epokhi ranneî bronzy v Urbnisi”. DPK 6:21-25. (Georgian). 1972. Rannebronzovoe poselenie a Khizanaint gora. Tbilisi.(Georgian with a Russian summary). 270 Kınal, F. 1954. “Doğu ve Güney-Doğu Anadolu'da Tetkik Gezişi Raporu”. DTCFD. XII:77-89. Kohl, P. 1992. "The Transcaucasian 'periphery' in the Bronze Age: a preliminary formulation." In Resoures, power, and interregional interaction, Schortman, E. & Urban, P. 117-37. New York. Kökten, I.K. 1943a. “Doğu Anadolu Kars Bolgesinin Tarih Öncesi Araştırmatarina Dair Ilk Not”. DTCFD. L no.2:119-131. 1943b. “Kars'in Tarih-Öncesi Hakkında Î1k Kisa Rapor”. Belleten 7:601-613. 1944. “Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Anadolu da Yapılan Tarih-Öncesi Araştırmalan”. Belleten. 8:659-680. 1944/1945. “Kuzey-Doğu Anadolu Prehistoryasinda Bayburt Cevresinin Yeri. Die Bedeutung der Umgebung von Bayburt Innerhalb der Vorgeschichte Nord-Ost Anatoliens”. DTCFD. 3 no.5:464-486 (Turkish), 487-505 (German summary). 1947a. “1946 Yılı Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları. Antalya, Diyarbakır, Urfa, Gaziantep çevreleri”. Belleten 11:161-163. 1947b. “1945 Yılında Türk Tarih Kuruma Adına Yapılan Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları”. Belleten. 11:431-472. 1947e. “Bazi Prehistorik Istasyonlar Hakkında Yeni Gözemler”. DTCFD. 5:223- 236. 1948a. “1947 Yi1i Tarin-Öncesi Araştırmaları”. Belleten. 12:223-226. 1948b. “Kars’in tarih Öncesi”. III Turk Tarih Kongresi Ankara 15-20 Kasim 1943”. Kongreye Sunulan Tebliğler.Ankara:194-204. 1952. “Andolu'da Prehistorik Yerleşme Yerleri ve 1944-48 Yıllarinda Yapılan Tarıh Öncesi Araştırmalari”. IV Turk Tarih Kongresi Ankara 10-14 Kasım 1948, Kongreye sunulan Tebligler. Ankara:195-209. 1976. “Keban Baraj Golü Alanında Tas Devri Araştırmaları, 1972. Stone Age Explorations in the Keban Dam Lake Area, 1972”. Keban. 5:1-3 (Turkish), 4-8 (English). Korfmann, M. 1982. Tilkitepe: Die ersten Ansatze prahistoriseher Forschung in der ostlichen Turkei. (istanbuler Mitteilungen 26).Tubingen. Korfmann, M., A. Baykal-Seeher, S. Kiliç. 1994. Anatolien in der Frühen und Mittieren Bronzezeit -1. Bibliographie zur Frühbronzezeit. Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Unter mitarbet von H. Kühne . Göttingen 271 Koridze, D.L. 1955a. Arkheologicheski e pamĭatniki Tbilisi. (Eneolit-pen'od pozdnei bronzy).Tbilisi.(Georgian with a Russian summary). 1955b. Arkheologicheskie pamĭatm'ki Tbilisi. (Eneolit-period pozdnei bronzy). (Avtoreferat). Tbilisi. 1958. “Novye nakhodki mednykh orudii v Kvemo-Kartli”. Sov Arkh. 28:134-140. Kossina, G. 1911. Die Herkunft der Germanen. Leipzig 1912. Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte ein Hervorragend National Wissenschaft. Berlin Koşay, H.Z. 1934. “Ahlatlibel Haĭriyatı" TTAD. 2:3ff. 1948. “Karaz Sondajı”. III Türk Tarih Kongresi 15-20 Kasim 1943, Kongreye Sunulan Tebliğler.(Türk Tarih Kurumu/Yayım anndan IX. Sen-No.3). Ankara: 165169. 1945. “Türk Tarih Kurumu'nün I.XI. 1943 ten 31.X.1944. Tarihine Kadar Bir Yili k Çalışmaları Hakkında Genel Kurul'a Sunulan Rapor: Hafriyaltar”. Belleten. 9:154-155. 1962. “Recentes recherches en Anatolie du nordest fouilles de Pulur et (Güzelova) Turfanc. Attı del I Congresso internazinale delle Scienze Freni steriche e Protohistoriche, II. Rome:367. 1967. “Pulur Kazısı(Özet)”.VI Türk Tarih Kongresi 20-26 Ekim 1961. Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler. (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayi maundan IX Seri-No.6). Ankara: 14-15. 1970a. “Pulur Sakyol (1969)”. Anat St 20:7. 1970b. Pulur (Sakyol) Kazısı1968 Ön Raporu. Pulur (Sakyol) Excavations 1968 Preliminary Report”. Keban. 1:139-142 (Turkish); 143-146 (English). Koşay, H.Z. 1971a. “Pulur (Sakyol)”. Anat St. 21:19. 1971b. ‘Excavations at Sakyol (Pulur, Turkey)”. Bolletino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici. 6:109-112. 1971e. “Pulur (Sakyol) Kazısı, 1969. Pulur (Sakyol) Excavations, 1969”. Keban. 2:99101 (Turkish); 103-106 (English). 1972a. “Pulurr (Sakyol), 1971”. Anat St. 22:29. 1972b. “Sakyol (Pulur) Tarih oncesi kazısı”. VII Türk Tarih Kongresi 25-29 Eylül 1970, Kongre'ye Sunulan Bildiriler I. Çift (Türk Tarih KurumuYayınlarından,IX. Seri Sa.7) Ankara:53-55. 272 1974. “Keban Bölgesindeki Sakyol Höyüğü Eski Tunç Caği Kültür ve Sanati”. Kultur ve Sanat. 3:110-118. 1976a. “Yeniköy Höyüğü Kazısı1972. Yeniköy Mound Excavations, 1972”. Keban. 5:175-183 (Turkish); 185-193 (English). 1976b. Keban Projesi, Pulur Kazısı1968-1970. Keban Project, Pulur Excavations 19681970. (METU Keban Project PubLications,Series III, No.l). Ankara:l-109 (Turkish), 113230 (English). Koşay, H,Z. and Akok, M. 1957. Büyük Güllucek Kazısı, 1947 ve 1949. Ausgrabungen von Büyük Güllücek, 1947 und 1949. (TürkTarih KurumuYayınlarından,V.Seri, no.16). Ankara:1-23 (Turkish); 25-47 (German). Koşay, H,Z. and Turfan, K. 1959. “Erzurum-Karaz KazısıRaporu”. Belleten. 23:349-413. Koşay, H.Z. and Vary, H. 1964. Pulur Kazısı1960. Mevsimi Çalışmaları Raporu. Die Ausgrabungen von Pulur. Bericht uber die Kampagne von 1960 (Atatürk Universitesi Yayınıları Nr.24.Fen-Edebiyat Fakülfesi-Arkeoloji Serisi Nr.9). Ankara:5-53 (Turkish), 55-109 (German). Koşay, H.Z. and Vary, H. 1967. Güzelova Kazısı. Ausgrabungen von Güzelova (Atatürk Üniversitsi Yayiniları No.46.Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırmaları Seri:20). Ankara 5-27 (Turkish), 29-54 (German). Koşay, H.Z. et al. 1972.” Pulur (Sakyol) Kazisı, 1970. Pulur (Sakyol) Excavations, 1970”. Keban. 3:127-132 (Turkish), 133-138 (English). Kotovich, V.G. 1959. “Novye arkheologicheskie pamĭatniki Ĭuzhnogo Dagestana”. MAD. 1:121:156. Kozenkova, V.I. 1969. “Rannekobanskiĭ mogil’nik v set a Serzhen'-Ĭurt”. SA. no.4:171-183. Kramer, C. 1977. "Pots & People." In Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibliotheca Mesopotamia, Louis Levine & T.C. Young Jr. 91. Malibu: Undenda Publications. Kristiansen, K. 1989. “Prehistoric Migrations – the case of Single Grave and Corded Ware Cultures”. Journal of Danish Archaeology. 8:211-25 Krugiov, A. P. 1958. “Severo-Vostochnyi Kavkaz vo II-I tys. Do n.e”. MIA. 68:7-146. Krupnov, E.I. 1964-1965. “The most ancient culture of the Caucasus and the Caucasian ethnic community”. SAA. 3:31-45. Kuftin, B.A. 1941. Arkheologicheskie raskopki v Triateti. Tbilisi. (Russian with substantial Georgian and English summaries). 273 1944a. “K roprosu o drevneĭshikh kornĭakh gruzinskoî kul'tury na kavkaze po dannym arkheotogii”. VGMG. 12-B:291-440. (Russian a with Georgian summary). 1944b. “Urartskiî 'Kolumbariĭ v podoshvy Ararata I Kuro-Araksskiĭ eneolit”.VGMG. 13-B:1-172. (Russian with Georgian and English summaries).(edited by Field, H.) 1946. “Prehistoric Culture Sequence in Transcaucasia”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropotogy. 2:340-360. 1947. “K probleme eneolita vnutrennei Kartlii I Ĭugo-Osetii”. VGMG. 14-B:67(Russian with a Georgian summary). 88. 1948. Arkheotogicheskie raskopki 1947 goda v Tsalkinskom raĭone.Tbilisi. 1949. Arkheologicheskaĭa marshrutnaĭa ekspeditsĭa 1945 goda v Ĭugo-Osetiĭu i Imeretiĭuu. Tbilisi. 1949. Kühne, H. 1976. Die Keramik vom Tell Chuera und ihre Beziehungen zu Funden aus SyrienPalastina, der Turkei und dem Irak. Berlin. Kuna, M. and Adelsbergerovà. 1995. “Prehistoric location preferences: an application of GIS to the Vinořský potok project, Bohemia, trhe Czech Republic”. In Locke, G. and Stančič, Z. eds.Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. London Kuschke, A. 1962. “Bericht über eine Sondage im Palastgarten von Ugarit-Ras Shamra”. Schaeffer, C.F.A. et al. Ugaritica. IV:251-299. Kushnareva K. Kh. 1954. “Pamĭatniki mednogo veka v Nagornom Karabakhe”. Sov Arkh. 25:165-179. 1997. The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of Cultural and Socioeconomic Development from the eigth to the second millennium B.C. Tr. H.N. Michael. Philadelphia: The University Museum University of Pennsylvania. Kushnareva, K. Kh. and Chubinishvili, T.N. 1963. “Istoricheskoe znachenie Ĭuzhnogo Kavkaza v III tysĭacheletii do n.e”. SA. no.3:10-24. (later translated into English, see idem. 1963-1964). 1963-1964. “The Historical Significance of the Southern Caucasus in the Third Millenium B,C”. SAA 2 no.3:3-16. 1970. Drevnie kul'tury Ĭuzhnogo-Kavkaza (V-III tysĭacheletii do n.e.) Leningrad. (Russian with an English summary). Kushnareva, K. Kh. and Dzhaparidze, O.M. 1978. “Review of Munchaev, R.M.1975, Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka. Moscow. SA no.1:268-79 274 1975. Otchet Kvemo-Kartliĭskoî arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii (1965-1971). Tbilisi. Kvamme, K.L. 1995.“A view from across the water: the North American experience with archaeological GIS”. In Locke, G. and Stančič, Z. eds.Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. London Kvizhinadze, K. D. and Shatberashviti, Z.G. 1965. “Kratkii Otchet o raskopkakh II i III uchastkov arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii 1964 g. v ushchel e Algeti”. XIV nauchnaĭa sessiĭa posviashch. Itogam polvykh arkheol. issledovanii 1964 g (Inst istorii AN GSSR): 28-31. (Georgian). Lal atan, E. 1931. Raskopki kyrganov v sovetskoy Armenii. Erevan. (Armenian). Lamb, W. 1954. “The Culture of North-East Anatolia and its Neighbours”. Anat St. 4:21- 32. Lapp, P.W. 1964a. “The 1963 Excavation at Ta'annek”. BASOR 173:4-44. 1964b. “Chronique Archeologique: Telt Ta'annak”. RB. 71:240-246. 1966a. “The 1966 Excavations at Tell Ta'annek”. BASOR. 185:2-39. 1966b. “Bab edh-Dhra”. RB. 73:556-561. 1968a. “Chronique Archeologique: Tell Ta'annak”. RB. 75:93-98. 1968b. “Babe dh-Dhra’ Tomb A76 and the Early Bronze I in Palestine”. BASOR. 189:12-41 1969a. “The 1968 Excavations at Tell Ta'annak”. BASOR. 195:2-49. 1969b. “Chronique Archeologique: Tell Ta'annak”. RB. 76:580-586. Lebeau, Marc. 2000. Stratified archaeological evidence and compared periodizations in the Syrian Jezirah during the third millennium. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Le Bretun, L, 1957. “The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations”. Iraq. 19:79- 124. Lefferts,H. Jr.1977. “Frontier Demography: An Introduction”. in The Frontier, Comparative Studies. D. Miller and J. Steffen, eds. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.p. 33-55 Leonard, A. 1992. The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 50. Winona Lake 275 Levine, N. 2002. CrimeStat II: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident Locations. Houston, TX & Washington, CD: Ned Levine & Associates & the National Institute of Justice. Lĭubin, V.P. 1955. “Arkheologicheskaĭa razvedka v okrestnostĭakh goroda Stalinara (ĬugoOsetiĭa). KSIIMK. 60:14-22. Locke, G. and Stančič, Z. eds. 1995. Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. London Longacre, W.A. 1981.“Kalinga pottery, an ethnoarchaeological study”. In Hodder, I. and G. Isaac, and N. Hammond. eds. Pattern of the past. Cambridge. 49-66 Lordkipanidze, O.D. 1977. “Arkheologiĭa Gruzii: noveĭshie otkrytiĭa problemy SA. no.3:5-23. perspektivy”. Loud, G, 1948. Megiddo II, Seasons of 1935-39. 2 vols. Text and Plates (OIP vol. LXII). Chicago. Lupton, Alan. 1996. Stability and Change: Socio-political Development in North Mesopotamia and South-East Anatolia 4000-2700 BC. Oxford Lyonnet, Bertille. 2000. La Mèsopotamie st le Caucase du Nord au IVe et au debut du IIIe millènaires av. n.é.: leurs rapport et les problèmes chronologiques de la culture de Majkop. Etat de la question et nouvelles proposition. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul.Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. McEwan, C.W. 1937. “The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago”. AJA. 41:8-16. McNicoll,A. 1971. “Taşkun Kale”. Anat St. 21:7-8. 1973. “Taşkun Kale”. French, D.H. et al. “Asvan Kale 1968-1972: An Interim Report”.Anat St. 23:159-180. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer, 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 Vol. II. London. Maisler (Mazar), B., Stekelis, M. and Avi Yonah, M. 1952a. “The Excavations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak) 1944-1946”. IEJ 2:165-173. 1952b. “The Excavations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet et-Kerak) 1944-1946”. IEJ. 2:218-229. Makatatiĭa, S.I. 1943. Arkheologicheskie raskopki kurgannykh pogrevennii v sel. Tkviavi. Tbilisi. (Georgian with Russian and English summaries). 276 Makhmudov, F.A., Munchaev, R.M. and Narimanov, I.G. 1968. “O drevneisheĭ metalturgii Kavkaza”. SA. no. 4:16-26. Mallowan, M.E. 1963. “The Amuq Plain”. Antiquity. 37:185-92. Marfoe, L. 1978. Between Qadesh and Kumidi: A History of Frontier Setttement and Land Use in the Biqa' Lebanon. (Ph.D. Chicago). Margalitadze, N. A. 1972. “The History of Forests of the north-western part of the Trialeti range in Holocene according to the pollen analysis”. Journal of Palynology (Publication of the Palynological Society of India) 7:69-75. Marquet-Krause, J 1949. Les fouiites de 'Ay (et-Tell): La resurrection d'une grande cité bib1ique. (Institut Francais d'archeologie de Beyrouth. Bibtiotheque archeologique et historique. Tombe XLV) Texte and Atlas. Paris. Marro, Catherine. 2000. “Vers une chronologie comparée des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrat aux IVe - IIIe millénaires. In Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul.Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Martirosĭan, A. A. 1952. “O drevnem poselenii okolo Leninakana”. Izv Arm SSR. no.10:87-97. 1964a. Armeniĭa v epokhu bronzy i rannego zheteza. Erevan. 1964b. “O periodizatsiî arkheologicheskikh pamĭatnikov Armenii epokhi bronzy i rannego zheleza”. SA. no.3:21-36. 1971. “Anneniĭa v epokhu Eneolita”. Istorii Armĭaskogo Naroda, I. Erevan. (Armenian). Martirosĭan, A.A. and Torosĭan, R.M. 1967. “K Voprosu ob interpretatsiĭ eneoliticheskoî kul'tury Armenii”. VO Arm SSR. 3:52-62. (Armenian). Martirosĭan, A.A. and Munchaev, R.M. 1968. “Review of Sardarĭan, S.A. 1967”. Pervobytnoe obshchestvo v Armenii. SA. no.3:255-262. Mason, R.B.J. 2004. Shine like the Sun: Lustre-painted and Associated Pottery from the Medieveal Middle East. Toronto. Mazada Publications, Costa Mesa, and the Royal Ontario Museum 1995. R. B. Mason, “Defining Syrian stonepaste ceramics: petrography of pottery from Ma'arrat al-Nu'man,” In. Islamic Art in the Ashmolean Museum. Allan, J. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Islamic Art Volume X: Part 2: 1-18. Mason, Robert M. & Lisa Cooper. 1999. "Grog, Petrology, & Early Transcaucasians at Godin Tepe." Iran. 37:25-31 277 Matney, T. et al. 1997. "Excavations at Titris Höyük southeast Anatolia: A preliminary report of the 1996 season." Anatolica 23: 61-84. Matney, T. et al. 1999."Early Bronze Age Urban structure at Titris Höyük, southeastern Turkey." Anatolica 25: 185-202. Matthiae, P. 1980. Ebla, an Empire Rediscovered. London. 1982. “The Mature Early Syrian Culture of Ebla and the Development of Early Bronze Civilization of Jordan”. A. Hadidi (ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I. Amman:77-91. 1993. "On this side of the Euphrates. A note on the urban origins in inner Syria." In To the Euphrates and Beyound. Archaeological Studies in honour of Mauritis N. Van Loon, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. 523-30. Rome: Il Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antopologiche dell'Antichità Università di Roma La Sapienza. Mathias, V. “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Nebi Mend in its Regional Setting”. In Philip, G. and Baird, D. (eds.) Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. 411-27 Mazzoni, S. 1991."Ebla e la formazione della cultura urbana in Siria." La Paraola del passato 46: 47-78. 1999. “Tel Afis and its region in the Late Chalcolithic period.” AAAS. 43:97-118 Mazar, A. et al. 2000. “The Early Bronze Age II-III at Tell Beth Shean: Preliminary Observations”. In Philip, G. and Baird, D. (eds.) Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. :255-278 Mazzoni, S. 1998 “Materials and Chronology” in Tell Afis: Scavi sull’ acropolis 1988-1992. Eds. Cecchini, S. and Mazzoni, S. Pisa. Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. et al. 1942. “An Archaeologicat Survey of the Plain of Jabbul, 1939”. PEQ 74:8-40. Mazar, B., Stekelis, M. and Avi-Yonah, M. 1952. “The excavations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet elKerak) 1944-46. IEJ. 2:165-73; 218-29 Mazar, B., Amiran, R., and Haas, N. 1973. “An Early Bronze Age II Tomb at Beth-Yerah (Kinneret)”. Eretz-Israel. 11:176-193 (Hebrew); 28 (English summary). Mellaart, J. 1954. “Preliminary Report on A Survey of Pre-Classical Remains in Southern Turkey”. Anat St. 4:175-240. 1962. “Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Survey in the Yarmuk and Jordan Valley for the Point Four Irrigation Scheme”. ADAJ. 6-7:126-157. 278 1963. “Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain”. Anat St. 13:199-236. 1966. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut. 1981. “The Prehistoric Pottery from the Neolithic to the beginning of E.B.IV”. In Mathers J. (ed.) The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and its Catchment. Studies arising from the Tell Rifa'at Survey 1977-79. (BAR Internationat Series 98(ı)):131-189. Mellink, M. 1956. “Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery”. H. Goldman. (ed.) Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II. Princeton:65-91. 1962a. ‘“Archaeology in Asia Minor””. AJA. 61:71-85. 1962b. “The Prehistory of Syro-Cilicia”. BiOr, 19:219-26. 1965. “Anatolian Chronology”. Ehrich, R.W.Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago:101-131. 1968. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 72:125-147. 1969. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 73:203-227. 1970. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 74:157-178. 1971. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 75:161-181. 1972. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 76:165-188. 1973. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 77:169-193. 1974. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 78:105-130. 1975.“Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA.79:201-222. 1976. “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. AJA. 80:261-289. Menadbe M.V. 1973. Trialeti v epokhu pozdneĭ bronzyrannego zheteza (XIV-VIVV. do n.e.). (Avtoreterat). Tbilisi. Menadbe, M,V. and Kiguradze, T.V. 1981. Arkheologicheskie pamĭatniki s. sioni. Tbilisi (Georgian withaRussian summary). Meriggi P. 1962. “Alcuni monticoli di Kataonia”. Oriens Antiquus. 1:265-281. 1963. Terzo viaggio Anatolico. Oriens Antiquus 2:275-299. 1965. “Quarto viaggio Anatolico”. Oriens Antiquus 4:263-315. 279 1966. “Quinto viaggio Anatolico”. Oriens Antiquus 5:67-109. 1967. Sesto viaggio Anatotico. Oriens Antiquus. 6:269-303. Merpert N. Ĭa. 1962. “Raskopi Serzhen'-Iurtovskogo poseleniĭa v 1960 goda”. KSIA. 88:33-44. Minns, E.H. 1943. “Trialeti”. Antiquity. 17:129-135. Miroschedji, P. de. 1986. “Céramique et mouvements de population: le case de la Palestine au IIIe milléniere”. In A propos des interpretations archéologique de la poterie: questions ouvertes. Paris. 9-46 2000a. “Le ceramique de Khirbet Kerak en Syro-Palestine: Etat de la question”. In From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd millennium B.C., Marro, C. & Hauptmann, H. 279-298. Istanbul: Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul, 2000. 2000b. “An Early Bronze Age III Pottery Sequence for Southern Israel”. In Philip, G. and Baird, D. (eds.) Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield :315-46 Mirtskhulava, G.I. 1969a. “Otchet polevoĭ raboty Samshvitdskogo otrĭada Tetritskaroĭskoĭ arkeologicheskoî ekspeditsiĭ za 1969 g”. AIG .1969 (1971):16-18 (Georgian and Russian). 1969b. “Zakhoronem'ia v. Şamshvildi”. Tezisy dokladov na XVIII nauchnoĭ sessn, posvĭashchennoĭ itogam polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniĭ za 1968 (Inst. Istorii AN GSSR).Tblisi:5-6. (Georgian). 1972. Pamĭatniki epokhi drevnego metalla Samshvitde i Kuro-Araksskaĭa kul'tura Kvemo-Kartli. (Avtoreferat).Tbilisi. 1975a. Samshvilde (Rezul'taty raskopok 1968-1970). Tblisi. (Georgian with a Russian summary). 1975b. “Die Funde von Samshvitde und ihre Bedeutung bur die Genese der Kura-AraxKu1tur”. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica. 15:215-216. 1979. “Drevneishee Poselem'e Samshvilde”. MAGK. 7:78-82. (Georgian with a Russian summary). Montelius, O. 1903. Die typologische Methode: die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa. Stockholm Moortgat, A. 1965. Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien, Bericht über die vierte Grabungskampagne 1963. Koln und Opladen. 280 Munchaev, R.M. 1955. “Kaĭakenskoe poselenie i problema Kavkazskogo eneolita”. Şov Arch. 22:5-20. 1961a. “Drevneîshaĭa kut'tura Severo-Vostochnogo Kavkaza”. MIA. 100:132-161. 1961b. “Eneoliticheskaĭa kul’tura Severo-Vostochnogo Kavkaza”. MAD. 2:57-67. Munchaev, R.M. 1962. “Pamĭatniki Maikopskoi kul'tury v Checheno-Ingushetii”. (Iz rezul'tatov rabot Sev.-Kavkazskoi ekspeditsii) SA. no.3:176-198. 1971. Kavkaz v epokhu eneolita i rannei bronzy (V-III tysĭacheletii do n.e.). (Avtoreferat doktora).Tbilisi. 1975. Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka. Moscow. (Russian). Nadimashvili, S. N. 1961. “Arkheologicheski e raskopki drevneĭshego pseleniĭa-gorodisha Shida Kartli, Gudabertka Tsikhis-Gora”. Nauchinaĭa sessiĭa Goriĭskogo gosudarstvennogo istoriko-etnograficheskogo muzeĭa.Gori:8-10. Narimanov, I.G. 1965a. “Arkheotogicheskie issledovamĭa poseteniĭa Shomu-Tepe v 1963g”. Arkheologicheskie issledovaniĭa v Azerbaĭdzhane”. Baku:45-53. 1965b. “Keramika drevnego poseleniĭa vblizi gorodishcha Oren-Kaly”. A.A. Iessen, and K. Kh Kushnareva,.(ed.) Trudy Azerbaĭdzhanskoiĭ arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii, 1956-1960”. Vol. II. MIA. 125:37-39. (Russian with a French summary). 1968. “Isstedovanie eneoliticheskikh poseteniĭ v Azerbaidzhane”. AO. 1967 goda:316317. 1969. “Raskopki Eneoliticheskogo poseleniĭa Ilani-Tepe ”. AO. 1968 goda:396-397. 1966. Drevneishaĭa zemledel'cheskaĭa kul'tura Zakavkaz'ĭa. Doklady i soobshch. arkheologov SSSR (XV n Mezhdunar. Kongress doistorikov i protistorikov). Moscow:121-126. 1992. “The Earliest Agricultural Settlements in the Territory of Azerbaidzhan”. Sov. Anth Arch. Narimanov, I.G. and Ismailov, G.S. 1962. “Akstaĭachaiskoe poselenie bliz g. Kazakha”. SA no.4:149-156. Narimanov, I.G. and Makhmudov, F.R. 1967. “Eneot iticheskie pamĭatniki i Mugani”.Iz Azer SSR 2 (serĭa istorii). Baku:87-96 (Azerbaidzhani). Ökse, A.T. 1999. "Sivas ili 1997 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması" AraST XVI/I-1998. Anakara 281 Ökse, A.T., Bucak, E. 2001. "Karkamış Barajı-Gre Virike 1999 Kazısı" Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı XXII/I-2000. Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları No: 77/1, T.C. Kültür Bakanlıðı Yayınları No: 2529/1,191-202 Oldenbueg, E. 1991. Sukas 9: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods. Publications of the Carlsberg Expeditions to Phoenicia 11. Copenhagen Ordzhonikidze, A. E. 1981. Samtskhe-Dzhavakheti v epokhu ranneĭ bronzy. (Avtoreferat). Tbilisi. Orthmann, W. 1963. Die Keramik der Frühen Bronzezeit Aus Inner-anatolien. (Istanbuler Forschungen 24).Berlin. Özdoğan, M. 1977. Lower Euphrates Basin 1977 Survey (METU Lower Euphrates Project Publications Series l, no. 2). Istanbul. Özgen, E., H.Tekin, Helving, B. 1997. "Oylum Höyük 1995 Kazılan" KST XVIII/I-1996 Yayın No: 51:189-199 Ankara. Özgen, E., H.Tekin, Ensert, H.K. 1996. "Oylum Höyük 1994 Kazıları" KST XVII/I-1995 Yayın No: 1808:183-188 Ankara. Ozguç, T. 1947a. “Die Grabung von Maltepe bei Sivas”. Belleten 11:166. 1947b. “Die Grabung von Maltepe bei Sivas”. Belleten. 11:657-672. 1948. “Archaeological Journeys in the Plain of Elbistan and the Excavation of Karahüyük”. Belleten. 12:232-237. 1986. “New Observations on the relationship between Kultepe with southeast Anatolia and north Syria during the Early Bronze Age”. In Ancient Anatolia, Aspects of change and cultural development, Essays in honour of Machteld Mellink Wisconsin 31-47 Palmieri, A. 1967. “Insediamento del Bronzo Antico a Gelinciktepe (Malatya)”. Origini. 1:117193. 1968. “Scavi a Gelinciktepe”. Oriens Antiquus. 7:133-147. 1969a. “Arslantepe (Malatya), 1968”. Anat St. 19:7-8. 1969b. “Recenti Dati sulta Stratigrafi a di Arslantepe”. Origini. 3:7-66. 1969e. “Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya) 1968”. TAD 18 no.1:99-107. 1970. “Two Years of Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya)”. TAD 19 no.2:203-211. 282 1973. “Scavi nell'Area Sud-Occidentate di Arslantepe: Ritrovamento di una Struttura Templare dell Antica Eta del Bronzo”. Origini. 7:55-178, 225-228. 1974. “Arslantepe (Malatya). Report on the Excavations 1971-72”. TAD 21 no. 1:137146. 1977. “The 1973 and 1975 Campaigns at Arslantepe (Malatya)”. TAD 24 no.2:123-132. 1978. “Scavi ad Arstantepe (Malatya)”. Quaderni de La Ricerca Scientifica. Consiglio Nazionate delle Ricerche (CNR). Rome 100:311-52 1981. “Excavations at Arstantepe (Malatya)”. Anat St. 31:101-119. 1985. "Eastern Anatolia and Early Mesopotamian Urbanizaton: Remarks on changing relations." In Studi di paletnologia in onore di Salvatore Puglisi, Liverani, M. 191-213. Rome. 1986. “1984 Excavations at Arslantepe”. KST. VII-1985:29-36 1987. “The 1985 Campaign at Arslantepe, Malatya”. KST. VIII-1986:67-74 Palmieri, A. and Frangipane, M. 1988.“Excavations at Arslantepe”. KST. IX-1987:127- 30 1990. “The 1988 Campaign at Arslantepe, Malatya”. KST. X-1989:191-201 Palmieri, A.M., Sertok, K., and Chemykh, E. 1993.“From Arslantepe Metalwork to Arsenical copper technology in Eastern Anatolai”. In Between the rivers and over the mountains: Archeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M. Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. 311-18. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antopologiche dell'Antichità Università di Roma La Sapienza. 573-599 Palmieri, A.M, Di Nocera, G.M. 2000. “The Metal Objects from the ‘Royal Tomb’at Arslantepe (Malatya-Turkey) and the Metal work and development in the Early Bronze Age”. XLIV Rencontre d’Assyriologie, Venizia 1997. Parr, P.J. 1956. “A Cave at Argub El Dhahr”. ADAJ. 3:61-73. 1958. “Palestine and Anatolia: A Further Note”. BIAL 1:21-23. Pecorella P E. 1967. “Report on the 1967 Campaign at Arslantepe (Malatya)”. TAD. 16 no.2:173-176. 1969. “Missione Archeologica Italiana nell'Anatolia Orientale (Malatya)”. Oriens Antiquus. 8:224-225. 283 1980. “L'Urartu sulle rive del lago di Urmia. Una relazione preliminare su tre campagne nell'Azerbagian Iranico”. Studi Micenei ed Eaeo-Anatotici Fascicoto 22. (Incunabula Graeca vol. LXXIII):337-347. Pecorella P E and Salvini, M. 1984. Tra lo Zagros e l’Urmia. Rome Perrot, J. 1952. “Nouvettes decouvertes en Israel”. Syria. 29:294-306. Pettijohn, F.J., Potter, P.E. and Siever, R. 1973. Sand and Sandstone. Berlin Petrie, W.M.F. 1899. “Sequences in prehistoric remains”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Petrosĭan, L. 1973. “Razvedochnye raskopki v Keti (1970)”. IFZh. no. 4:212-218 (Armenian). Philip, G. 1999. "Complexity and diversity in the southern Levant during the third millennium BC: The evidence of Khirbet Kerak Ware." Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12, 1: 26-57. Philip, G. 2003. “The Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: A landscape approach”. JMA. 16/1:103-132 Philip, G. & Millard, A.R. 2000. "Khirbet Kerak Ware in the Levant: the implications of radiocarbon chronology and spatial distribution." In Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires, Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Piggott, S. 1968. “The Earliest Wheeled Vehicles and the Caucasian Evidence”. PPS. 34:266-318. Piotrovskiî. B.B. 1949a. Arkheotogiîa Zakavkaz'îa. Leningrad. 1949b. “Poseleniĭa mednogo veka v Armenii”. Sov Arkh. 11:171-184. 1955. “Razvitie skotovodstva v drevneĭshem Zakavkaz'e”. Sov Arkh 23:5-15. 1964. “The Aeneolithic culture of Transcaucasia in the third millennium B. C.” Acts of the VIth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. Moscow:360366. Pitskhelauri, K.N. 1965. Drevnĭaĭa kul'tura plemen naselĭaĭliskchikh territoriĭu Ĭoro-Alazanskogo basseina. Po arkheologicheskim materialam doantichnogo vremeni.Tbilisi.(Georgian with a ussian summary). Pitskhelauri, K. N. and Dedabrishvili, Sh.Sh. 1969. “Raboty Kakhetskoî arkheotogicheskoĭ ekspeditsiĭ v zone stroitel'stva kerkhne Alazanskoĭ orositel'noĭ sistemy (1965-1966)”. TAKE. (1965-1966) 1:3-25 (Georgian). 284 Pkhakadze, G.G. 1961. “Pogrevenie eneoliticheskogo perioda iz sela Tamarisi”. XII Nauchnaĭa konferentsiĭa aspirantov i molodykh nauchnykh rabotnikov. Plan rabotu 1 sokrashchennye tekstu dokladov. Tbilisi:342-345. 1963. Eneolit Kvemo-Kartli (Eneoliticheskie pamĭatniki Kiketi). Tbilisi. (Georgian with Russian summary). 1964. Eneolit Kvemo Kartli. (Avtoreferat). Tbilisi. Pkhakadze, G.G. 1972. “Raskopki v s. Koda”. AO. 1971 goda: 457-458. 1976. “Arkeologicheskie isstedovamĭa v s. Koda na territorii stroitel'stva ptitsefermy”. Sbornike arkheologicheskie isstedovaniĭa na novostroikakh. Gruzinskol SSR (Inst. Istorii AN SSSR) Tbilisi:45-48. Plat Taylor, J. du et al. 1950. “The Excavations at Sakçe Gözü”. Iraq. 12:53-138. Portes, Alejandro. 1997. “Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities”. Internation Migration Review. 31/4:799-825 Prag K. 1970. “The 1959 Deep Sounding at Harran in Turkey”. Levant. 1:63-94. 1985. “Ancient and Modern Pastoral Migration in the Levant”. Levant. 17:81-8 Prausnitz, M. 1952. “Notes and News. Tell Tabayig”. IEJ 2:142. Pruß, Alexander. 2000. The Metallic Ware of Upper Mesopotamia: definition, chronology and distribution. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires, Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Przytuski, J. 1937. “Les monuments megalithiques de Malatya”. Rev.Archéol. 6:3-7. Puglisi, S,M. and Meriggi, P. 1964. “Matatya-I. Aspetti Dett'Archeologia Pre-Hittita. Stratigrafia di Arstantepe del periodo. Hittita imperiate all'Eta Islamica”. Orientis Antigui Cottectio III. Rome. Puglisi S.M. and Palmieri, A. 1966. “Researches in the Malatya District 1965-1966”. TAD. 15 no. 2:81-100. Reilley, E.B. 1940. “Titkitepedki ilk Kazilar (1937). Test excavations at Tilki Tepe (1937)”. TTAED. 4:147-155 (Turkish); 156-165 (English). Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: the puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London 285 1994. “Concluding remarks: Childe and the study of culture process”. In D. Harris. ed. The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. London p121-133 1993. “Trade beyond material”. In Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Scarre, C. and F. Healy (eds) Oxford. 5-16 Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A source book. Chicago Roodenberg, J.J. 1981a.“Hayaz Höyük Kazısının İlk Sounçları” KST. III – 1981:93-4 1981b. “Premiers Résultats des Recherches Aechéologiques à Hayaz Höyük”. Anatolica. 7:3-19 1981c. “Recent archaeological work in Turkey: Hayaz Höyük, 1979”. Anat St. 31:187-8 1982. “Note sur le troisiéme campagne de fouilles à Hayaz Höyük”. Anatolica. 9:2732 Rothman, M.S., & Gülriz Kolbe. 1997. "Muş in the Early Bronze Age." Anat St 47:105-26. Rothman, M. 2003. Style Zones and Adaptations along the Turkish-Iranian Borderland”. Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud, Essays in honour of William Sumner. N. Miller and K. Abdi, (eds). Los Angeles: 207-216 2004. “Ripples in the Stream: Transcaucasia-Anatolian Interaction in the Murat/ Euphrates Basin at the beginning of the third millennium BC” In Archaeology in the boarderlands: Investigation in Caucasia and beyond. Smith, A., and Rubinson, K. eds. Los Angeles p. 94-114 Rouse, I. 1986. Migrations in Prehistory. New Haven: Yale University Press,. Rova, Elena. 1998. Distribution & Chronology of the Nineveh 5 Pottery and of its Culture. Contbuti e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale (Rome) II: 1-276. 2000. Early third millennium B.C. painted pottery traditions in the Jezira. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires. Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. Rowlands, M. 1994. “Childe and the archaeology of freedom”. In D. Harris. ed. The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. London Russell.H.F. 1980. Pre Classical Pottery of Eastern Anatolia (BIAA Monograph No. 2, BAR internationat Series 85) Oxford. 286 1971. Raskopki arkheologichesko Puglisi ekspeditsii Shengavita (1970-1971). Vestnik EGU no. 3:260-266. (Armenian). Sagieh, M. 1983. Byblos in the Third Millennium. Warminister Sagona, A.G. 1984. The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age. 214(i). BAR International. Oxford: BAR. 1993. "Settlement and Society in Late Prehistoric Transcaucasus." In Between the rivers and over the mountains: Archeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M. Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. 311-18. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antopologiche dell'Antichità Università di Roma La Sapienza 1994. The Aşvan Sites 3. Oxford: British School of Archaeology at Ankara 2000. Sos Höyük and the Erzurum region in late prehistory: a provisional chronology for Northeast Anatolia. Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate au IVe - IIIe Millenaires, Catherine Marro & Harald Hauptmann. Paris, Institute Français D'Etudes Anatoliennes D'Istanbul. Acts of the colloquium held in Istanbul, 16-19th of December 1998. 2003. “Hearths and Houses East of the Turkish Euphrates”. Paper presented at ASOR Annual Meeting November 21 2003 in Atlanta Georgia Sagona, A.G., Erkmen, M., Sagona, C. and Thomas, I. 1996. “Excavations at Sos Höyük, 1995”. Anat St. 46:27-52 Sagona, A.G., Erkmen, M., Sagona, C. and Howells, S. 1997.“Excavations at Sos Höyük, 1996”. Anatolica. 23:181-225 Sagona, A.G., Pemberton, E. and Mcphee, I. 1992. “Excavations at Büyüktepe Höyük, 1991”. Anat St. 43:29-46 Sagona, A.G., Sagona, C. and Özkorucuklu, H. 1995. “Excavations at Sos Höyük, 1994”. Anat St. 45:193-218 Sardarian, S.A. 1967. Pervobytnoe obshchestvo v Armenii. Erevan (Armenian with Russian and English summaries) Savage, S. and Falconer, E. 2003. “Polities in the Southern Levant”. BASOR 330:31-45 Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1932. “Les fouilles de Minetel-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Troisieme campagne (printemps 1931). Rapport sommaire”. Syria 13:1-27. 1943. “ La date des kourgnes de Triateti”. Antiquity. 17:183-187. 287 1944a. “Archaeological Discoveries in Triateti-Caucasus”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society:25-29. 1948a. Stratigraphie compareé et chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale (IIIié et IIié Millenaires), Syrie, Palestine, Asie Mineure, Chypre, Perse et Caucase. London. 1948b. “Fouilles a Enkomi et a Arslan Tepe ”. CRAIB:341. 1949. Mission de Ras Shamra v. Ugaritica II: Nouvelles etudes relatives aux decouvertes de Ras Shamra. Paris. 1951. “Fouilles a Enkomi et a Arslan Tepe ”. CRAIB:325. Schaeffer, C.F.A. et at. 1962. Ugaritica IV (Mission de Ras Shamra vol. XV). Paris. 1969. Ugaritica VI (Mission de Ras Shamra vol. XVII). Paris. Schaub, R.T and Rast, W.E. 1989. Babe dh-Dhra: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan I. Winona Serdaroğlu, U. 1970. “Ağin ve Kalaycık kazıları on raporu. Ağin and Kalaycık excavations 1968, Preliminary report”. Keban 1:29-40 (Turkish), 41-51 (English ). 1977. Aşağı Fırat Hauzasinda Araştırmalar 1975. Surveys in the Lower Euphrates Basin. (O.D.T.U. Aşağı Fırat Projesi Yayinları Seri I No. 1). Ankara:l-48 (Turkish), 49-97 (English). Sertok, K., Ergeç, R. 1999. "A new Early Bronze Age cemetery. Excavations near the Birecik Dam, SE Turkey. Preliminary report (1997-8)." Anatolica 25: 87-108. Shimelmitz, R. 2003. “A Glance at the Early Trans-Caucasian Culture Through its Nomadic Component”. Tel Aviv. 30/2: 204-221 Shipton, G.M. 1939. Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI-XX. (SAOC XVII). Chicago. Steinkeller, P. 1993. "Early Political Development in Mesopotamia and the Origins of the Sargonic Empire." In Akkad, the first world Empire, Structure, ideology, traditions, Liverani, M. 107-131. Padoue. Steadman, R.S. 1994. “Prehistoric sites on the Cilician coast plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Pottery from the 1991, Bilkent University Survey”. Anat. Stud. 44:85-103 Sukenik, E.L. 1948. “Archaeological Investigations at 'Affula”. JPOS. 21:1-79. Sukenik (Yadin), Y. 1947. “On the Technique of Khirbet Kerak Ware”. BASOR 106:9- 17. 288 Swartz, G. 1989. "An Early Bronze Age III Pottery region between the middle Euphrates and Habour: New evidence from Hammam et-Turkman." In To the Euphrates and Beyound. Archaeological Studies in honour of Mauritis N. Van Loon, Haex, O.M.C., Curvers, H., Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 195-212. Rotterdamn: A.A. Balkema. 1994a"Before Ebla: Models of Pre-state political organization in Syria and northern Mesopotamia." In Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. 18. Monographs in World Archaeology, Stein, G. & Rothman, M.S. 153-174. Madison: Prehistory Press. 1994b "Rural economic specialization and early urbanization in the Khabur Valley, Syria." In Archaeological views from the countryside: Village communities in early complex societies, Swartz, G. & Falconer, S.E. 19-36. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian press. Swiny, S. 1975. “Survey in North West Iran, 1971”. East and West 25:77-99. Tadmor, M. 1964. “Contacts Between the 'Amuq and Syria-Palestine”. IEJ. 14:253-269.1978. “Rosh ha-Niqra, Tel”. EAEHL IV:1023-1024. Tadmor, M. and Prausnitz, M.W. 1959. “Excavations at Rosh Hanniqra”. 'Atiqot 2:72-88 Takaĭshvili, E.S. 1913. “O Sachkherskom Kurgane Shorapanskogo uezda”. Izvestiia Kavkazskogo otdeleniĭa Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva. Vol.III. Tiflis. Takaoğlu, T. 2000. “Hearth structures in the religious pattern of Early Bronze Age Northeast Anatolia”. Anat. St. 50:11-16 Tarhan, T. and Sevin, V. 1991. “Van Kalesi ve Eski Van Şehri Kazıları 1989”. KST. XII.II – 1990: 429-56 1992. “Van Kalesi ve Eski Van Şehri Kazıları 1990 Yılı Çalışmaları”. Belletin. 56/217: 1081-1100 1993a. “Van Kalesi ve Eski Van Şehri Kazıları 1991 Yılı Çalışmaları”. Belletin. 57/220: 843-862 1993b. “Van Kalesi ve Eski Van Şehri Kazıları 1991”. KST. XIV/I – 1992: 402-29 Tashchĭan, L. I. 1944. “Kurgan s massovym pogreveniem v okrestnostiakh Stepanakerta”. Izv Arm 11:91-94. Terry, R.D. and Chillingar, G.V. “Concerning some additional aids in studying sedimentary formations”. Sedimentary Petrology. 25:229-34 Thalmann, J.P. 1991. “L’age du Bronze à Tell ‘Arqa (Liban): bilan et perspectives (1981- 1991)” Berytus. 39:21-38 289 Thissen, L.C. 1985. “The late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery from Hayaz Höyük”. Anatolica. 12:75-130 1989"An Early Bronze Age III Pottery Region between the Middle Euphrates and Habur: New Evidence from Tell Hammam et-Turkman." In To the Euphrates and Beyound. Archaeological Studies in honour of Mauritis N. Van Loon, Haex, O.M.C., Curvers, H.H., and Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 195-211. Brookfield: Thussen, I. 1988. Hama 1: The Pre and Proto-Hoistotic Periods. Fouilles et recherches de la Foundations Carslberg 1931-38. Copenhagen Tilly, C. "Migration in modern European history." In Human migration: Patterns & policies, McNeill, W. & Adams, R. 48-74. Bloomington, IL: Indiana State University Press, 1978. Todd, I.A. 1973. “Anatolia and the Khirbet Kerak Problem”. H.A. Hoffner Jr. (ed.) Orient and Occident (Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday) AOAT 22:181-206. Torosĭan, R.M. 1976. Rannezemtedet'cheskie poseleniĭa Tekhuta (IV tysĭachetetiĭa do n.e.). Erevan.(Armenian with a Russian summary). Trifinov, V.A. 1994“The Caucasus and the Near East in the Early Bronze Age (Fourth & Third Millennium BC)”.Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 13/3:357-60 Trigger, B.G. 1980 Gordon Childe: Revolutions in archaeology. New York 1994. “Childe’s relevance to the 1990s”. in The archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. D. Harris. ed. 9-35 Tushishvili, N.N. 1965. “Otchet o polevykh rabotakh arkheologicheskoĭ ekspeditsii 1964. v ushchel’e Algeti”. XIV nauchnaĭa sessiĭa, posviashchennaĭa itogam polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniĭ 1964 g. (Kratkie otchety) (Inst Istorii AN GSSR). Tbilisi :25-28 (Georgian). Ussishkin D. 1968. “Chronique archéologique: Beth-Yerah”. RB. 75:266-268. Uzunoğlu, E. 1986. “Malatya İmamoğlu Höyüğü 1984 Yılı Kazısı Çalışmaları”. KST. VII1985:181-91 Vaidov. R.M. and Narimanov. I.G. 1967. “Rasvitie arkheotogicheskoi nauki v sovetskom Azerbaĭdzhane”. SA no.4:48-61. van Loon M.N. 1963. “Excavations in Northwest Iran. 1962”. Persica. 1:18-33. 1970. “Korucutepe near Elazığ, 1969”. Anat St. 20:9-11. 290 1971. “Korucutepe near Elazığ, 1970”. Anat St. 21:17-19. 1973. “The Excavations at Korucutepe, Turkey, 1968-70: Preliminary Report. Part I: Architecture and General Finds. JNES. 32:357-376. van Loon. M.N. and Buccellati, G. 1968. “The l968 Excavations at Korucutepe near Elazığ”. TAD. 17 no.1:79-81 van Loon. M.N. and Gütterbock, H. 1969. “The l969 Excavations at Korucutepe near Elazığ”. TAD. 18 no.1:123-8 van Loon. M.N. and Buccellati, G. 1970. “Şikago ve Kalifornia Üniversiteleri 1968 Korocutepe Kaziısı Raporu. The University of Chicago-California Excavations at Korucutepe – 1968” Keban 1:73-87 (Turkish), 89-102 (English ). van Loon. M.N. and Guterbock. H.G. 1970. “The 1970 Excavation at Korucutepe near Elazığ”. TAD 19 no.1:127-32 1971. “Korucutepe Kazısı1969. Mimari ve Genel Buluntular. Korucutepe Excavations, 1969. Architecture and General Finds”. Keban. 3:47-57 (Turkish). 59-69 (English ). 1972. “Korucutepe Kazısı, 1970. Korucutepe Excavations, 1970”. Keban 4:79-81 (Turkish). 83-85 (English ). van Loon, M.N. (ed.). 1978. Korucutepe. Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia, 1968-1970. Vol. 2 (Studies inAncient Civilization). Amsterdam. von der Osten, H.H. 1929a. Explorations in Central Anatolia Season of 1926 (OIP V). Chicago. 1937. The Alishar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930-32. vols. I-II (OIP XXVII, XIX). Chicago. Wattenmaker, P. 1994."State formation and the organizationof domestic craft production at third millenniu B.C. Kurban Höyük, southeast Turkey." In Archaeological views from the countryside: Village communities in early complex societies, Schwartz, G. & Falconer, S.E. 109-120. Washington, D.C. Wheatley, D. 1995. “Cumulative Viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological applications”. In Locke, G. and Stančič, Z. eds.Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. London Weidner, E. “1952-3. Arslan Tepe ”. AfO. 16:151-152. Weiss, H. 1986. “The origins of Tell Leilan and the conquest of space in 3rd millennium Mesopotamia”. In The Origins of cities in Dry-farming Syria. Ed. Harvey Weiss. Guilford. p. 71-108 291 1990. "Tell Leilan 1989: New Data for mid-third millennium urbanization and state formation." M.D.O.G. 122: 193-218. Weiss, H. & Courty M-A. 1993. "The Genisis and Collapse of the Akkadian Empire: The Accidental Refraction of Historical Law." In Akkad, the First World Empire, Liverani, M. 131-155. Padua. Weiss, H. and Young, T.C. Jr. 1975. “The Merchants of Susa, Godin V and PlateauLowland Relations in the Late Fourth Mittennium B.C”. Iran. 13:1-17. Whallon. R. Jr. 1979. An Archaeological Survey of the Keban Reservoir Area of East-Central Turkey.(Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, no. 11) Ann Arbor. Whallon, R. Jr. and Kantman, S. 1970. “Keban Baraji Su Birikim Alanı Yüzey Arastırması. The Survey of the Keban Dam Reservoir, 1967”. Keban. 1:1-6 (Turkish), 7-12 (English ). Wijnen, M. 1972-74. “Excavations in Iran, 1967-72”. Persica. 6:51-93. Wilkinson, T. 1997. “The history of the Lake of Antioch: A preliminary note”. In Crossing boundaries and linking horizons: Studies in honour of Michel C. Astour. G. Young, M. Chavalas, and R.E. Averbock eds. Bethesda. p. 557-76 2003. Archaeological landscapes of the Near East. Tuscon Woolley, Sir C. L. 1953. A Forgotten Kingdom. Being a Record of the Results Obtained from the Excavations of Two Mounds, Atchana and Al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay. Harmondsworth. Wright, H. 1994. “Prestate Political Formations”. In Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complxity. G. Stein and M. Rothman eds. Madison. p. 67-84 Wright, G.E. 1937. The Pottery of Palestine From the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. (ASOR, Publications of the Jerusalem School Vol.I). New Haven. 1963. “Review of R.J. Braidwood and L.S. Braidwood 1960. Excavations in the Plains of Antioch I, The Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J (OIP vot. LXI)”.JNES. 22:282-284. Yadin, Y. et at. 1961. Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958. Jerusalem. Yadin, Y. 1976. “Hazor”. EAEHL. 11:474-495. Yakar, J. 1975. “Northern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age”. Tel Aviv. 2:133-145. 1985. The Later Prehistory of Anatolia. 268(i). BAR International. Oxford: BAR. 292 1986. “A revised Early Bronze Age chronology and terminology for Anatolia”. Türk Tarıh Kongresi 9, Kongreye Sunulan Bildirlir I. 9/9:97-108 1989. "The So-called Anatolian Elements in the Late Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Age Cultures of Palestine: A question of Ethnocultural Origins." L'urbanisation de la Palestine a L'age du Bronze Ancien, Pierre de Miroschedji. Oxford, BAR International Series. . Actes du Colloque d'Emmaus (20-24 Oct. 1986). 1990. “The Chronology of the Transcaucasian-East Anatolian Early Bronze Age”. EI. 21:94-100 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia. Rural socio-economy in the bronze and iron ages. 17. Tel Aviv University Monograph series. Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University, Sonia & Marco Nadler Institute of archaeology. Yakar, J. and Gürsan-Satzmann, A. 1978. “The Provinces of Malatya and Sivas”. Expedition. 20:59-62. 1979. “Archaeological Survey in the Malatya and Sivas Provinces – 1977”. Tel Aviv. 6:34-53. Yeivin, S. 1952. “Archaeological News. Near East (Supplement): Israel September 1950 October 1951”. AJA. 56:141-143. Yener, A. 1980. Third Millennium B.C. Interregional Exchange in Southwest Asia with Special Reference to the Keban Region of Turkey. (Ph.D., Cotumbia). 1982. "A review of interregional exchange in southwest Asia: The Neolithic Obsidian Network, the Assyrian trading colonies, and a case for third millennium B.C. trade." Anatolica 9: 33-75. Yener, K.A., Wilkinson, T.J., Branting, S., Friedman, E., Lyon, J., and Reichel, C. 1996. “The 1995 Oriental Institute Amuq Regional Projects”. Anatolica. 22:49-84 Yener, K.A., Edens, C., Harrison, T.P., Verstraete, J., Wilkinson, T.J. 2000. “The Amuq Valley Regional Project 1995-1999”. AJA. 104:163-220 Young, T.C. Jr. 1966. “Survey in Western Iran, 1961”. JNES 25:228-239. 1969a. Excavations at Godin Tepe : First Progress Report (ROM, Art and Archaeology, Occasional Paper 17). Toronto. 1969b. “The Chronology of the Late Third and Second Millennia in Central Western Iran as seen from Godin Tepe ”. AJA 73:287-291. 2004. “The Kangavar Survey: Periods Vi-IV” In A view from the highlands. Sagona, A. ed. Leuven. pp. 645-60 293 Young, T.C. Jr. and Levine, L.D. 1974. Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report (ROM, Art and Archaeology, Occasional Papers 26). Toronto. Zelinsky, W. 1971. “The hypothesis of the mobility transition”. The Geographical Review. 61: 219-249 Zhorzhikashvili, L.G. and Gogadze, E.M. 1974. Pamĭatniki Trialeti epokhi ranneiĭ i sredneĭ bronzy. (raskopki 1936-1940, 1947-1948). Tbilisi Zimansky, Paul E. 1982Ecology & Empire: The Structure of the Urartian State. OIP 41. Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago. Zimbalist, (Zori), N. 1946. “Kishon and Kishyon”. BJPES. 13:32. 294 Appendix A: Site Catalogue Introduction to the Site Database One can not help but to stand on the shoulders of giants when undertaking a work such as this database. A. Sagona initially constructed this database with the aim of “presenting evidence for the identification of those sites and references to material they have yielded” (1984:195). The database originally comprised of 471 sites throughout the entire Near East, with a brief site description, listing of administrative zone, a map reference, a brief description of the material found, and a bibliography for each site. It would be an impossible task to attempt to completely start the database anew, and no attempt has been tried. What is found below is a copy, re-engeniering and updating of Sagona’s ground-breaking work. The database was converted into an electronic format, and the maps provided by Sagona were georeferenced and used to create a new GIS format for the site catalogue. Where possible, site locations were verified by either GPS coordinates obtained by myself or acquaintances, verification with original site maps, the TAY Database (Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2002) or the use of SPOT and Landsat satellite images. A total of 181 new sites have been added to his gazetteer, many of which have been the result of newer surveys, or publications that had emerged after the publication of Sagona’s work. This work was significantly expedited through the use of the TAY Database26, and whose tremendous work I would like to acknowledge. As a result of the GIS format, some retooling of the catalogue has emerged. First, the GIS format of the database has allowed for coordinates for each site to be included in the catalogue. Coordinates are in decimal degree format, and are only to be taken as approximate, ranging in error from a few meters to possibly a few kilometers due to the georeferencing scale of the data. Having the coordinates has allowed for the field of ‘administrative district’ to be truncated significantly, removing redundant data. Second, the database contains any site that produces ETC wares, from isolated finds to general abundance, a classification system was established to allow the data to be analyzed on different levels based on the find 295 contexts. Class one sites represent settlements that have produced almost entirely ETC wares, class two sites are ones that have a relative abundance, but are a mixed assemblage with local wares. Class three represents sites that only produce a few examples (ones that Sagona had initially marked with an asterisk), and class four represent burial contexts. Site and material descriptions were copied verbatim from Sagona, with the occasional updates, and the addition of site size data where available. I have attempted to update the bibliography as much as possible, again as with Sagona, with preference given to primary sources, and organized in chronological order. In addition to the catalogue, is a brief list organizing the sites in alphabetical order. 26 The TAY Database is an tremendous resource, a searchable database that contains almost all excavated and surveyed sites in Turkey. It can now explored online in English, but at present only from the Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age. It can be viewed at: http://tayproject.eies.itu.edu.tr/enghome.html 296 Site Catalogue Site Site name 1 Administrative District Koreti Georgia: Sachkherskiĭ Site Class 4 Site size: 0 Easting: 43.4363 Northing: 42.34927 Material Description Grave goods. Kurgan consisting of multiple graves. Located near the village, close to the town of Sachkhere. Bibliography Kuftin 1949, 79-82; figs. 32, 33:2; pls: LXVI-LXIX Dzhaparidze 1955, 82; p1s. XII-XIII, XVI-XIX reported tocome from Sachkhere, but are not assigned to a specific site within the town. Dzhaparidze 1961, 135-140,277,279; figs-27-31.32:2, 36, 37-1, 39-40; pls. XVIII-XXII, Sagona 1984:200 Site Site name 2 Administrative District Narcherkezevi Georgia: Sachkherskiĭ Site Class 4 Site size: 0 Easting: 43.4566 Northing: 42.34959 Material Description Grave goods. Cemetery consisting of twenty-seven graves Located within the town of Sachkhere. Bibliography Kuftin 1941, fig. H. Kuftin 1949, 64-67. OM. Dzhaparidze 1955. 82;- pls. XII-XIII. XVI-XIX are reported to come from Sachkhere, but are not assigned to a specific site within the town. Dzhaparidze 1961, 124-131. 277-282; figs. 21-24; pls. IX-XIV, Sagona 1984:200 Site Site name 3 Administrative District Tsartsis Gora Georgia: Sachkherskiî Site Class 4 Site size: 0 Easting: 43.4416 Northing: 42.3357 Material Description Grave goods. Cemetery consisting of at least two graves Located within the town of Sachkhere. Bibliography Kuftin 1949. 64-79; figs. 28. 30-31, (?) 33:3;pls. LIV-LXV. Dzhaparidze 1955, 82; pls. XII-XIII. XVI-XIX are reported to come from Sachkhere, but are not assigned to a specific site within the town. Dzhaparidze 1961, 131-135, 277-281; figs. 25-26 38-pls. XV-XVII, Sagona 1984:200 Site Site name 4 Administrative District Kharakhtini Georgian: Sachkherskiĭ Site Class 1 Site size: 0 Easting: 43.4551 Northing: 42.34088 Material Description A thin deposit. Flat Settlement. Located within the town of Sachkhere. Bibliography Sagona 1984:201 Site Site name 5 Administrative District Aargveti Georgian: Sachkherskiĭ Site Class 1 Site size: 0 Easting: 43.5016 Northing: 42.29318 Material Description A shallow deposit. Flat Settlement. Located on the south bank of the Kvirila river, south-east of Sachkhere. Bibliography Sagona 1984:201 Site Site name 6 Administrative District Nuli Georgia: Iugo-Osetinskaia Site Class 4 Site size: 0 Easting: 43.9728 Northing: 42.26503 Material Description Grave goods. east of Tskhillvali (Staliniri). Cemetery. Located between the two branches of the Lîakhvi river, north- Bibliography Dzhaparidze 1961, 271. Sagona 1984:201 Site 7 Site name Administrative District Zarina Republic of Georgia 297 Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 43.9815 Northing: 42.24776 Material Description Grave goods. east of Tskhillvali (Staliniri). Cemetery. Located between the two branches of the Lîakhvi river, north- Bibliography Sagona 1984:201 Site Site name 8 Administrative District Kulbakebi Georgia: Îugo-Osetinskafa Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.0001 Northing: 42.24052 Material Description A one or two strata settlement Small Mound. Situated near the village of Osprisi, and the sites of Kulokhom and Zguderis. Located on the west bank of the Malaya Liakhvi river. Bibliography Dzhaparidze 1955, 20-21; pls. V-VIII, Dzhaparidze 1961, 21-48, 269-272; figs. 1-6; pls. I-II, Sagona 1984:202 Site Site name 9 Administrative District Kulokhom Georgia: Îugo-Osetinskafa Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9867 Northing: 42.22548 Material Description A thin deposit. Flat Settlement. Situated near the village of Osprisi, and the sitesof Kulbakebi and Zguderis. Located on the west bank of the Malaya Liakhvi river. Bibliography Dzhaparidze 1955, 21, Dzhaparidze 1961, 21-48, 270-272, Sagona 1984:202 Site Site name 10 Administrative District Zguderis Georgia: Îugo-Osetinskafa Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.0121 Northing: 42.23072 Material Description A thin deposit. Flat Settlement. Situated near the village of Osprisi, and the sites of Kulbakebi and Kulokhom. Located on the west bank of the Malaya Lîakhvi river. Bibliography Kuftin 1947, 69, Dzhaparidze 1955, 20-21, Dzhaparidze 1961, 19-25, 269-272; fig. 8:1-6; p1. VIII: 2-3, 6-8, Sagona 1984:202 Site Site name 11 Administrative District Natsar Gora Georgia: Îugo-Osetinskafa Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9937 Northing: 42.19455 Material Description A thin Kura-Araks stratum and Grave goods. Site consists of a flat settlement and five graves. Located between the two branches of the Lîakhvi river, ca. 5 km. east of Tskhillvali (Staliniri). Bibliography Tushishviti 1951, Dzhaparidze 1961, 273, Sagona 1984:202-3 Site Site name 12 Tkviavi Administrative District Georgia: Goriskiĭ Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.0448 Northing: 42.14671 Material Description Grave goods. Three kurgans ca. l-2m high and 18-20 m in diameter consisting of multiple graves. Located on the east bank of the Malaya Liakhvi river, ca. l0 km. south-east of Tskhillvali (Staliniri). Bibliography Makalatiia 1943, Sagona 1984:203 298 Site Site name 13 Didi Akhali Sopeli Administrative District Georgia: Goriiskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.7985 Northing: 41.99736 Material Description Surface finds. Settlement. Located near the town of Shavsopeli, on the east bank of the Dzoma river, a tributary of the Kura. Bibliography Ozhdpandze 1961, 270-271, Sagona 1984:203 Site Site name 14 Khikanaant Gora Administrative District Georgia: Goniskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9922 Northing: 42.02946 Material Description Levels E-B Small mound ca. 4m. H1gh. Located within the town of Urbnisi, ca. 8.5km. West of Gori on the north bank of the Kura river. Bibliography Kikvidze 1966, 21-25, Kikvidze 1972, Sagona 1984:203 Site Site name 15 Kvatskhelebi Administrative District Georgia: Goriiskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: Northing: 44.0125 42.021 Material Description Levels C3-B1 and graves goods Medium mound ca. 160x140x3m. Lower slopes, ca. 80x8üx3m. Upper slopes. Situated within the town of Urbnisi, ca. 8km. West of Gori on the north bank of the Kura river. The site was completely dug away. Bibliography Dzhavakhiskvili and Glonti 1962, Sagona 1984:203-4 Site Site name 16 Urbnisi Administrative District Georgia: Goniskiĭ Site Class Site size: Material Description Grave goods. Cemetery. Located within the town. 4 Easting: 44.0328 Northing: 42.01625 Bibliography Chilashvili 1964, 8-24; fig. 4, pls. I, II:2, III-VIII, Sagona 1984:204 Site Site name 17 Kvernaki Administrative District Georgia: Goniskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface finds. Small Mound. Located within the town of Gori. Easting: 44.0971 Northing: 41.9822 Bibliography Sagona 1984:204 Site Site name 18 Material Gudabertka Administrative District Georgia: Goriiskii Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.1423 Northing: 42.02235 Description Large settlement with cyclopean walls, built on a natural hill, Located ca. 4km, north-east of Gori presently under excavation. Poorly excavated in the early part of this century by a team from Gori. Bibliography Amiranashvili and Nadimashvili 1961, Amiranashvili and Nadimashvili 1962, Sagona 1984:204 299 Site Site name 19 Administrative District Uplisitskhe (Lashe) Georgia: Mtskhetskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.2100 Northing: 41.97586 Material Description Surface finds. Medium Settlement. Located near the modern town, ca. 10 km east of Gori on the north bank of the Kura. Bibliography Sagona 1984:204-5 Site Site name 20 Administrative District Khovle Georgia: Mtskhetskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.2641 Northing: 41.93294 Material Description Grave goods. Single grave. Located on the south bank of the Kura. Bibliography Sagona 1984:205 Site Site name 21 Administrative District Abastumani Georgia: Akhaltsikhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.9558 Northing: 41.73575 Material Description Surface finds. Chance find of a jar near the village of the same name. Bibliography Sagona 1984:205 Site Site name 22 Administrative District Adi Geni Georgia: Akhaltsikhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.9060 Northing: 41.67047 Material Description Surface sherds. Settlement. Located north-west of Akhaltsikhskiî. Bibliography Chubinishvili, Tatishvili and Gambasnidze 1957, fig. l, Sagona 1984:205 Site Site name 23 Administrative District Amiranis Gora Georgia: Akhaltsikhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.0473 Northing: 41.6917 Material Description Settlement and Grave goods.The stratigraphy is very confused; see Sagona 1984 A complex site which descends in terraces along a mountain slope covering an area ca. 3 hectares. Located on the left bank of the Potskhovi river a tributary of the Kura. Plain to the north-east. Bibliography Chubinishvili :1959, Chubinishvili :1960, Chubinishvili :1961, Chubinishvili :1962, Chubinishvili :1963 a, Chubinishvili :1963 b, Chubinishvili :1964, Chubinishvili :1966, Chubinishvili :1971a, 55-74, Chubinishvili :, Tatishvili and Gambashidze 1957, 122; figs, l, 3:4, Sagona 1984:205-6 Site Site name 24 Administrative District Zveli Georgia: Akhaltsikhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.1222 Northing: 41.59353 Material Description Only a thin layer of Kura-Araks occupation remained Site has been lost completely destroyed. It consists of a settlement and several graves. Located on the south bank of the Kura. Bibliography Chubinishvni, Tatishvili and Gambashidze 1957, 118; figs. 1, 3:3, Sagona 1984:206 Site 25 Site name Dumeila Administrative District Georgia: Akhaltsikhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.2327 Northing: 41.37282 Material Description Surface sherds; the site appears to consist of two Levels, the lower being Kura-Araks Stone terrace descending along a mountain slope. Situated ca. 6km. To the south-west of Vardzîa, near the village of Agara. in the Aspindz region.-on the right bank of the Dumeila river. 300 Bibliography Chubinishvili, Tatishviti and Gambashidze 1957, 120; fig. l (Agara), Sagona 1984:206 Site Site name 26 Administrative District Tmogvi Georgia: Akhaltsikhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.3339 Northing: 41.40395 Material Description Surface sherds. Settlement. Located near the village on the east bank of of the Kura, east of Vardzîa. Bibliography Chubinishvili, Tatishvili and Gambashidze 1957, 118; figs. L, 3:2, Sagona 1984:206-7 Site Site name 27 Administrative District Akhalkalaki Georgia: Akhalkalakskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.5224 Northing: 41.43545 Material Description Surface finds. Site consists of a medium mound and burials. Located near the town at the confluence of the Akhatkataki and Paravani rivers. Bibliography Bagrationi 1947, J31, Chubinishvili 1963b, 11-15, Ordzhom'kidze 1981, 6-10, Sagona 1984:207 Site Site name 28 Administrative District Okami Georgia: Akhalkalakskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.3556 Northing: 41.2983 Material Description Surface finds. Mound with cyclopean walls. Located near the village ca. 7km. From the east bank of the Kura river, and ca. 15km. South-east of Akhalkalaki. Bibliography Ordzhonikidze 1981, 9, Sagona 1984:207 Site Site name 29 Kushchi Administrative District Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9456 Northing: 41.63492 Material Description Surface finds. Flat Settlement. Located near the town of the same name on the east bank of a stream, ca. 5km. From the shore of the Tsalka reservoir. Bibliography Sagona 1984:207 Site Site name 30 Ozni (Guniia) Administrative District Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.0110 Northing: 41.64354 Material Description A thin stratum and a single grave. Flat settlement situated on the slope of a hill. Located south of the village of Nadar-Khan. Bibliography Kuftin 1948, 26-43; Site figs. 13-l 4 pls. XXVI-XLIV, Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974, 30-41, Sagona 1984:207-8 Site name 31 Trialeti Kurgans Administrative District Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.0325 Northing: 41.61759 Material Description Grave goods. from ca. tweîve kurgans which date to the late Kura-Araks period Forty-eight kurgans. Located in the district of Trialeti part of which is now submerged under the Tsalka reservoir. Bibliography Kuftin 1941, 101-105; figs. 107-114 CXI-CXIV, Gogadze 1970, Gogadze 1972, 97-103, Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974, 52-124, Sagona 1984:208 Site Site name Administrative District 301 Site Class 1 Easting: 44.0994 32 Beshtasheni Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Northing: 41.64975 Site size: Material Description Early Bronze Age deposits occur within the fortress and in its immediate vicinity. A Medieval fortress with cydopean walls Situated on a rocky outcrop at the confluence of the Gerîak-Chaîa and Bashkev-Su. Located ca. 500 m. north of the village. Bibliography Kuftin 1941, 108-118; figs. 116-117, 119, 122,TT;p1s. CXVI-CXXIV; Kuftin 1944b. 80, 107-113; figs. 38:3-5, 55:5-6, 57, 63:4,8, 11, 65:3, 70:1, pls. XXVII; Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974, 42-50, Sagona 1984:208 Site Site name 33 Administrative District Barmaksyz-Manglisi Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.0855 Northing: 41.61817 Material Description Two vessels. Single grave located between the villages of Barmaksyz and Manglisi. Bibliography Kuftin 1941, 117; fig. 126:9, b; pls. CXXV top row, CXXVI, Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974, 50, Sagona 1984:208-9 Site Site name 34 Administrative District Tash Bash Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.1262 Northing: 41.61598 Material Description Seven vessels. Single grave situated within a Roman and Sassanian Cemetery. The site also comprises a fortress of a later period. Located ca. 3km. east of Beshtasheni. Bibliography Kuftin 1941, 117; fig. 126:6; p1. CXXV: second row, left vessel, Zhorzhikashvili and Gogadze 1974, 50-51, Sagona 1984:209 Site Site name 35 Administrative District Khapik Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.1741 Northing: 41.59159 Material Description Kura-Araks sherds were found within the mound, but not in the actual burial chamber. Kurgan. Located near the modern village of the same name. Bibliography Gzelishvili 1950, 695; fig. 2:1, Sagona 1984:209 Site Site name 36 Administrative District Gomareti Georgia: Bolnisskiĭ Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface finds. Chance finds near the modern village. 1 Easting: 44.1940 Northing: 41.52108 1 Easting: 44.1775 Northing: 41.34413 Bibliography Mirfskhulava 1975a, pls. XLII, Sagona 1984:209 Site Site name 37 Administrative District Dmanisi Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface finds. Medieval site with a scattering of Kura-Araks sherds. Located near the modern town on the north bank of the Mashavera river. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, p1. XXX:6, Sagona 1984:209-10 Site 38 Material Site name Grmakhevistavi Administrative District Georgia: Bolnisskiî Description 302 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.2321 Northing: 41.34468 The Kura-Arak occupation comprises one hundred pits and four burials. Flat settlement and cemetery belonging mainly to the tater periods. Located east of Dmanisi. Bibliography Abramishvili and Gofsiridze 1978, fig. 14, Abramishvili,Giguashvili and Kakhiani 1980, 25-88;figs. 1-66; pls. I-V, Sagona 1984:210 Site Site name 39 Tetri Tskaro Administrative District Georgia: Tetrifskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.4730 Northing: 41.55622 Material Description Found in both strata A and B, and in the kurgan. A small two strata mound, c a. 50x50 m., and a kurgan. Situated l,200 m. Above sea level in the Chivchiva river valley. Bibliography Tushishviti 1959, Iiobedzhishvili 1978, Sagona 1984:210 Site Site name 40 Samshviloe Administrative District Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5278 Northing: 41.54483 Material Description In all the burials and the settlement. Site consists of a two strata settlement and a cemetery of thirtythree burials. Located near the village of the same name on the east bank of a tributary of the Khrami river. Bibliography Mirtŝkhulava 1969a, Mirtŝkhulava 1969b, Mirtŝkhulava 1972, Mirtŝkhulava 1975a, Mirtŝkhulava 1975b, Mirtŝkhulava 1979, Sagona 1984:210 Site Site name 41 Arukhlo Administrative District Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7008 Northing: 41.50402 Material Description Possible ‘proto’ Kura-Araks type pottery occurs in the upper levels Flat Settlement. Located on the east bank of the Khrami river ca. 8km. west of Marneuli. Bibliography Sagona 1984:211 Site Site name 42 Tsinvali Administrative District Georgia: Dushetskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.6746 Northing: 42.01384 Material Description A thin stratum consisting of multiple pits Flat Settlement. Located near the modern town on the left bank of the Argavi river, ca. 38km. north of Mtskheta. Bibliography Sagona 1984:211 Site Site name 43 Dzagina Administrative District Georgia: Pushetskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.7778 Northing: 42.00385 Material Description Grave goods. Cemetery comprising two sectors: an Eastern and Western . Located on the east bank of the Aragvi river. Bibliography Pzhaparidze 1955, 91; pls. XV, Dzhaparidze 1961, 203-208, 282; fig. 44; pls. XXIII-XXIV, Sagona 1984:211 Site Site name 44 Bageneti Administrative District Georgia: Mfskhetskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.6938 Northing: 41.8582 Material Description Surface finds. Surface find.(spear-head). Within the city of Mtskheta, located at the confluence of the Kura and Aragvi rivers. 303 Bibliography Pzhaparidze 1961. 280; fig. 34, Sagona 1984:211 Site Site name 45 Administrative District Zemoavchala Georgia: Gardabanskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7878 Northing: 41.82855 Material Description Unstratified finds collected during a rescue operation conducted after the site was destroyed. Chance finds. Located near the modern town, on the east bank of the Kura, ca. 10 km. south-east of Mtskheta. Site has been completely destroyed. Bibliography Dzhaparidze 1961, 272, Sagona 1984:212 Site Site name 46 Administrative District Didube Georgia: Gardabanski Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7930 Northing: 41.79848 Material Description Unstratified vessels salvaged after most of the site was destroyed. Probable Flat settlement completely dug away in the course of modern building Operations. Located within the modern city of Tblisi, on the right side of the road to Mtskheta, just north of Treli. Bibliography Kuftin 1941, 106-107, 115; fig. 123, Kuftin 1944b, 89-90; fig. 48; pls. XXII:1-2,Koridze 1955a, 11-23; pls. I-XIU,Koridze 1955b, 1-5; pls. 1-2, Sagona 1984:212 Site Site name 47 Administrative District Treli (Digomi) Georgia: Gardabanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7348 Northing: 41.78548 Material Description A shallow deposit of pits. Flat Settlement. Located within the modern city of Tbilisi, on the left side of the road to Mtskheta, just south of Didube. Bibliography Abramishvili and Gofsiridze, 1978, 34-47, Abramishvili et al. 1978, 471, Sagona 1984:212 Site Site name 48 Administrative District Kiketi Georgia: Gardabanskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.6958 Northing: 41.64403 Material Description Grave goods. Cemetery Site consisting of at least thirty burials and six pits covering an area of 1200 m . Located on the west bank of AsuretiTskali a tributary of the Algeti river near the town of Asureti Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 86-99; fig. 47, 55:1-4, pls. XX:3, 5, 6: XXI, Pkhakadze 1963, Pkhakadze 1964, Sagona 1984:212-3 Site Site name 49 Administrative District Nakhnorebis-Chala Georgia: Tetrifskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.6285 Northing: 41.63972 Material Description Grave goods. Site consists of three kurgans. The largest kurgan (no.3) measured ca. 6x4cm. Located on the 1eft bank near the middle Algeti river. Close to Abelia. Bibliography Tushishviti 1965, R.D. Kvizhilladze and Z.G. Shatberashvili 1965, Chubinishvili 1971a, 44-45; pls. XIV:20, XV:5, Sagona 1984:213 Site 50 Site name Administrative District Abelia Georgia: Tetritskharoiskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.6603 Northing: 41.61635 Material Description From both the single stratum settlement and the cemetery. Site consists of a Flat settlement situated on the slopes of a hill, and a small Cemetery. Located in Kvemo Kartli plain on the right bank of the Algeti river. 304 Bibliography Kvizhilladze and Shatberashvili 1965:29, Chubinishvili 1971a. 42-44; pls. 11:6. X:28. XV:3, XX:22-23, Sagona 1984:213 Site Site name 51 Administrative District Koda Georgia: Bolnisski Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7735 Northing: 41.61694 Material Description Grave goods. Site comprises a settlement which is much disturbed, and a cemetery. Located near the modern town. Bibliography Tushishviti et al. 1971, 63-64, Pkhakadze 1972, 457-458, Pkhakadze 1976, 45-48, Sagona 1984:213 Site Site name 52 Aroas-Ubani Administrative District Georgia: Gurdzhaanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: Northing: 44.8105 41.57 Material Description Found in both the settlement and the graves Flat settlement and a few graves. Near the village of the same name located at the confluence of the Bogvi and Algeti river. Bibliography Tushishviti 1964, 11-14, Sagona 1984:214 Site Site name 53 Tamarisi Administrative District Georgia: Bofnisskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.7501 Northing: 41.46895 Material Description Grave goods. Single grave. Site may have once been a cemetery Bibliography Pkhakadze 1961, 342-345, Sagona 1984:215 Site Site name 54 Shula Veris Gora Administrative District Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7812 Northing: 41.39369 Material Description Grave goods. Site consisting of several mounds belonging mainly to the Neolithic period. A single kurgan (no.3) belongs to the Kura-Araks cuoture. Located on the west bank of the Shulaveri river, a tributary of the KhramiSite consisting of several mounds belonging mainly to the Bibliography Dzhaparidze 1975, 140-141; fig. 59:14-21; pls.XXXII-XXXIII, Sagona 1984:215 Site Site name 55 Gaitmazi Administrative District Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7547 Northing: 41.36215 Material Description Single stratum site Flat Settlement. Located to the south-west of Shulaveris Gora. Bibliography Glonti 1975, 129-134; fig. 55; p1. XXV, Sagona 1984:215 Site Site name 56 Dangreulis Gora Administrative District Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7863 Northing: 41.35053 Material Description Unstratified remains were coltected in a rescue operation Site was completely destroyed as a result of building operations. Located to the south of Shulaveris Gora. Bibliography Glonti 1975, 129-134; fig. 56; p1. XXVI, Sagona 1984:216 305 Site Site name 57 Administrative District Imiris Gora Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.8463 Northing: 41.37306 Material Description Possible ‘proto’ Kura-Araks pottery occurs in the upper levels A predominately Neolithic Mound. Located to the east of Shulaveris Gora Bibliography Sagona 1984:215 Site Site name 58 Administrative District Khramis Pipi (Gorakhramis) Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.8690 Northing: 41.32866 Material Description Grave goods. Medium mound belonging mainly to the Neolithic period. Also contained four graves of the Kura-Araks culture Located near the village of Kachagani ca. 12km. east of Shaumyani. Bibliography Sagona 1984:215 Site Site name 59 Administrative District Sapakhlo Georgia: Bolnisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7685 Northing: 41.24444 Material Description A three strata site with the lowest and middle levels belonging to the Kura-Araks. Small mound ca. 90x40x3m. Situated on a large promontory at the confluence of the Oebeda and Banush-Chai rivers. Located ca. 17km. north-east of Alaverdi. Bibliography Chubinishvili 1971a, 39-40, pls. 11:1, Sagona 1984:215 Site Site name 60 Administrative District Shaglama II (Shamlug) Armenia: Tumanîanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7262 Northing: 41.16438 Material Description In both the Upper and Lower teve'ls situated at Between 2040cm. and 40-80cm. Respectivety Fortified site ca. 177x160 m. Located ca. 6km. north-east of Alaverdi Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, 79; fig.15 (chance find of a jar at Shamtug), Esaîan 1976, 21-36, 268 site 2; pls. 8; 9:1-3, 6, 10-13 10:1-3, 7-8; 11; 12:1-3, 6-7, 9; 14; 15:110; 16:1-4, 17-19, Sagona 1984:216 Site Site name 61 Administrative District Shaglama III Armenia: Tumanîanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7859 Northing: 41.20135 Material Description One period site with a 70cm. cuttural deposit Fortified site. Located north of Shaglama IIFortified site. Located north of Shaglama II. Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 26-32, 269 site 3; pls. 18:1-6,9TT;19, Sagona 1984:216 Site Site name 62 Noemberiannoemberi Administrative District Armenia: Noemberfanskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Material Description Grave goods. Single grave(?). Located near the modern town. Easting: 44.9749 Northing: 41.17211 Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 100-101, 269; pls. 82:1, 3, Sagona 1984:216 Site Site name Administrative District 306 Site Class 1 Easting: 45.0238 63 Ozhaghatsatekh Armenia: Noemberfanskiî Northing: 41.12124 Site size: Material Description The homogeneous occupation deposit was 60cm. Thick and located between 80cm. and im. below the surface Flat settlement built on a natural Hill ca. 30 m high. Located south of Noemberîan, on the teft side of the road leading to Idzhevan. Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 17-21, 269 site l; pls. 1-7, Sagona 1984:216 Site Site name 64 Administrative District Baba Dervish l Azerbaidzhan: Kazakhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.4984 Northing: 41.0654 Material Description Levels I and II One of three mounds located near the town of Akstafa south of the Kura river and west of the Akstafa-Chai, one of its tributaries. Bibliography Narimanov and Ismailov 1962, 149-156, Ismailov 1963, Ismailov 1965, 54-63, Vaidov and Narimanov 1967, 48-61, Chubinishvili 1971a, 104-105; pls. 11:30, Sagona 1984:217 Site Site name 65 Administrative District Baba Dervish 2 Azerbaidzhan: Kazakhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.4719 Northing: 41.0445 Material Description Levels I--III One of three mounds located near the town of Akstafa, south of the Kura river and west of the Akstafa-Chai, one of its tributaries. Bibliography Narimanov and Ismailov 1962, 149-156, Chubinishvili 1971a, 100-104; p1. 11:30, Sagona 1984:217 Site Site name 66 Administrative District Baba Dervish 3 Azerbaidzhan: Kazakhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.5051 Northing: 41.04185 Material Description Surface sherds. One of three mounds located near the town of Akstafa, south of the Kura river and west of the Akstafa-Chai one of its tributaries Bibliography Chubinishvili 1971a, 10; p1. 11:30, Sagona 1984:217 Site Site name 67 Administrative District Osman Bozu Azerbaidzhan: Kazakhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.6157 Northing: 41.05999 Material Description Grave goods. Site consists of five kurgans, two of which are cenotaphs. Located in the Kazakh region east of Baba Oervish group of sites. Bibliography Sagona 1984:217 Site Site name 68 Administrative District Kechill Azerbaidzhan: Kazakhskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.6347 Northing: 41.03903 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Located 4-5km. South-west of Osman Bozu. Bibliography Sagona 1984:218 Site 69 Material Site name Administrative District Il'to Georgia: Akhmetakhiî Description 307 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.1405 Northing: 42.07484 A thin level survives consisting of a hearth and pits. Terraced site built on the natural Slope of a hill. The top part of the site was destroyed. Located in the Akhmet region in a bend of the Il'to river, a tributary of the Alazani river. Bibliography Dedabrishvili 1969, 66-67 Sagona 1984:218 Site Site name 70 Administrative District Sioni Georgia: Tiznefskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.0434 Northing: 41.95565 Material Description Possible ‘proto’ Kura-Araks pottery occurs in the Towest Level. Small mound, near the town of the same name. Situated on the east bank of the Iari river, ca. 30km. north-east of Mtskheta. Bibliography Menadbe and Kiguradze 1981, 7-33 Sagona 1984:218 Site Site name 71 Administrative District Baoaani Georgia: Tiznefskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.1588 Northing: 41.94274 Material Description Presentiy being excavated. A number of pits have already been exposed. Flat Settlement. Located just south of the village of Sakhodi. Bibliography Sagona 1984:218 Site Site name 72 Administrative District Gremi Georgia: Telavskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.4793 Northing: 41.96536 Material Description Surface finds. Terraced Settlement. Located to the north-east of Telavi. Bibliography Dedabrishvili 1969, 66-67 Sagona 1984:219 Site Site name 73 Alaverdi Administrative District Georgia: Telavskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.5602 Northing: 42.02533 Material Description Surface finds. Surface finds. Located on the north bank of a tributary of the Atazani river. Bibliography Dedabrishvili 1969, 67-72, Sagona 1984:219 Site Site name 74 Arashenda Administrative District Georgia:. Gurdzhaanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.6516 Northing: 41.73019 Material Description Surface finds. Flat Settlement. Located near the modern village, ca. 5km. Northeast of the site of Kachreti and ca. 10 km. south-west of Gurdzhaani. Bibliography Sagona 1984:219 Site Site name 75 Kachreti Administrative District Georgia: Gurdzhaanskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 45.6174 Northing: 41.69891 Material Description Grave goods. Kurgan with muitiple graves. Located near the modern village in the middle of the Iori-Atazani valley, ca. 15km. South-west of Gurdzhaani, excavated in 1979. Finds are as yet unpublished. 308 Bibliography Sagona 1984:219 Site Site name 76 Administrative District Bodbe Georgia: Gurdzhaanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.7212 Northing: 41.66459 Material Description A thin ashy layer Flat Settlement. Located ca. 10 km. south-west of Tsnori in the Iori-Atazani valley. Bibliography Dedabrishvili 1969, 72-75, Sagona 1984:220 Site Site name 77 Administrative District Khirsa Georgia: Signakhskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 46.1554 Northing: 41.51868 Material Description Grave goods. Single burial near the modern village of the same name. Bibliography Pitskhelauri 1965, 32-33; p1. II Sagona 1984:220 Site Site name 78 Administrative District Lugovoe Russian Federation: Checheno-Ingushetiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.9537 Northing: 43.02044 Material Description Grave goods. Mound and muitiple burials located on the west bank of the Assa river ca. 50km. east of Ordzhonikidze. Bibliography Munchaev 1961a, 135-137; fig. 47; pls. I, IX:16-23, 25; XIII: 1-3, XIV-XVII; XX, Munchaev 1961b, 63-65, Sagona 1984:220 Site Site name 79 Administrative District Novyi Arshti Russian Federation: Checheno-Ingushetiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 45.2362 Northing: 43.15253 Material Description Grave goods. Kurgan site. Located on the west bank of the Fortanga river. Bibliography Munchaev 1961a, 137-140; figs. 48-49; pls. XXI-XXIII Sagona 1984:220 Site Site name 80 Administrative District Bamut Russian Federation: Checheno-Ingushetiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 45.2033 Northing: 43.13032 Material Description Grave goods. Kurgan site. Located on the west bank of the Fortanga river. Bibliography Munchaev 1962 Sagona 1984:220-1 Site Site name 81 Serzhen Iurt Administrative District Checheno-Ingushetii A.S.S.R Site Class Site size: 4 Material Description Grave goods. Cemetery. Located ca. 8km. south-east of Shali. Easting: 45.9499 Northing: 43.08721 Bibliography Ia Merpert 1962. Ierusalimskaiiĭa,Kozenkova and Krupnov 1963, Kozenkova 1969 Sagona 1984:221 Site Site name Administrative District 309 Site Class 4 Easting: 44.8949 82 Dzhogaz Armenia: Idzhevanskiî Northing: 40.98679 Site size: Material Description Grave goods. A few graves; both earthen pits and stone-lined chambers. Located ca. 25km. west of Sevkar. Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 99, 269 site 62; p1. 82:10, Sagona 1984:221 Site Site name 83 Dzhupzhevan Administrative District Armenia: Idzhevanskif Site Class Site size: 4 Material Description Grave goods. Single grave. Located near the modern town. Easting: 45.1230 Northing: 40.87183 Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 99-100, 269 site 63; p1. 82:2 Sagona 1984:221 Site Site name 84 Mets-Chal Administrative District Armenia: Idzhevanskiî Site Class Site size: Material Description Grave goods. Single grave. Located east of Dilizhan. 4 Easting: 44.8734 Northing: 40.75534 4 Easting: 44.8456 Northing: 40.74841 Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 99, 269 site 60; p1. 82:7 Sagona 1984:221 Site Site name 85 Dilizhan Administrative District Armenia: Idzhevanskiî Site Class Site size: Material Description A few Kura-Araks vessels were found as a result of clandestine excavations by the local villagers. Early iron Age necropolis located near the modern town. Bibliography Esaîan 1976, 99, 269 site 59; pls. 82:9, 11, Sagona 1984:222 Site Site name 86 Tagavaranist Administrative District Armenia: Gugarkskiî Site Class 1 Site size: 5 Easting: 44.4840 Northing: 40.80575 Material Description Both the mound and the lower terrace have either two or three building levels. E. A. Baiburtian made a small 2x2m. trial trench in 1935. Mound with a lower terrace, ca. 40 m. High and covers an area of 5 hectares. Built on a natural hill and Situated on a natural promontory , it is the largest of the three sites in the Kirovakan plain. Located ca. 4-5km. From the ofher two sites. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, p1. XXX: l, 5, 7 (Takavoranast), Khanzadîan 1963b, Khanzadîan 1967, 74-75. Sardarian 1967, 196, 350; pls. LXIY:4, 6; LXVII: 3,5 Sagona 1984:222 Site Site name 87 Kösitchofer Administrative District Armenia: Gugarkskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5104 Northing: 40.79836 Material Description Sounded by E.V. Khanzadîan Mound. Located in the Kirovakan plain within 4-5km. of the ofher two sites. Bibliography Sagona 1984:222 Site Site name 88 Zhpanov Administrative District Armenia: Gugarkskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5367 Northing: 40.80617 Material Description Partially excavated by S. A. Sardarian who assigned Stratum II to the Early Bronze Age Mound. Located near the modern village in the Kirovakan plain within 4-5km. of the ofher two sites Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, figs. 16, 22; pls. XII: middle row, left; XXI: middle; XXII. All from Early soundings, Sagona 1984:222-3 310 Site Site name 89 Administrative District Zöhrap (Yalinçayır) Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 5km, south of Arpaçay Easting: 43.3462 Northing: 40.82159 Bibliography Kökten 1943b, map (p.612), Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 24 Sagona 1984:223 Site Site name 90 Administrative District Leninakan Armenia: Akhurîanskiî Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 43.8313 Northing: 40.77802 Material Description Chance find. Chance finds within the modern town. No site has yet been located. Bibliography Martirosian 1952, 87-97, Khanzadîan 1967, 77; pls. XIV: first row, left, Khachatrian 1975, 38; fig. 1, Sagona 1984:223 Site Site name 91 Administrative District Karnut Armenia: Akhurîanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9691 Northing: 40.79353 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Located on the slopes of a hill, ca. 13km. east of Leninakan. Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, figs. 23, 24, Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khachatrian 1975, 37, Sagona 1984:223 Site Site name 92 Arich (Artik) Administrative District Armenia: Artikskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9607 Northing: 40.6352 Material Description Only a few Early Bronze Age vessels were found. The site is mainly post Kura-Araks in date, and comprises a flat settlement and a large Cemetery. Site spreads across three terraces of a natural promontory . Located at the confluence of two rivers near the town. Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, 79, Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khachatrian 1975, 43-86; figs. 10-43, Khachatrian1979, for the cemetery finds, Sagona 1984:223-4 Site Site name 93 Ani Kalesi Administrative District Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.5713 Northing: 40.5307 Material Description Excavated by K. Balkan, but unpublished. Remains are in the Kars Museum. Medieval Armenian site within which is situated a Mound. Located on the west bank of the Araks river. Bibliography Kökten 1943b, map (p.612), Kökten 1944, map l site 17; map 2, Kuftin 1944b, pls. XVII:65 reported as coming from the Kars region, Kökten 1944/45, map 2, Sagona 1984:224 Site Site name 94 Azat Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.1486 Northing: 40.5291 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the village, ca. 7km. South of Kars. Bibliography Kökten 1943b, map (p.612), Kökten 1944, p1. XC:8; XCIV:1; map I site 18, Sagona 1984:224 Site Site name Administrative District 311 Site Class 1 Easting: 43.9236 95 Sarnaghpur Armenia: Amiîskiî Northing: 40.52159 Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Located on the slope of a hill, at the base of Mt. Aragats, ca. 8km. south-east of Maralik. Bibliography Sardarîan 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khachatrian 1975, 38, Sagona 1984:224 Site Site name 96 Administrative District Mastara Armenia: Talinskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Material Description Grave goods. Single tomb. Located near the modern town. Easting: 43.8742 Northing: 40.42963 Bibliography Sagona 1984:225 Site Site name 97 Administrative District Ardvi Armenia: Talinskiî Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 43.7933 Northing: 40.3876 Material Description Chance find. Chance find of a jar near the modern village located ca. 15km. south-west of Mastara. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, p1. XXVII:7-8, Khanzadîan, 1967; pls. XXI, Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:225 Site Site name 98 Administrative District Aragats (Arakhapze) Armenia: Talinskiî Site Class 1 Site size: 1.5 Easting: 43.6892 Northing: 40.33125 Material Description Unstratified finds. Mound, ca. 1-1.5 hectares now cornpletely destroyed. A few tombs Remain. Bibliography Martirosian 1964a, 42-47; figs. 10-14, Khanzadîan 1967, 76, 79-80. (Arakhadze), Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khachatrian 1974, 83-114, Sagona 1984:225 Site Site name 99 Administrative District Kötek Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 43.0813 Northing: 40.20598 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the modern village, ca. 15km. north-west of Kağizman Bibliography Kökten 1943b, map (p.612), Kökten 1944/45, map 2, Kökten 1947b, pls. LXXVH: site 26, Sagona 1984:225 Site Site name 100 Karhanki-Berd Administrative District Armenia: Ashtarakskiî Site Class 1 Site size 0.5ha Easting: 44.1425 Northing: 40.35413 Material Description A large surface collection which remains unpublished Hellenistic fortress below which lies an Early Bronze Age flat settlement ca. 1.5-2m. high and ca. 0.5 hectares in area. The site is built on a natural basalt outcrop. Bibliography Sagona 1984:226 Site Site name 101 Ozhanberp (South) Administrative District Armenia:Ashtarakskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.1929 Northing: 40.35926 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat settlement on the slope of a hill Situated ca. 1986m. above sea 312 Level. Bibliography Sagona 1984:226 Site Site name 102 Administrative District Persi (Bazmakn) Armenian S.S.R. Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Situated on the slope of a hill. Easting: 44.2494 Northing: 40.35075 Bibliography Sagona 1984:226 Site Site name 103 Administrative District Gazanots Armenia:Ashtarakskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.3584 Northing: 40.3184 Material Description Surface finds. Flat settlement situated on the slopes of a promontory. Located at the confluence of Kasakh river and one of its tributaries. Bibliography Sagona 1984:226 Site Site name 104 Administrative District Dovri Armenia: Nairiîskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5456 Northing: 40.33224 Material Description An Early Bronze Age deposit occurs at the base of the site. Urartian citadel situated on the slope of a hill. Located near the modern village ca. 20km. north of the Erevan. Bibliography Sagona 1984:226-7 Site Site name 105 Administrative District Lousakert Armenia: Nairiîskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5899 Northing: 40.35844 Material Description Surface finds. Flat settlement situated on a natural promontory . Located on the west bank of the Razdan river ca. 20km. north of Erevan. Bibliography Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:227 Site Site name 106 Administrative District Elar Armenia:Abovîanskiî Site Class 1 Site size: 10 Easting: 44.5898 Northing: 40.24711 Material Description A trial trench by E.V. Khanzadîan has revealed one building level and several graves belonging to the Early Bronze Age. Fortified site built on a rocky outcrop ca. 40-50 m. High and 10 hectares in area. Located near the modern village ca. 15km. northeast of Erevan. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 80, 101-103, 161-163;figs.38:6, 56, 57; p1. XX:4, XXII:4. XXVIII:1, Khanzadîan 1964e, Martirosian 1964a, 34-38; fig. 6, S. A. Sardarîan 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khanzadîan 1967, 16-18, 76-77; figs. 14, 19; pls. I, X,XII:2, XIV: middle row, XXIV: fourth row, Khanzadîan 1979, 23-59; pls. I-IX, Sagona 1984:227 Site Site name 107 Giamrez Administrative District Armenia: Abovîanskiî Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.6824 Northing: 40.20523 Description Flat Settlement. Situated on the slope of a hill. Located ca. 20km. north-east of Erevan. Bibliography Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:227 313 Site Site name 108 Aktamur (Akhtamir) Administrative District Armenia: Ashtarakskiî Site Class 1 Site size: 6 Easting: 44.2783 Northing: 40.24763 Material Description A few soundings were made by E.V. Khanzadîan in 1973. Early Bronze Age depo sits occur beneath the iron Age citadel. Finds remain unpublished. Mound, ca. 6 hectares in area; built on a natural hill and situated on the top of a cliff. Located ca. 1.5km. north of Franganots on the west bank of the Kasakh. Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, 77, Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites,Sagona 1984:228 Site Site name 109 Agdzhagala Administrative District Armenia:Echmîadzinskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.2223 Northing: 40.20292 Material Description A trial trench was dug by E.V. Khanzadîan. Finds remain Unpublished. Flat Settlement. Situated on sloping ground ca. 1.5km. west of Franganots. Bibliography Sagona 1984:228 Site Site name 110 Franganots Administrative District Armenia: Ashtarakskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.2664 Northing: 40.21253 Material Description Sounded by E.V. Khanzadîan in 1975(?). The published vessel , however, was a chance find. Mound. Located north of Echmiadzin on the west bank of the Kasakh river. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 110; fig. 64, Sardarian 1967, 199, 350; pls. LXVII:2. 4; map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:228 Site Site name 111 Shresh Blur Administrative District Armenia:Echmiadzinskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.3109 Northing: 40.17801 Material Description Site was excavated by E. La1 atan in 1913, and sherded by S. A. Sardarian during the Second Morid War. S.A. Sardarian assigned the Early Bronze Age to Stratum II, but his stratigraphical division of the site should be treated with caution. Mound, ca. 120x120x3.5m. Completely destroyed during the period between 1920-1936. Located north of Echmîadzin on the east bank of the Kasakh river. Bibliography Baiburtian 1937, Kuftin 1944b, 103-107; figs. 58-59, 60:1; 61, Khanzadîan 1967, 71-72; figs. 12, 20; pls. XVIII, first row; XIX; XX, Sardarian 1967, 171, 188, 193, 340-342. 350; pls. LII:2-3; LVIII:!; LXV; LXVII:1, 6; LXVIII:1, 3, Sagona 1984:228-9 Site Site name 112 Armavir Blur Administrative District Armenia: Oktemberianskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.0335 Northing: 40.04493 Material Description A small amount of unstratified material published by CT. Kuftin and now in the Tbilisi Museum. Urartian citadel. An Early Bronze Age site may have existed on the hill slope which was subsequently destroyed by the citadel. Located near the modern town, on the left bank of the Araks river. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 92-95; figs. 50, 51; pls. XVII:2-3, XX:2, XXIII, Khanzadîan 1965, Khanzadîan 1967, 79, Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:229 Site 113 Site name Arevik (Ghuzigiudan) Administrative District Armenia: Oktemberfanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.1097 Northing: 40.0535 Material Description Finds published by E.V. Khanzadîan are from the lowest occupational deposits. Mound, completely destroyed; some occupational deposits exist beneath the present surface level. Located ca. 10 km. east of Armavir. Bibliography 314 Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khanzadîan 1969bSardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khanzadîan 1969bSardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Khanzadîan 1969b, Sagona 1984:229 Site Site name 114 Sev Blur (Karatepe) Administrative District Armenia: Echmîadzinskiî Site Class 1 Site size: 1 Easting: 44.1697 Northing: 40.08311 Material Description A one period site attributed to the Early Bronze age. On the basis of a trial trench S.A. Sardarian reported that only Stratum II belonged to the Early Bronze Age. Sardarian, however, appears to have been in error Mound, ca. 3m. High and l hectare in area. Located south-west of Echmfadzin. Bibliography Sardarian 1967, 341-342, 350; map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:229-30 Site Site name 115 Metsamor Administrative District Armenia:Echmîadzinskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.2760 Northing: 40.09038 Material Description Presently being excavated by E.V. Khanzadîan who believes that the megalithic wall dates back to the Early Bronze Age reused in later periods. The Early Bronze Age architecture was founded on stone and comprised rectangular. Site fortified with megalithic wall is built around a natural tufa outcrop. An iron Age citadel once located on the top of the outcrop and was is now completely destroyed. The site al so contains two very large cemeteries of later periods. The-total area of the site is ca. 60 ha. Bibliography Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites; see abov, Khanzadîan 1973, 13-20, Sagona 1984:230 Site Site name 116 Mokhra Blur Administrative District Armenian S.S. R., Echmîadzinskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.3468 Northing: 40.11175 Material Description S.A. Sardarian’s Stratum II and G.E. Areshian's Levels 3-11. Mound 10 m. High. Located on the east bank of the Kasakh river south of Echmîadzin. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, fig. 54b, 65:2; p1. XXVIII:4-5, Khanzadîan 1967, 11; fig. 13; pls. XV; XVII, Sardarian 1967, 188, 348; pls. LXII:1-4; LXIII:1-3; map of Eneolithic sites, Areshian 1972a, Areshian 1972c, Areshian 1974a, Areshian 1978, Sagona 1984:230 Site Site name 117 Apablur Administrative District Armenia: Echmîadzinskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.3610 Northing: 40.08756 Material Description Only an andiron and two pots were found in the Early Bronze Age stratum which was 20-79cm. Thick and the topmost of four levels. Mound. Located on the west bank of the Kasakh river opposite Mokhra Blur. The top of the mound is heavily disturbed by a Hellenistic cemetery. Bibliography Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:231 Site Site name 118 Norabats Administrative District Armenia:Masisskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.4191 Northing: 40.10181 Material Description The site is all Early Bronze Age and comprises one building level with three sub-levels. Small mound ca. im. High. Built on a natural hill located just south of Erevan. Bibliography Sagona 1984:231 Site Site name 119 Shengavit Administrative District Armenia:Amasiîskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.4764 Northing: 40.13088 Material Description Strata II-IV as differentiated by S.A. Sardarian. only the material recovered by Baiburtian has been published Mound, ca. 400x300 m. Surrounded by a megalithic wall. Located on the left bank of the Razdan river within the modern city of Erevan Bibliography Baiburtian 1938a, Baiburtian 1938b, Kuftin 1944b. 113-120, figs. 60:2-4; 62; 63:1-3, 5-7, 9-10;65:4-5; 67-69; 70:9. 11; 71-75; pls. XXVIII:6-9; XXX:2-4. 8, 315 Piofrovskiî 1949b, 171, Esaîan 1964, 47-52; pls. I-IV, Esaîan 1967, 75-81. pls. I-V, Khanzadîan 1967, 8-11. 73-78; figs. L. 11, 17. 26. 27; pls. XI, XII:1, XIII, XVIII, XXIII, Sardarian 1967, 168-208, 340-348, chart between 179-180; figs. 19, 20; pls. XLIX: l, 4. 5; L:l-2. 4-5; LI; LIII;LVÎ:1-3. 5-6; LVÎI; LVII:2-5; LIX; LX; LXI; LXII:5; LXIV:1.2. 7; LXIII:3; LXIX., Map of Eneolithic sites, Sardarian 1971, 260-266, Sagona 1984:231 Site Site name 120 Administrative District Mukhannath Tapa Armenia:Amasiîskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5085 Northing: 40.14029 Material Description Excavated by E. A. Baiburtian; finds remain largely unpublished. Flat settlement situated on the slope of a hill. Located on the northern outskirts of Erevan. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 120-123; figs. 70:7; 76-78, Sagona 1984:232 Site Site name 121 Administrative District Garni Armenia: Abovîanskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7310 Northing: 40.11678 Material Description A trial trench has been dug into the Early Bronze Age deposit by E.V. Khanzadîan which revealed one building level with two to three sublevels. The fortified Early Bronze Age settlement lies underneath the Classical site. Situated on a natural promontory at the foot of the Gegam mountains near Mt. Gekh where the Azat river flows into a deep gorge. Bibliography Arakifan 1951, 15-16, fig. 4-6, Khanzadîan 1967, 15-16, 76, Khanzadîan 1969a, Sardarîan 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:232 Site Site name 122 Administrative District Zhrakhovit Armenia: Artashatkiî Site Class 1 Site size: 2.5 Easting: 44.5050 Northing: 40.06352 Material Description Presently being excavated by E.V. Khanzadîan. Mound, ca. 2.5 hectares in area. Located ca. 8km. south of Erevan. Bibliography Sagona 1984:232 Site Site name 123 Administrative District Dvin Armenia: Artashatskiî Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.5754 Northing: 40.00786 Description The large medieval city, which is now fully excavated, has Large mound consisting of a central mound and two lower terraces, been the main concern of the four generations of ca. 30 m. High and 8 hectares in area. The large mediaeval city is archaeologists who have worked on the site. In the central divided by a moat. The modern village is situated on top of the mound a trial trench revealed that immediately below the lowest terrace. Located ca. 15km. south of Erevan. Medieval strata, was a 6-8 m early Iron Age deposit. A 10 cm sterile Layer separated the Iron Age from the EBA. Only the top most layer of the EBA has been excavated. It is estimated the EBA deposits may be as deep as 20 m. Only a few vessels have so far been recovered, all of which remain unpublished. Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, 76; pls. XVIII, Sardarian 1967, pls. LXVI:2; map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:232-3 Site Site name 124 Vedi (Ararat) Administrative District Armenia: Araratskiî Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7248 Northing: 39.88144 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. -Situated on the slope of a hill near the modern town of Verdi. Bibliography Sagona 1984:233 Site Site name 125 Gaçardoğansalı Administrative District Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 15km. north-east of Iğdir. 316 Easting: 44.2305 Northing: 39.95828 Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 29, Sagona 1984:233, Site Site name 126 Administrative District Gökçeli (Gökcealı) Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.2106 Northing: 39.93524 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the modern village ca. 15km. north-east of Iğdir. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, pls. LXXVII site 28 .Gokçeali), Burney 1958. 187; 191 sherds 127. 132. 134. 146. 153. 155-156; 192 map 11 site 319, Russell 1980, 139 site 319, Sagona 1984:233 Site Site name 127 Administrative District Iğdır (Malaklu) Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.1488 Northing: 39.90257 Material Description Surface sherds. Site consists of a mound ca. 350x250 m. With a lower spur ca. 275x25m. to the north-east. A cemetery ca. 600x175m. is located to the south of the mound and severed from the mound by a road. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 73-84; figs. L, 34-37, 38:1-2; pls. XV-XVI, XVII:4,6-8, Khanzadîan 1967, 7, Sagona 1984:234 Site Site name Administrative District 128 Yaycı Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.1225 Northing: 39.93572 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the village ca. 7km. North-west of Iğdi. Bibliography Kökten 1944/45, map 2, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 27, Burney 1958, 187, 191 sherds 124-126, 128-131, 133, 135-145, 147, 149-152, 154; 192 map II site 318, Russell 1980, 139 site 31, Sagona 1984:234 Site Site name 129 Karaköse Administrative District Turkey: Ağrı Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the town. 1 Easting: 43.1477 Northing: 39.71682 Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 95, Sagona 1984:234 Site Site name 130 Administrative District Yıgıntepe Turkey: Ağrı Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.1109 Northing: 39.74355 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, surrounded by modern village. Located ca. 10 km. northwest of Karaköse. Bibliography Burney 1958, 187; 192 map II site 314, Russell 1980, 139 site 31, Sagona 1984:234 Site Site name 131 Administrative District Muşurı Turkey: Ağrı Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 24km. West of Karakose Bibliography Burney 1958, 187; 192 map II site 316, Russell 1980, 139 site 316, Sagona 1984:235 317 Easting: 43.0735 Northing: 39.70058 Site Site name 132 Administrative District Lchasen Armenia: Sevanskiî Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 44.9452 Northing: 40.5057 Material Description A few Kura-Araks sherds were found in this largely Late Bronze Age necropolis. They remain unpublished. Cemetery. Located near the modern town on the north-western shore of Lake Sevan. Bibliography Sagona 1984:235 Site Site name 133 Administrative District Kamo (Nor Baiazet) Armenia: Kamo Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.1629 Northing: 40.36378 Material Description A thin Kura-Araks stratum. The kurgan belongs to a later period. Flat settlement and kurgan situated on a mountain slope. Located near the modern town ca. 6km. From the western shore of Lake Sevan. Bibliography Laiatan 1931, Kuftin 1944b, 98-99, Khanzadîan 1967, pls. XIV: first row, right; XXI boftom row, Sardarian 1967, 194; pls. LVI:4; map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:235 Site Site name 134 Administrative District Astkhapzor Armenia: Martuninskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.3691 Northing: 40.12091 Material Description A thin Kura-Araks level. Flat Settlement. Located near the modern village on the southern shore of Lake Sevan. Bibliography Khanzadîan 1967, 77, 79, Sardarian 1967, map of Eneolithic sites, Sagona 1984:235 Site Site name 135 Administrative District Zaglik Azerbaidzhan: Khantarskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.0197 Northing: 40.55477 Material Description Excavated in 1869; no stratigraphy was distinguished. Mound. Located ca. 15km. east of Kedabek, and ca. 30km. southwest of Kirovabad. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b, 91-92, fig. 49; p1. XXII:4, Sagona 1984:236 Site Site name 136 Stepanakert Administrative District Nagorno-Karabakhskaîa A.R., Site Class Site size: 4 Material Description Grave goods. Kurgan site. Located in the Karabakh highlands. Easting: 46.7407 Northing: 39.7844 Bibliography Kushnareva 1954, Iessen 1965, fig.2, Tashchîan 194, Sagona 1984:236 Site Site name 137 Gurahazhi Administrative District Nagorno-Karabakhskaîa A.R. Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.8543 Northing: 39.80873 Material Description Surface sherds. Early Bronze Age Settlement. Located ca. 15km. East of Stepanakert in the Karabakh highlands. Bibliography Sagona 1984:236 Site Site name 138 Makhachkala Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.5002 Northing: 42.98697 Material Description Surface finds. Flat Settlement. Located just south of the modern city. Bibliography 318 Munchaev 1975, 175, Sagona 1984:236 Site Site name 139 Mekegin Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 47.4402 Northing: 42.42753 Material Description Excavated but as yet unpublished. The Site consists of two kurgans, two graves and cave site. Located to the south-east of the modern village. Munchaev also reports a settlement 500x80x2m. Which was excavated by V.G. Kotovich in 1958-1959. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 226-227 site nos. 365-371, Munchaev 1975, 17, Sagona 1984:237 Site Site name 140 Kafakent Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 47.9308 Northing: 42.35499 Material Description Kura-Araks pottery occurs only in the mounds. The Site consists of five mounds, three kurgans, six graves and a Pal aeol ithic Settlement. The main mound Isakov (site no. 239) is ca. 350xl80xl0 m., and located ca. 5km. To the south-west of the town. Bibliography Munchaev 1955, 5-20, A.P. Krugiov 1958, 20-30; fig.l: site no.l; 4-5, Isakov 1959, 215-217, site nos. 232-247, Munchaev 1961a, pls. VI, XI:6-9, Munchaev 1975, 17, Sagona 1984:237 Site Site name 141 Mamal-Kutan Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.9869 Northing: 42.29194 Material Description A one period site. The settlement has a deposit ca. 1.5m. thick. The Site consists of a mound ca. 50x50x2.0-2.5m. Built on a natural hill, two kurgans and two graves. The site is located to the southeast of the modern village which is situated on the north bank of the Artuzen river. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 213-214, site nos. 216-220, Kotovich 1959, p1. V:l-2, Munchaev 1961a, pls. VII:4-7. XI:1-5, Munchaev 1975, 174-175, Sagona 1984:237 Site Site name 142 Dzhemikent Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.0302 Northing: 42.23886 Material Description Surface finds. Site consists of one mound and three kurgans. The mound (Isakov site no.177) measures ca. 200x200 m. The site encompasses the modern village located on the north bank of the Ullu-Chai. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 210, site nos. 177-181, Munchaev 1961a, 135, Sagona 1984:238 Site Site name 143 Velikent Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.0950 Northing: 42.18885 Material Description The mound belongs to the Early Bronze Age only and has a 2.Om. Cultural deposit according to Munchaev while Isakov believes it is 2.5m. Site consists of a mound (Isakov site no.164) ca. 320x240x9m. (200xl80xl0-12m. According to Kotovich, and 175xl50x9m. According to Munchaev), built on a natural hill, four kurgans and a grave. The mound is located ca. 500 m. East of the modern village. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 209 site nos. 164-169, Kotovich 1959, 121-134; figs. 1-3; pls. I-III, IV:5-6(?); V. Munchaev 1961a, 147-161; pls. V; VII:1-3; IX:27; X; XI:1-5, Munchaev 1975, 17, Sagona 1984:238 Site Site name 144 Chumuş-Inits Administrative District Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.0051 Northing: 42.14389 Material Description Surface finds. Located ca. 18km. East of Madzhalis and ca. 3km. North-west of Gedzhokh. The site is situated on the north bank of the DarbagChai. 319 Bibliography Isakov 1959, 213 site 210, Kotovich 1959. 135, Sagona 1984:238 Site Site name 145 Administrative District Palasa-Syrtskie Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 48.2687 Northing: 41.91374 Material Description Surface finds. Kurgan located ca. 2-3km. South-west of the modern village of Khoshmenzil-Kommyna, on the north bank of the Rubas. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 207, site 137, Kotovich 1959, 136, Sagona 1984:239 Site Site name 146 Administrative District Mamrash Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.2540 Northing: 41.70537 Material Description Surface finds. Site comprises eleven small mounds ca. 10-15xl0-15x6-8m. Covering an area 150x200 m., and a kurgan. The mounds are located ca. 1 km. to the east of the modern village of the same name, on the north side of the Mamrash-Betidzhi road, which runs north. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 197-198 sites nos. 26-27, Kotovich 1959, 135, Munchaev 1975, 174, Sagona 1984:239 Site Site name Administrative District 147 Gil'îar Russian Federation: Dagestan Region Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.2431 Northing: 41.55299 Material Description Surface finds. Site consists of two mounds and a grave. The smaller mound (Isakov site no.12) measures ca. 30x30x1 0 m. And is located on the north bank of the Samur river, ca. 1.5km. East of the modern town of the same name. Bibliography Isakov 1959, 196-197. site no. 12-14, Kotovich 1959. 135, Munchaev 1975. 17, Sagona 1984:239 Site Site name 148 Administrative District Mingechaur Azerbaidzhan: Astrakhan-Bazarskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.0665 Northing: 40.75448 Material Description Two strata mound; upper stratum is Early Bronze Age. Site consists of mound and burials. Located on the left bank of the Kura river in the central part of the Bozdağ. Bibliography Aslanov, Vaidov and Ione 1959, Sagona 1984:239-40 Site Site name 149 Ilani Tepe Administrative District Azerbaidzhan: Shemakhillskiĭ Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description A one period site. Mound. Located ca. 12km. south-east of Maraza. Easting: 49.0816 Northing: 40.51749 Bibliography Narimanov 1968. 316-3A7, Narimanov 1969, 396, Sagona 1984:240 Site 150 Site name Administrative District Kabala Azerbaidzhan: Bakinskiĭ Material Excavations have concentrated on the Classical site. The Bronze Age settlement has only been sherded The kurgan contains a cremation grave. Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 49.3869 Northing: 40.37817 Description The site comprises a Classical and Early Bronze Age settlement, Early and a kurgan. Located 35km. west of Baku. 320 Bibliography Kaziev and Vadaev 1969, Sagona 1984:240 Site Site name 151 Administrative District Kîul'tepe Site Class Nakhichevanska A.R. 1 Easting: 45.3981 Site size: Northing: 39.31547 Material Description Presently under excavation. Mound, ca. 7m. High. Located ca. 6km. north of Kîul ‘tepe l. Bibliography Aliev 1978, Aliev 1980, Sagona 1984:240 Site Site name 152 Kîul'tepe II Administrative District Nakhichevanska A.R. Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.3999 Northing: 39.25711 Material Description Stratum II. Mound ca. 150x100x14m. Situated in the very southern part of the Araks river basin, ca. 8km. north-north-east of Nakhichevan. Bibliography Kuftin 1944b. 96-98, fig. 53, Abiibullaev 1953, Abiibullaev 1959a, Abiibullaev 1959b. Abiibullaev 1959e, Abiibullaev 1961, Abiibullaev 1963, Abiibullaev 1965, Sagona 1984:240-1 Site Site name 153 Haftavan Tepe Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.8250 Northing: 38.20042 Material Description Periods VII and VIII. Large mound ca. 600x500 m. Located ca. 6.5km. South of Shahpur and ca. 3.5km. From the village of Haftavan. Spring on the eastern side of the site. Bibliography Burney 1969, Burney 1970a, Burney 1970b, Burney 1972a, Burney 1972e, Burney 1972d, Burney 1972e, M. Wijnen 1972-74, Burney 1973, Burney 1974a, Burney 1974b, Burney 1975, Burney 1976a, Burney 1976b, Burney 1976e, Sagona 1984:241 Site Site name 154 Gijlar Tepe Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.0924 Northing: 37.70587 Material Description Phase B which is 14m thick. Mound, ca. 23m. High. Situated directly on the bank of the Nazlu Çay which has deepiy eroded part of its north section. Bibliography Pecorella 1980, 344-347; figs. L, 5: pls. VI:1, VII:1. VIII:1, Sagona 1984:241 Site Site name 155 Geoy Tepe Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.1653 Northing: 37.47006 Material Description Period K. Mound, ca. 200xl90x25m. Probably built on a natural hill covered by the; modern village with a perennial spring immediately to the south-west of the site. Located south of Rezaiyeh . Bibliography Goddard, 1938, 303-306, Stein 1940, 408, Burton-Brown 1951a, 34-62, Burton-Brown 1951b, Burton-Brown 1972, Crawford 1975, Sagona 1984:242 Site Site name Administrative District 321 Site Class 1 Easting: 45.9285 156 Yanik Tepe Iran: Kurdistan Northing: 37.99273 Site size: Material Description Early Bronze Age I (End houses), and Early Bronze Age II (rectangular houses) levels. Mound, ca. 300x200 m. Located ca. 7km. West of Khosrowshah, close to the railway, and ca. 44km. south-west of Tabriz. Bibliography Burney 1961a, Burney 1961 b, Burney 1962, van Loon 1963, 18-20, Burney 1964. Burney 1972 b, Sagona 1984:242 Site Site name 157 Mksr 26 Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.5881 Northing: 38.41591 Material Description Grey burnished Surface sherds., possibly associated with Kurawares. Mainly robbed iron Age tombs and probably some earlier settlement. Araks Situated on a hill top ca. 10 km. west of Meshkin Shahr. Bibliography Ingraham and Summers 1979, 92-93; fig. 2, Sagona 1984:242 Site Site name 158 Hasanlu Administrative District Iran. Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 45.4601 Northing: 36.99678 Material Description A single dimple-impressed black sherd and degenerate Nakhichevan lugs from Period VII, and a single surface sherd Sir Aurel Stein. shore of Lake Urmia. Mound, ca. 200x200x25m. With a lower terrace ca. 600x600 m. Located near the town of Nagadeh, between Nagadeh and the south found by Just south of the small lake known as Hasanlu or Shor Gol. Bibliography A. Stein 1940, p1. XXIV:1, R.H. Dyson Jr. 1973, 699, Sagona 1984:242-3 Site Site name 159 Tepe Keshavar Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.1981 Northing: 36.93028 Material Description Surface sherds. Located near the modern village and north of Nacheh Su. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 40, Sagona 1984:243 Site Site name 160 Sheitan-e Zenoan Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.2214 Northing: 36.89392 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located on the east bank of the Zarineh river. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5:41, Sagona 1984:243 Site Site name 161 No Name Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.3300 Northing: 36.85675 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located north of the village of Nacheh Su. Bibliography Swiny 1975, figs. 2:7; 5: site 42, Sagona 1984:243 322 Site Site name 162 Tepe Tchalais Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.3132 Northing: 36.82701 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located north of the village of Nacheh Su. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 45, Sagona 1984:243-4 Site Site name 163 Kale Topt Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located east of Bowkan. 1 Easting: 46.1722 Northing: 36.67183 1 Easting: 46.2110 Northing: 36.51689 Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 29, Sagona 1984:244 Site Site name 164 Beyg Owbasi I Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. High, straight sided mound partly covered by modern houses. Located in a cluster of sites around the village of Qahrabad. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 79, Sagona 1984:244 Site Site name 165 Kabre Koshab Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 47.6137 Northing: 36.15455 Material Description Surface sherds. Cist grave cemetery, each grave ca. 2xlm. Constructed of three rough slabs. Located south of the village of Koshab. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 18, Sagona 1984:244 Site Site name 166 Kul Tepe Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.7253 Northing: 36.16035 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Ca. 20 m. High and several hundred metres long Crested by a citadel and partiy covered by the modern village. Located on a track leading west from Top Aghaj in the middle of a large fertile plain ca. 2km south-east of Kabre Koshab between the Qamcheqay . Bibliography Swiny 1975, figs. 2:5: site 21, Sagona 1984:244-5 Site Site name 167 Tepe Douineh Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.7097 Northing: 36.00752 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 200x70-80 m. With the highest peak above the south bank of the Kizil Uzun. Downstream (east) of a ford. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 12, Sagona 1984:245 323 Site Site name 168 No Name Administrative District Iran: Gilan Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 48.4857 Northing: 36.24761 Material Description Surface sherds. small cemetery of cist graves. Situated by the edge of a road. No contemporary village nearby. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 57, Sagona 1984:245 Site Site name 169 Dow Tepe Pain Administrative District Iran: Gilan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the modern village. 1 Easting: 48.9143 Northing: 36.2696 Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 72, Sagona 1984:245 Site Site name 170 Pirgorgar Tepe Administrative District Iran: Gilan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.8001 Northing: 36.03588 Material Description Kura-Araks sherds were found deep down in the mound. Large, high, steep sided mound much disturbed by illicit digging. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 63, Sagona 1984:245 Site Site name 171 Tepe Salamatabad Administrative District Iran: Hamadan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.8633 Northing: 35.58565 Material Description Surface sherds. A very large mound over 20 m. High and several hundred meters across. Situated at the confluence of the Talwar and Uzun Darreh rivers. Bibliography Swiny 1975, figs. 2:6; 5: site 84, Sagona 1984:246 Site Site name 172 Qaish Tepe Administrative District Iran, Hamadan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. with incised decoration. Mound. Located near Gav Savar. 1 Easting: 49.1744 Northing: 35.6844 Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 65, Sagona 1984:246 Site Site name 173 Tepe Toweh Administrative District Iran: Hamadan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located north of Razan. Bibliography Swiny 1975, fig. 5: site 88, Sagona 1984:246 324 1 Easting: 49.2809 Northing: 35.66298 Site Site name 174 Administrative District Jannatabad Iran: Hamadan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located south of Khakriz. 1 Easting: 47.9834 Northing: 34.49526 Bibliography T.C. Young Jr. 1966. fig. l: site 8, Sagona 1984:246-7, Young 2004 Site Site name 175 Administrative District Godin Tepe Iran: Luristan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.0539 Northing: 34.51958 Material Description Period IV. Mound ca. 360x210x30 m. Consisting of an outer Town. Bibliography T.C. Young J r. 1966, fig. l, site 22, T. C. Young Jr. 1969a, 9-10, T.C. Young Jr. 1969b, T.C. Young Jr. and Levine, L.C. 1974, 17-18, Sagona 1984:246-7, Mason and Cooper 1999, Young 2004 Site Site name 176 Administrative District Barafraq Iran: Hamadan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.0759 Northing: 34.37867 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 20km. south-east of Kangavar Bibliography T.C. Young Jr. 1966, fig. l: site 51, Sagona 1984:247, Young 2004 Site Site name 177 Administrative District Tepe Giyan Iran: Hamadan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.5860 Northing: 34.08697 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound ca. 350x150x19m. Located ca. 10 km. southwest of Nahavand. Bibliography T.C. Young Jr. 1966, fig. l site 52, R.H. Dyson Jr. 1973, 698, Sagona 1984:247, Site Site name 178 Administrative District Baba Qassem Iran: Luristan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.8161 Northing: 33.9128 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 25km. south-east of Nahavand. Bibliography T.C. Young Jr. 1966, fig. l, site 53, Sagona 1984:247 Site Site name 179 Administrative District Kalecik Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.8916 Northing: 41.29165 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located north-east of Ardahan close to the Soviet border. Bibliography Kökten 1944, map I site 15, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 25, Sagona 1984:247-8, TAY Database Site Site name 180 Administrative District Hanak Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.7148 Northing: 41.15495 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the village ca. 17-18km. North-west of Ardahan, on the bank of a stream. 325 Bibliography Kökten 1943b, map (p.612), Kökten 1944/45, map 2, Sagona 1984:248 Site Site name 181 Ardahan Administrative District Turkey: Kars Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 42.6555 Northing: 41.1029 Material Description A single vessel found by chance is now in the Kars Museum. A single vessel found in the vicinity of the town which is located on the north bank of the Kura river. Bibliography Kökten 1944/45, map 2, Sagona 1984:248 Site Site name 182 Tepecik Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.7763 Northing: 39.92762 Material Description Excavated by H.Z. Koşay but unpublished. Remains are in the Erzurum Museum. Mound. Located ca. 7-8km. South-east of Pasinler, and 1 km. south of the Araks river. Bibliography H.Z. Koşay and K. Turfan 1959, map I, H. Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1964, map (p. 7.), H.Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1967, pls. I, Sagona 1984:248 Site Site name 183 Sos (Sosköy, Yiğtaşı) Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5515 Northing: 39.95857 Material Description Excavated by H.Z. Kosay but unpublished. Remains are in the Erzurum Museum. Mound. Located ca. 5km. North of the Erzurum to Pasinler road, almost halt way between the two towns. Bibliography H.Z. Koşay and K. Turfan 1959, map I, H. Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1964, map (p. 7.), H.Z. Kosay and H. Vary 1967, pls. I, Sagona 1984:248-9, Krofmann et al. 1994:193, Sagona et al. 1995:193-218, Sagona et al. 1996b:27-52, Sagona et al. 1997a:140-1, Sagona et al. 1997b:186-91, Sagona et al. 1991998b:33-8, Sagona et al. 1998a249, Sagona-Sagona 2000:143-4, Sagona 2000:329-30, 333-5, Sagona-Sagona 2001b:130, TAY Database Site Site name 184 Hamam Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.4256 Northing: 39.93971 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 3km. North of the Erzurum to Pasinler road, and ca. 12km. north-east of Erzurum. Bibliography H.Z. Koşay and K. Turfan 1959, map I, H. Z. Kosay and H. Vary 1964, map (p. 7.), H.Z. Kosay and H. Vary 1967, pls. I, Sagona 1984:249 Site Site name 185 Güzelova (Tufanç) Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.3459 Northing: 39.99078 Material Description Throughout the 14m. deposit in Areas A, B and C Mound, ca. 188x165 14m. Located ca. 15km. north of Erzurum on the west bank of the Kara Su. Bibliography H.Z. Koşay 1962, H. Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1964, map (p. 7.), Mellink 1964a:155 , H. Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1967, Sagona 1984:249, Yakar 1985a:302, Korfmann et al. 1994:91,site no. 531, Sagona 2000:332; TAY Database Site Site name 186 Karaz (Kahramanlar) Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.1373 Northing: 39.94231 Material Description Throughout the 9m. Deposit Mound, ca. 120xl20x9m. Located ca. 7km. north of Ilica, and ca. 16km. north-west of Erzurum. Bibliography Beygu 1936:9, Bittel-Schneider 1944-45:55, H.Z. Kosay 1945, R. 2. Koşay 1948, Lamb 1954:26-28151-156,160,161,162,165,167,171, Burney 1958:172,site 326 no. 184, H. Z. Kosay and K. Turfan 1959, 349-413, Kınal 1962:48, H. Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1964, map (p. 7.), H.Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1967, p1, French 1968:229, şek.104, Diamant-Rutter 1969:1 59, Esin 1969:100,135, Arsebük 1979:81-89, Sagona 1984:249, Yakar 1984:78, Egeli 1995:182, Yakar 1985a:301-302, Güneri 1992:152, Korfmann et al. 1994:127, site no. 781, Sagona 2000:331; TAY Database Site Site name 187 Pulur (Ömertepe) Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.1912 Northing: 39.83583 Material Description Found in Area s A, B and C; the deposit in Area A reached a depth of 10.5m. Mound. Located ca. 7-8km. south-south-east of Hica. Bibliography Kökten 1944, p1. XCIII:17; XCIV:2, map I, İK. Kökten 1944/45, p1. 5-7; map 4, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII, site 17, Burney 1958:192, H.Z. Koşay 1962, Mellink 1963a:179, H.Z. Kosay and H. Vary 1964, Mellink 1965a:1 38, H.Z. Kosay and H. Vary 1967, pls. I, Yakar 1979:5, Sagona 1984:250, Yakar 1985a:302, Güneri 1992:1, Korfmann et al. 1995.1 77, 178,11 37, Sagona 2000:331-332; TAY Database Site Site name 188 Cinis (Ortabahçe) Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 40.7813 Northing: 39.81619 Material Description Excavated by H.Z. Kosay but unpublished. Remains are in the Erzurum Musuem. Mound. Located ca. 7-8km. South-south-west of Kandilli. Bibliography H.Z. Kosay and H. Vary 1964, map (p.7.), H. Z. Koşay and H. Vary 1967, pls. I, Sagona 1984:250 Site Site name 189 Haşıye (Hasya, Aksaclı) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşhane- Bayburt Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 40.2067 Northing: 40.11492 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 12km. South-south-west of Bayburt. Bibliography Kökten 1944/45, map 4, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 22, Sagona 1984:250 Site Site name 190 Hindi (Hindiköy) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşhane- Bayburt Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 7km. South-west of Bayburt. Easting: 40.2007 Northing: 40.13239 Bibliography Kökten 1944, map I, site 14, Kökten 1944/45, map 4, Kökten 1947b, pls. LXXVII: site 18, Sagona 1984:250-1 Site Site name 191 Pülür (Gökcepere) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşhane- Bayburt Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located south-west of Bayburt. 1 Easting: 40.1345 Northing: 40.26216 1 Easting: 40.1404 Northing: 40.16989 Bibliography Kökten 1944/45, map 4, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 17, Sagona 1984:251 Site Site name 192 Siptoros (Oruçbeyli) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşhane- Bayburt Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 14-15km. West of Bayburt Bibliography Kökten 1944, map I. site 13, Kökten 1944/45 map 4, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 19, Sagona 1984:251 Site 193 Material Site name Ivceklerin Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Gümüshane Description 327 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.7343 Northing: 40.23921 Surface sherds. Mound. Situated west of Bayburt; but difficult to locate its exact position . Bibliography Kökten 1944, map I, site 12, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 20, Sagona 1984:251 Site Site name 194 Altıntepe Administrative District Turkey: Erzincan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6205 Northing: 39.71837 Material Description Incised Kura-Araks material found beneath the Urartian Citadel. Very large, steep sided mound ca. 800x600x60 m. Built on a natural rocky outcrop. Covered by a Urartian citadel and cemetery below which liesan Early Bronze Age deposit. Located ca. 20km. east of Erzincan on the road from Erzurum to Sivas. Bibliography Mellink 1962a, 80, Mellink 1962b, 224, Özguc 1969, pls. I, Sagona 1984:252; TAY Database Site Site name 195 Kuçuktepe Administrative District Turkey: Erzincan Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 2km. from Altintepe. 1 Easting: 39.6485 Northing: 39.71279 1 Easting: 41.2850 Northing: 38.90788 Bibliography Mellink 1962a, 80, Sagona 1984:252 Site Site name 196 Ziyaret (Miğdi) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x75x7m. Surrounded by the modern village. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 79, Burney 1958, 192 map II site 254, Russell 1980, 133; figs. 9:254.2 (Group K); 30 (map 8): site 254, Sagona 1984:252; Rothman 1993; TAY Database Site Site name 197 Gaybeyan (Hırtadom) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.3468 Northing: 38.87088 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100xl00x8m. Located ca. 1 km. east of the village, and ca. 3km. West-north-west of the site and village of Dom. Bibliography Burney 1958, 192 map II, site 253, Russell 1980, 133; figs. 8:253.1 (Group J); 10:253.2 (Group L); 30 (map 8): site 253, Sagona 1984:252-3; Rothman 1993; TAY Database Site Site name 198 Piklis (Misko Tepe) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5892 Northing: 38.79656 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x5m. Located ca. 7km. North-north-east of Muş in a stream valley, ca. 2.5km. West-north-west of the village not far north of the Kara Su. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 89, Burney 1958, 163 sherds 32-34; 192, Russell 1980, 132; figs. 10:239.2 (Group L); 30 (map 8):site 239, This site has been reported by Russell as being the same as Sütlüce (Sapne). But Sapne is listed as a separate site by Kökten- above site 88, Sagona 1984:253 Site 199 Site name Şeyhyusuf (Boyuncuk) Administrative District Turkey: Muş 328 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6112 Northing: 38.85452 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100xl00xl5m. Located ca. 3km. south of the village, just east of the road to Muş. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 86, Burney 1958, 192 map III site 242; 197 sherd 170, Russell 1980, 132; figs. 9:242.15 (Group K), 10:242.7,.19 (Group L); 11:242.3 (Group N); 30 (map 8): site 242, Sagona 1984:253; Rothman 1993, TAY Database Site Site name 200 Hunan (Sunoyu) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6592 Northing: 38.80603 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x100x10 m. Located ca. 2.5km. North of Suboyu and ca. 100 m. south-east of a small stream. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 87, Russell 1980. sherds of Group N are not illustrated, table 5, p. 48; fig. 30 (map 8): site 245, Rothman 1993; Sagona 1984:253 Site Site name 201 Soğkom Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6289 Northing: 38.74396 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x75x5m. Located on the left bank of a small stream on the north side of the Bitlis road, ca. 3km. east of the road junction for Muş and ca. l-2km. east-north-east of Donatım. Bibliography Burney 1958; 192 map II site 247; 193; 197 sherds 161-166, Russell 1980, 132; figs. 8:247.17 (GroupJ); 9:247.7 (Group K); 10:247.1, .3, .11 (Group L), 11:247.2, .5. .6 (Group N); 30(map 8) : site 247, Sagona 1984:254; Rothman 1993; TAY Database Site Site name 202 Şeyhpirim II Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6593 Northing: 38.87667 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100xl00x9m. Located ca. 3.4km. north-west of Hunan and 500 m. east of the road from Hunan to Atıcan. Bibliography Burney 1958; 192 map II site 244; 193; 197 sherds 160, 169, Russell 1980, 132; fig.30 (map 8): site 244, Sagona 1984:254; Rothman 1993; TAY Databse Site Site name 203 Tifnik (Duruğoze) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.7469 Northing: 38.83823 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located on the north-west side of the village. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 91, Russell 1980, 133; figs. 8:255.1 (Group J); 30 (map 8):site 255, Sagona 1984:254; Rothman 1993; TAY Database Site Site name 204 Alikırpun (Alikırpo) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.7965 Northing: 38.71709 Material Description Surface sherds. Located ca. 2km. East of the village on the north side of the road to Mound, ca. 300x300xl5m. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 82 (Ali Kirpo), Burney 1958; 192 map II site 249; 193; 197 sherd 168, Russell 1980, 133; fig. 8:249.4 (Group J); 10:249.1 (GroupL); 30 (map 8): site 249, Sagona 1984:254-5; Rothman-Kozbe 1997:fig k.10/a-c; TAY Databse Site Site name Administrative District 329 Site Class 1 Easting: 42.0403 205 Mişakşin Turkey: Bitlis Northing: 38.65012 Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x75mx8m. Located ca. 1 km. east of the village. Bibliography Russell 1980, 134; figs.12: 267.25 (Group R); 30 (map 8): site 267, Sagona 1984:255 Site Site name 206 Administrative District Mollakent Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.0638 Northing: 38.95453 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 150x150 m. Located ca. 1 km. north of the village. Bibliography Burney 1957, 57; fig. l: site 266, Russell 1980, 134: fig. 11:266.1 (Group N); 30 (map 8):site 266, Sagona 1984:255; TAY Database Site Site name 207 Administrative District Lız (Erentepe) Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.0535 Northing: 39.04201 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x6m. Located immediately north-east of the village and overlooking the left bank of a stream. Bibliography Kökten 1947b. P1. LXXVII: site 92, Burney 1958, 187; 191 sherds 158-159; 192 map II site 265, Russell 1980, 134; figs. 10:265.1 (Group L); 30 (map 8):site 265, Sagona 1984:255; Rothman 1993; TAY Databse Site Site name 208 Administrative District Bulanık Turkey: Muş Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.2352 Northing: 39.12703 Description Mound, ca. 75x75x5m. Located ca. 1.5km. north-east of the town, and ca. 250 m. from the right bank of the stream. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 93, Burney 1958, 187; 191 sherd 157; 192 map II site 262, Russell 1980, 134; fig. 30 (map 8): site 262, Sagona 1984:256; Rothman 1993; TAY Database Site Site name 209 Administrative District Kekerli (Kirkgöze) Turkey: Muş Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 42.3568 Northing: 39.03736 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x75x12m. Probabty built on a natural deposit. immediatety south of and overlooking the village. Bibliography Burney 1958, 187; 192 map II site 261, Russell 1980, 134; fig. 30 (map 8): site 261, Sagona 1984:256; TAY Databse, (Not listed in Rothman survey) Site Site name 210 Administrative District Patnos Turkey: Ağrı Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located near the town. 1 Easting: 42.8722 Northing: 39.25483 1 Easting: 42.7389 Northing: 38.8344 Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 94, Sagona 1984:256, TAY Database (No Karaz Listed) Site 211 Material Site name Adilcevaz Kalesı Administrative District Turkey: Bitlis Description 330 Site Class Site size: Surface sherds. Mound. Ca. 125xl25m. Situated on a natural hill ca. 750 m. North of Adılcevaz on the north side of the road from Ahla. Bibliography Kinal 1954, 85, Burney 1958, 178. 181 sherds 50, 70; 186; 192 map II, site 234, Russell 1980, 131; fig. 31 (inap 9): site 234, Sagona 1984:256; TAY Database Site Site name 212 Ernis (Erciş) Administrative District Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Grave goods. unearthed by the local villagers from a stone cist in 1937. Remains are now in the Van Museum Stone tomb. Located somewhere near the town. Easting: 43.3807 Northing: 39.03089 Bibliography Dönmez and Brice 1949, 52 p1. XXXI:1-8, Kinal 1954: 84-85, Burney 1958, 179; 183 vessels 77-87; 185 vessels 88-101, Korfmann 1982, 188-189; p1. 19:3 and probably fig. 28:10, 11 and pl. 19:1-2, Sagona 1984:257, Korfmann et al. 1994:78,site no. 430; TAY Database Site Site name 213 Zülfübülak Administrative District Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9385 Northing: 39.1619 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x75m. Situated on a natural hill near the edge of the Çaldıran plain ca. 750 m. North of the village. Bibliography Burney 1958, 178; 179; 181, sherds 55-56. 64-68,69, 71, 76; 186; 192 map II, site 214. Russell 1980: 129; 129, figs. 10:214.1, .6, .7, .8 (Group M) 11:214.2 (Group N); 31 (map 9): site 214, Sagona 1984:257; TAY Database Site Site name 214 Aşağı Mollahasan Administrative District Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.9031 Northing: 38.60514 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, situated ca. 100x100x5m. Located immediately west of the village at the end of a natural ridge. Bibliography Burney 1958. 178; 181 sherd 72; 186; 192 map II site 226, Russell 1980, 130; fig. 31 (map 9): site 226, Sagona 1984:257; TAY Database Site Site name 215 Hino (Hinoköy) Administrative District Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: Northing: 43.5995 38.57 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound ca. 100xl00 m. Located immediately north-west of the town ca. 500 m. from the road. Bibliography Burney 1958, 178; 179; 192 map II site 224, Russell 1980, 130; figs. 10:224.2 (Group L); 31 (map 9), Sagona 1984:257, TAY Database (No Karaz listed) Site Site name 216 Kalecik Administrative District Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.3637 Northing: 38.51887 Material Description From the deepest levels of the excavations. Mound, ca. 75mx15m. Located ca. 8km. north-west of Van. Bibliography Burney 1957, 45; fig. l, H. P. Russell 1980, fig. 31 (map 9): site 201, Korfmann 1982, 185-188; figs. 26-2, Sagona 1984:258, Korfmann et al. 1 994:11 7, site no. 702; TAY Database 331 Site Site name 217 Administrative District Tilkitepe Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.3707 Northing: 38.41675 Material Description Phase I as defined by M. Korfmann, EBA yielded strawburnished ware with a coarse paste, black-red-gray as Karaz/Early Transcaucasian/Kura-Aras Mound, ca. 45x45mx7m. Situated in the Samramaltı plain, ca. tempered, 6km. South of Van Kale, and 1.5km. East of the lake Partly wash identified damaged by the old buildings of the Van airport. Consists of a conical hill, 6-7 m in height and 55 m in diameter. Bibliography Reilly, 1940, 147-165, Dönmez and Brice 1949, 48 pls. XXVIII:c, XXIX:c, Kinal 1954, 77-79. Russell 1980, 126; figs. 10:196.2 (Group L); 31 (map 9): site 196, Korfmann 1982, 175-185, Sagona 1984:258, Kınal 1962:48 site no. 136, Korfmann et al. 1995:210; TAY Database Site Site name 218 Administrative District İemiri (Otbicir) Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.4171 Northing: 38.3188 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x100xl2m. Located on the edge of a plain ca. 500 m. Northnorth-east of the village which is 2km. east-north-east of Gurpınar. Bibliography Burney 1958, 178; 179, 181 sherds 37-38, 40-47. 49, 54, 57-60; 192, map II, site 204, Russell 1980, 127; figs. 9:204.7 (Group K); 10:204.6, .13, .16 (Group L); 11:204.2 (Group N); 31 (map 9): site 20, Sagona 1984:258; TAY Database Site Site name 219 Administrative District Tilmen Turkey: Diyarbakır Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.0620 Northing: 38.13113 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 150x150x25m; house on summit and terracing on east slope. Located ca. 8km. south-east of Silvan. Bibliography H. Cambel and Briadwood 1980, 157 site R61/2; "p1~3T authors'note that sherds may possibly represent two phases, Sagona 1984:259 Site Site name 220 Administrative District Pilir Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located just north of Hafık. 1 Easting: 37.3503 Northing: 39.89284 Bibliography İ.K. Kökten 1944, 664; pls. LXXVIII:3,4; LXXXIX:1-7; map I site 5, İ.Kökten 1947a. Pls. 40-41. Kökten 1947b, pls. LXXVII: site 31; XCI(?), Meriggi 1965, 278-279; pls. XXXII (map II): site 5, Yakar and A. Gursan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l: site 48, Sagona 1984:259 Site Site name 221 Mal Tepe (Kilhidik) Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.0647 Northing: 39.82415 Description Excavated by T. Özguç, but finds are not fully published Flat-top mound with upper slope ca. 50x40xl8m. Situated ca. 5km. north-east of Sivas. Bibliography von der Osten 1929b, 55; fig. 58, T. Ozguç 1947a, 166, Özguc 1947b, 657-672, Meriggi 1965, 278 pls. XXXII (map II): site 4 (Kilhidik), Yakar and GürsanSalzmann 1979, 41; fig. l: site 4, Sagona 1984:259; TAY Database Site Site name 222 Menteşe Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.6901 Northing: 39.79574 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 90x130 m. Located near the railway station of the same name ca. 332 27km. west-north-west of Sivas . Bibliography Kökten 1944, map I site 4, P Meriggi 1965, 276, 278: pls. XXXII (map II): site 2; XLIII:25, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l: site 53, Sagona 1984:259-60; TAY Database Site Site name 223 Tatlıcak Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 15km. south-west of Sivas. Easting: 36.9122 Northing: 39.60453 Bibliography Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l site 51, Sagona 1984:260 Site Site name 224 Kara Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Tunceli Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.9043 Northing: 38.97066 Material Description Surface sherds. Small Mound. Located to the east of the Kara Su and south of Karasar. Bibliography Kökten 1976, 6; pls. 4:1; 11:27-30. 32. 33, Sagona 1984:260 Site Site name 225 Kalecık (Kalaycık) Administrative District Turkey: Tunceli Material Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.7764 Northing: 38.94213 Description Burnished and painted Surface sherds. Large, high mound ca. 130x70x20-30 m. With very steep sides; has a sharp peak which gives way to a sloping terrace to the southwest. Situated on a spur which overlooks the Euphrates on one side; bounded by deep, dry valleys on two other sides. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1968-71, Whallon and S. Kantinan 1970, 10: site N52/6, Whallon 1979. 171-172; figs. 17:h; 68; site N52/6, Sagona 1984:26; TAY Database Site Site name 226 Pülür (Sakyol) Administrative District Turkey: Tunceli Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.8452 Northing: 38.90337 Material Description Levels XI-I A high, steep-sides flat-topped mound ca. 120x80x20 m. Located at the head of a small valley on the north bank of the Murat river 4km. East of the confluence with the Euphrates river. Modern village is clustered on the southern slopes. Bibliography Koşay 1961:20-21, Koşay 1969:5-6, Mellink 1969, 209-210, H. Z. Kosay 1970a, H.Z. Koşay 1970b, Mellink 1970, 164, Alkım (H) 1970:9-10, Mellink 1 970a:1 64, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10; site N52/5 (Group XII), H.Z. Kosay 1971a, H.Z. Koşay 1971b, H.Z. Koşay 1971e, Mellink 1971, 167, H.Z. Koşay 1972a, H.Z. Kosay 1972b, H.Z. Koşay et al. 1972, Mellink 1972 173; illus. l, Weaver 1972:129-132, Alkım (H) 1973:10, Alkım (H) 1973-76:1 7, Mellink 1973, 175176, Mellink 1974a:112, H.Z. Koşay 1974, Deniz 1975:284-294, Easton 1976:171, H.Z. Koşay 1976b, 175-193, Koşay 1979:77-80, Whallon 1979, 171 site N52/5; fig. 67, Russell 1980, 140; figs. 8:P.6 (Group J); 27 (map 5): site Pulur, Yakar 1979:63, Sagona 1984:261, Yakar 1 985a:290-291, Korfmann et al. 1995:178, 179,1140; TAY Database Site Site name 227 Seracık (Saracık) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.6750 Northing: 38.85456 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Situated in the plain ca.2km. south of the village. 333 Bibliography T.B. Mitford 1972, 291, Russell 1980, 139; fig. 8:S.l (Group J); 10:S.4 (Group L);29 (map 7): site Seracık, Sagona 1984:261 Site Site name 228 Bukyeri (Aşağımiselli) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.8211 Northing: 38.86121 Material Description Surface sherds. A broad, öpen settlement on the slope of the village of Büklümlü. Situated on the south bank of the Euphrates river which has eroded the lower parts of the settlement. Bibliography Kökten 1976, 6; pls. 2:2, Sagona 1984:261-2 Site Site name 229 Aşvan Kale (Muratçık) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.9571 Northing: 38.89276 Material Description Found in trenches G1d, G2b, G2d and G3b A large, high Mound, ca. 125x95xl5m. Upper slope, and ca. 65x45x15m. Lower slope with steep sides and flat top. Located on the edge of a terrace on the south side of the Murat River. Oug into along the south side. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 76, Meriggi 1963, 281 (Aşvan-Köy), Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10; pls. 111:2, IV; site N52/4 (Group VIII), Meriggi 1963:281, French 1968:71-73, Mellink 1969a:225, Alkıım (H) 1970:30-31, French 1970a:53-60, Mellink 1970a:177, French 1970a:53-60,O.H. French 1971b, 36-37, Alkım (H) 1973:21, P.H. French and S. Helms 1973, Kökten 1976, 5 (Muratçik), Whallon 1979, 168-171 site N52/4; fig. 6, Sagona 1984:262, Korfmann et al. 1994:37,123, , Sagona 1994:9-11,115-208, , French 1997:159; TAY Database Site Site name 230 Çay Boyu (Köy Üstü) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.9735 Northing: 38.89008 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low, broad mound ca. 80x60x1.5-2m. Tacking character. Stream flowing along its east side has eroded almost half of the Mound. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10 site N52/9 (Group VIII), Whallon 1979. 173-175, figs. 14:e; 16:k; 70 site N52/9 , Sagona 1984:262; TAY Database Site Site name 231 Taşkun Kale Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.9743 Northing: 38.85584 Material Description From a sounding in the north-west corner of S11 immediately below the Medieval destruction Moderately, large high mound ca. 150xl50xl8-20 m.consisting of a high, flat-topped peak surrounded by broad gentle slopes are steep with the east slope dropping abruptly to the bed of a small stream flowing north to join the Murat River, there are low ruins of rough stone foundations on the lower slope to the west and SW. Bibliography P.H. French et al. 1972, 60, Mellink 1972a:174-175, A. McNicoli 1973, 168; fig. 4B, Alkım (H) 1978:101209-241,şek.1 37-1 59, P.H. French et al. 1979, 11, Whallon 1979, 164-165 site N52/2; tigs. 14:m; 16:1; 19:n. 61, Whallon and S. Kanünan 1970, 10; site N52/2, Sagona 1984:262-3;Sagona 1994:262-263, Mitcheli 1998:86-87,93; TAY Database Site Site name 232 Taşkun Mevkîi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.9744 Northing: 38.84818 Material Description Phases 1-4 Low, broad, featurel ess Mound, ca. 190xl20x2.5-1.75m, roughiy oval in plan. Its eastern side is bordered by a small dry creek. Under cultivation, though no contemporary occupation. Located ca. 5km. south of Aşvan. Bibliography Mellink 1970a: 177, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10; site N52/1 Group IX), S. Helms 1971, Mellink 1971, 168, O.H. French et al. 1972, 60-62, S. Mellink 1972. 173, 175, French et al. 1972:51-53, S. Helms 1973, Mellink 1973a:176, O.H. French et al. 1974, 51-52, Alkım (H) 1978:25-27, 100-101, P.H. Frenche et al. 1979, 11, 334 Podzuweit 1979:75-81, Whallon 1979, 161-164 site N52/1; figs. 12:3, tt; 14:11; 16:cc; 56, Sagona 1984-5-9,48-114, Korfmann et al 1994:200, Korfmann et al. 1995:200-201,1 288, Mitcheli 1998:86-87; TAY Database Site Site name 233 Han İbrahım Şah Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.0827 Northing: 38.84399 Material Description LevelsV-XIV Mound ca. 100x60x8m. Is situated on top of a natural peak with steep sides. To the west of the peak is an irrigation ditch, to the east flows a small stream and to the south is the contemporary village. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 62, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10; p1. 111:4; site N53/3, H. Ertem 1972a, H. Ertem 1972b, Mellink 1973, 176, H. Ertem 1974b, Mellink 1976:268, Whallon 1979, 178-179 site N53/3; figs. 16:g; 78,Alkım (H) 1978:27-32, Russell 1980, 140; 46 table 4, sherds no illustrated; fig.27 (map 7): site, Ertem 1982, H, F. Russel 1984:263, Sagona 1984:263-4, Korfmann et al. 1994:96, site no. 562 Site Site name 234 Administrative District Gurtepe (Sihis) Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.2016 Northing: 38.8535 Material Description Burnished Surface sherds. A moderately largemound ca. 70x80x8-9m. (ca. 60x40x2m. According to R. Whallon) situated on the top of a steep slope on the south bank of the Murat river. Located between the villages of Mayadin and Şihis, ca. 3km rom the village of Har. Bibliography Dürü 1979a, 63-64; p1. I, Though the description of the geographical location of the site corresponds with Whallon's site N53/1, there is a considerable discrepancy between the size of the site as reported by Whallon and Dürü. Dürü suggests they are the same site, Whallon 1979, 177-178; site N53/1; figs. 13:m- 14:mm, 17:c-e, Sagona 1984:264; TAY Database Site Site name 235 Administrative District Haraba Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.2086 Northing: 38.83776 Material Description Burnished and painted Surface sherds. A Flat Settlement. Located on the slope of a deep vale at the intersection of the road and the stream known as Ali Bey Çay, near the village of Tanrıvermis. Bibliography Dürü 1979a, 63; p1, Sagona 1984:264; TAY Database Site Site name 236 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.469 Northing: 38.69339 Material Description Surface sherds. Low, very Small mound ca. 50x30x.5-lm., built on top of a natural rise. Located on the high slopes north of the Altinova near Kiraç. Under cultivation. Bibliography Whallon 1979, 228-229; fig. 141 site 054/19, Sagona 1984:264-5 Site Site name 237 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4931 Northing: 38.69106 Material Description Surface sherds. A small surface scatter of material on the south of a small, natural hill known as Garo Tepe. Located ca. 1 km. east of İlemil. Bibliography Whallon 1979, 194 site 054/4, Sagona 1984:265 Site 238 Site name Değirmentepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5043 Northing: 38.68842 Material Description Early Bronze Age Levels IV-I in Trench A A moderately sized characterless mound which has been eroded, to a quarter 335 of its original size, ca. 106xl50x7m., by the Haringet Çay and one of its tributaries flowing along the east and north sides respectively. Located ca. 2km. east of Ilemil. Bibliography Dürü 1974:29-30, Dürü 1979a. The site does not correspond to Whallon and Kantmann's site 053/3 as is suggested, p.63, n.5, Mellink 1976:268, Dürü 1979b, Whallon 1979, 187. 192-194; figs. 12:bb; 90-94 site 054/3, Sagona 1984:265 , Yakar 1985b:295-296, Korfmann et al. 1 994:68,site no. 358, Marro 1997:102, Dürü 2000d:1 30-1 32; TAY Database Site Site name 239 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5186 Northing: 38.6783 Material Description Surface sherds. Thin scatter of sherds within an area ca. 50x30 m. In a field on a high promontory on the western cliffs above the Murat River. Located north of the village of Ahur. Bibliography Whallon 1979. 252; fig. 179; site 055/6, Sagona 1984:265 Site Site name 240 Aşağı Şeyhacı Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5944 Northing: 38.64682 Material Description Surface sherds. Moderately large and high mound ca. 150x100-125x8-9m., completely covered by a modern village and completely encircled by a village road. Situated on a natural hill at the edge of the Altinova plain. Bibliography Whallon 1979, 257-258; fig. 188; site 055/10, Sagona 1984:266; TAY Database Site Site name 241 Korucutepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.5490 Northing: 38.6408 Material Description Phases C (Strata XLV-LIV), O (Strata LV-LXXVII), Strata LXXVII I-LXXXIX) and F (Strata XC-XCII) Large, high mound ca. 210-220xl50x15-17m. (500x300x15-17m. According to H.F. 1980 after C.A. Burney). The western side of the mound is considerably disturbed with large cut and a series of smaller holes. Houses have been built to the west of the Mound. Bibliography Burney 1958, 194; 197 sherd 182; 204 map III site 270 (Aşağı İçme), Meriggi I967, 280; 288; 287 map 11:5 (Aşağı İçme), M. N. van Loon and G. Buccellati 1968, Güterbock and van Loon 1969. Mellink 1969, 210-211, van Loon and Güterbock 1969, Alkım (H) 1970:32, R.W. Brandt and P.J.W. Meijer 1970, Güterbock and van Loon 1970, Mellink 1970, 165, van Loon 1970, van Loon and G. Bucceltati 1970, 89-93, van Loon and Güterbock 1970, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8-9; pls. 1:3; site 055/1 (GroupX), W.B. Douwes 1971a, W.B. Douwes 1971b, Güterbock and van Loon 1971, Mellink 1971, 167-168, van Loon 1971, van Loon and Güterbock 1971, 60-62, van Loon and Güterbock 1972, 84-85, Kelly-Buccellati 1973, 434-444, Kelly-Buccellati and E. S. El ster 1973, 195-211, Kelly-Buccellati 1974e, 4454,101 Easton 1976:170-171, Kelly-Buccellati 1978, 67-88, van Loon (ed.) 1978, Mellink 1979:335, Whallon 1979, 241-244 site 055/1, figs. 16:U; 17:n; 161, Russell 1980, 135; figs. 8:270.2 (Group J); 29 (map 7), Sagona 1984:266-7, Yakar 1984:67-68, Korfmann et al. 1994:140-141,891; TAY Database Site Site name 242 Körtepe (İçme) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.5370 Northing: 38.64178 Material Description Soundings were made by H. Hauptmann but no Early material has been published railway. The parts of the two halves adjacent to the highway and also has Relatively, low, broad, featureless mound ca. 210-215xl00x2m. Bronze Age Cut.in two halves by the old Elazığ-Bingöl highway and the railway are considerably disturbed, while the north half an irrigation canal. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 9; sites 055/8 and 055/9 (Group V). 242=055/8. 243=055/9.Whallon 1979, 253-257; figs. 13:a, s, jj, 11; 14:x, z. cc, f f, hh, I I; 181; 184-185; site 055/8-9.Hauptmann et al. 1976a, Sagona 1984:267; TAY Database ; TAY Database Site Site name 243 Material Körtepe (Tilkitepe) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Description See 242 Bibliography 336 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.5381 Northing: 38.64708 Site Site name 244 Maşatlık Administrative District Site Class Site size: Turkey: Elazığ 3 Easting: 39.5168 Northing: 38.64635 Material Description Surface sherds. Possibly an Armenian cemetery built on an elevation which may be a Small mound ca. 76x70x1-1.25m, though it is not certain whether prehistoric occupation occurred here. Modern village immediately to the south while east side has been disturbed. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10; site 054/26 (Group VII), Whallon 1979, 237-238; fig.156; site 054/26, Sagona 1984:267; TAY Database Site Site name 245 Kilise Tepe (Habusu) Administrative District Site Class Site size: Turkey: Elazığ 1 Easting: 39.5090 Northing: 38.64594 Material Description Surface sherds. A moderately large mound ca. 250x200x7-8m. Heavily disturbed, especially in the south-west. Entirely covered by the modern village of Habusu. Ruins of an Armenian church are found on top of the mound at its centre. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 10; site 054/20 (Group VI I), Whallon 1979, 229-230; fig. 142 site 054/20, Sagona 1984:267-8; TAY Database Site Site name 246 Körtepe Administrative District Site Class Site size: Turkey: Elazığ 1 Easting: 39.5225 Northing: 38.62609 Material Description Surface sherds. Very low, small broad featureless mound ca. 145x110x1.5m. Under Cultivation. Bibliography Whallon 1979, 249-251; figs. 12:99; 13:c;17:b; 174; site 055/4, Sagona 1984:268 Site Site name 247 Altintepe Administrative District Site Class Site size: Turkey: Elazığ 1 Easting: 39.5334 Northing: 38.61941 Material Description Surface sherds. Very small , low, featureless mound ca. 67x60x2-2.5m. Located ca. 2km. West of İçme. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 244-246; figs. 16:n; 163: 164: site 055/2, Sagona 1984:268; TAY Database Site Site name Boy Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5383 Northing: 38.60959 Description Surface sherds. Site ca. 150x50x.75m. Consists of two distinct topographic parts; a small Flat-topped mound, ca. 2m. High to the south-east, and a series of terraces to the north and north-east. It is believed that the Small mound was a later occupation. The site is under cultivation. Bibliography Whallon 1979. 246-249. figs. 166; 169-170; site O55/3, Sagona 1984:268; TAY Database Site Site name 249 Mezarlık Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4843 Northing: 38.62123 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low mound ca. 140x140x2.5m. Moderate amount of modern disturbance; the Yukari Ağınsi to Atisan road runs directly across the mound; south-west sector covered by a cemetery, rest of site is under cu1tivation. Located ca. 1 km. north-north-east of Yukarı. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 9; site 054/10 (Group I), Whallon 1979. 213-215; figs. 14:V; 116; 117 site 054/10, Sagona 1984:269; TAY Database 337 248 Site Site name 250 Norşuntepe (Alişam) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.4925 Northing: 38.63014 Material Description Levels VI-XXVI very large mound ca. 500-600x400x25m. (ca. 800x600x2530 m. According to H.F. 1980 after C.A. Burney) with a steepsided, high peak and gentle lower slopes. Located ca. 2km. South-east of Alişam, it dominates the Altinova plain. Near-by spring. To the NE. Bibliography Kökten 1947b. Pls. LXXVII site 71 (Alişam), Meriggi 1967, 280; 288; 287 (map II): site 4; pls. LXXVIII:2 (Norsin-hüyük), Hauptmann 1969, Mellink 1969. 210, Alkım (H) 1970:31-32, Hauptmann 1970a, Hauptmann 1970b, Mellink 1970. 164-165, Orthmann 1970:158-159, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8-9; pls. 1:2; II; site 054/8 (Group III), Hauptmann 1971a, Hauptmann 1971b, Mellink 1971, 168, Hauptmann 1972a, Hauptmann 1972b, Mellink1972, 175, Alkım (H) 1973:10-12, Hauptmann 1973b, Mellink 1973, 176-177, Hauptmann 1974a, Hauptmann 1974b, Hauptmann 1974e, Hauptmann et al. 1974, Mellink 1974, 112-113, Hauptmann 1975, Boessneck-von Den 1976:60-69 , Hauptmann 1976a, Hauptmann 1976b, Hauptmann et al. 1976b, Mellink19/b, 269, Hauptmann 1979, Whallon 1979, 199-211 site 054/8; figs. 12:a-c, e-j, 1-v, w-z, cc-ll, nn, pp; 13:e, g, i-1, n-r, t, v-y, aa, cc-ee, gg-ii, kk, mm-nn, pp-qq, ss, uu-vv; 14:a-b, d, f, k, o-u, w, y, aa-bb, dd-ee, gg, kk; 15:b-g; 16:b-c, e-f, h, j, m, w-y, bb, dd-ee; 17:b, f, 1 , q, s; 18:a-d, f-k, o-p, r; 19:a-d, f-1, k-m, o-r; 102; 105-106, Burney 1980:1 62, Russell 1980, 134, figs. 8:269.15, .21 (Group J); 9:269.2, .114 (Group K); 10:269.29, .82 (Group L); 29 (map 7): site 269, Hauptmann 1982, Sagona 1984:269-70, Yakar 1984:66-67, Yakar 1985a:293, Korfmann et al. 1994:1 63, 1 64,105, Müller-Karpe (A) 1994:28-32, Joukovvsky 1996:179-1 81, Schmitt1996, Hauptmann 1997c:1 354, Hauptmann 1999:71, di Nocera 2000:83-84, Hauptmann 2000:419-425, Schmitt 2000, Yener 2000:57-62, TAY Database Site Site name 251 Taşköprü Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4686 Northing: 38.62966 Material Description Surface sherds. Broad but low mound ca. 150x100x1.5-2m. Top of mound is pitted by shallow depressions. North and west sides are bounded by a small stream which joins the Haringet Çay to the north of the Mound. Near-by spring. Located ca. 2km. East-south-east of Haceri. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 9; site 054/23 (Group I), Whallon 1979, 232-233; fig. 147 site 054/23, Sagona 1984:270 Site Site name 252 Kemaksı Mevkîi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.4767 Northing: 38.63978 Material Description Surface sherds. Very small and low, featurel ess mound ca. 72x72x75m. Located on the west bank of the Karasu, a tributary of the Haringet Çay. Located just south of Alişam. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 9; site 054/21(Group II), Whallon 1979, 230-231; fig. 143 site 054/2, Sagona 1984:270 Site Site name 253 Yarik Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4747 Northing: 38.64572 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low mound ca. 115x110x1m. The old Elazığ to Bingöl runs directly through centre of the Mound. Both halves of the mound are cultivated. The Karasu stream is near-by to the east. Located ca. 3km. West of Habusu. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 9 site 054/11(Group II), Whallon 1979, 216-218; fig. 121 site 054/11, Sagona 1984:270-1 Site Site name 254 Gülüşanbaba Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4868 Northing: 38.6504 Material Description Surface sherds. A very low, broad, featureless mound ca. 110x75x1.5-2m. Perched on the edge of the eastern terrace above the Karasu, a tributary of the Haringet Çay. Below it are the remains of an old mill. Under cultivation. Located ca. 1 km. north-east of Alişam (Harmanpınarı). Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 9; site 054/27(Group II), Whallon 1979, 238-240; figs. 13:b; 157; site 054/27, Sagona 1984:271 Site 255 Site name Körpinar Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ 338 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.4894 Northing: 38.66505 Material Description Surface sherds. Some occupation material on a stightiy sloping field. No other settlement remains. Bibliography Whallon 1979, 228 site 054/18; fig. 17:f, Sagona 1984:271 Site Site name 256 Tepecik (Makaraz) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.4628 Northing: 38.66484 Material Description 'Karaz' or "Khirbet Kerak" pottery has been reported Bronze Age I-111 deposits terrace. It consists of several topographic units; a narrow, steep- Fairly large, high mound ca. 200x200xl0 m. For the central from Early mound only, or ca. 300x200x1 0 m. Including the southern sided, flat-topped peak which slopes gently to the north. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 75, Burney 1958, 1984; 201 sherds 206, 210, 215, 216; 204 map III site 276, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 3; p1. LXXVIII:1, Esin 1969, Mellink 1969, 210. Esin 1970. 167-170, Mellink 1970, 164, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8-9; site 054/2 (Group VI), Esin et a1. 1971, 121128, Mellink 1971, 167, Esin 1972a, Esin 1972b, Esin 1972e, Mellink 1972, 173, Esin 1973, Mellink 1973, 176, Esin 1974, Esin 1975a, Mellink 1975, 207. Esin 1976, Esin et a1. 1979, Whallon 1979, 182-187 site 054/2; figs. 12:k, v, aa, mm, 00, rr; 13:d, f, h, u, bb, 00, rr, tt; 14:c, g, I, j, 1, m, jj; 15:a; 16:a, d, 1, p, r, s, v, z, aa, ff; 17:a, I, k, o, p, r; 18:e. 1, n, s. t; 19:e, j; 81-84, Russell 1980, 135; figs. 8:276.68 (Group J); 10:276.11 (Group L); 12:276.108 (Group R); 29 (map 7): site 276, Esin 1982, Sagona 1984:271-2, Bozkurt et al. 1986:39-48, Esin 1987:69-79, Çulkur-Kunç 1989:115-116, Krofmann et al. 1994:206, 207, site no. 1333, MüllerKarpe 1994:33-34, Esin 1997a: 1760-1762, Egli 1998:305-318, Ayhan 1999, Esin 2000b: 126-7, Site Site name 257 Tulintepe (Tülün Tepe ) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4318 Northing: 38.64059 Material Description Trenches 48-F. G, H. I, K, L, M, N, 49-N, 54-L, M. Mound. Ca. 260x210 m. Between the railway line and the road from Elazığ to Bingöl, just before they cross ca. 21km East of Elazığ. The mound was completely dug away in 1966 to be used as fill for the new railroad embankment. A spring rises at the south edge of the site. Bibliography Kökten 1947d:461, Burney 1958, 194; 197 sherd 80; 204 map III-site 268, Meriggi 1967, 279; 288; 287 (map II): site 2; pls. LXXVIII:3 (Tülün-tepe), Esin 1972a, Esin and Arsebük 1973, Mellink 1973a:1 71, Esin and Arsebük 1974, Esin 1975b, Esin et a1. 1976, Esin 1979, Whallon 1979, 180-182 site 054/1; figs. 14:h; 17:j; 80, Russell 1980, 134; figs. 8:268.38; 12:268, 227, 29 (map 7): site 268, Esin and Arsebük 1982, Sagona 1984:272-3, Harmankaya 1993:369-379, Korfmann et al. 1994:21 5, site no. 1393, Esin 1997b:1831, Esin 2000a:87-88 Site Site name 258 Körtepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4475 Northing: 38.62611 Material Description Surface sherds. Small , low featureless mound ca. 125xll0x2m. To the north and west lies a swampy area. Under cultivation. Located ca. 1.8km. south of Demirgülü (Haceri). Bibliography Whallon and S. Kantnan 1970, 8; site 054/25 (Group II), Whallon 1979, 235-237; fig. 153 site 054/25, Sagona 1984:273 Site Site name 259 Savka Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4459 Northing: 38.61998 Material Description Surface sherds. Low featureless Mound, ca. 110x100x1.5m. Located south of a village road ca. 2km. South of Pemirgülu(Haceri). Under cultivation. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; site 054/24 (Group II), Whallon 1979, 233-235; figs. 13:ff; 148; 150; site 054/24, Sagona 1984:273 Site Site name Kuruçayır Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class 1 Easting: 39.4467 Site size: Northing: 38.60913 Material Description Surface sherds. Low, broad, featureless mound whose present size is c a. 85x90x2m. Village road surrounds the mound to the north; its construction is probably the cause for the disappearance of about quarter of the mound. Spring to the north-east of the Mound. 339 260 Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; site 054/12 (Group II), Whallon 1979, 218-221; figs. 13:2; 125; 126; site 054/12, Sagona 1984:273-4 Site Site name 261 Könk (Yenikapı) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.4213 Northing: 38.60857 Material Description Surface sherds. Very large Mound, ca. 500x250-350xl6-18m. Consisting of a high peak at its north end and broad, lower slopes on which is situated the modern village. Western edge has been dug into. Spring located on the south-east edge of the mound forms a stream which flows. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 70, Burney 1958, 194-195; 197 sherds 181, 183, 188, 192, 196, 197, 200, 201, 204, 205; 201 sherds 2909, 213. 221; 204 map III site 271, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 8, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; pls. 1:1,4; site 054/7 (Group II), Whallon 1979, 198-199 site 054/7, fig. 101, Russell 1980, 135; figs. 8:271.9, .54 (Group J); 9:271.12 (Group K); 10:271.10, .21, .89 (Group L); .99. .100 (Group M); 11:271.69 (Group N); 29 (map 7): site 271, Sagona 1984:274 Site Site name 262 Sarpulu (Kazancı) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.4001 Northing: 38.59895 Material Description Burnished and painted Surface sherds. Broad, low Mound, ca. 170xl30x2m. (ca100x65x2-3m. According to H.F. 1980, after C.A. Burney). Located ca. 1 km. north-north-east of Sarpulu. Under cultivation. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 69, Burney 1958, 204 map III site 272, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 9, Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; site 054/6 (Group I), Whallon 1979, 195-198 site 054/6; figs. 18:9; 96. Russell 1980, 135; fig. 29 (map 7): site 272, Sagona 1984:274-5 Site Site name 263 Maşatlık (Sarpulu) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3990 Northing: 38.59325 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low featureless mound ca. 100-120x80-100x1.5m. Heavily cultivated on top. Cut into on north-west side to form threshing floor. A small stream surrounds the east and north sides. Spring on the north edge. Near Sarputu (Çağlar). Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8 site 054/5 (Group I), Whallon 1979, 194-195; fig. 95 site 054/5, Sagona 1984:275 Site Site name 264 Çakıltepe (Körtepe) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3899 Northing: 38.59679 Material Description Surface sherds. Small low, broad mound ca. 90x70x2.5-3m; irregular in shape with a projection to the north. Slightly cut away along the south-east edge by an irrigation ditch. Under cultivation. Located ca. 1 km. east of Sarpulu. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; site 054/15 Group I), Whallon 1979, 225-226; fig. 136 site 054/15, Sagona 1984:275 Site Site name 265 Körtepe (Çayırlar) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.394 Northing: 38.60467 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low, broad mound ca. 85-90x50x2-2.5m. Almost its entire periphery has been extens1ve1y dug. Original shape appears to have been circular. The Korpınar spring lies just to the north on a tiny steam. Located ca. 1 km. north-north-west of Sarpulu. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; site 054/14 Group I), Whallon 1979, 222-225; figs. 130; 132 site 054/14, Sagona 1984:275-6 Site Site name 266 Körtepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3967 Northing: 38.61691 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low, broad mound ca. 120xl00x2m. On the west bank of the Haringet Çayi. Two irrigation ditches run from the Haringet Çayi to 340 the mound; one skirts the north edge, the other runs through the centre of the mound di viding it into two halves. Bibliography Whallon and Kantman 1970, 8; site 054/28 (Group I), Whallon 1979, 240-241; fig. 160; site 054/28, Sagona 1984:276 Site Site name 267 Kövenk (Kuvank) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3707 Northing: 38.58929 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 200x8m. Located just north of the village and concealed by trees from the Bingöl road. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 68 (Kövank), Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II); site 10, Burney 1958, 197 sherd 174; 204 map III site 273, Russell 1980, 135; figs. 8:273.1. .13 (Group J); 9:273.23, .50, .51. .87 (Group K); 11:273.18 (Group N); 12:273.80 (Group R). Sherds of Group L are also mentioned but not illustrated,table 3, p. 44. fig. 29 (map 7): site 273, Sagona 1984:276 Site Site name 268 Tinazit (Doğankuş) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3239 Northing: 38.58414 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50xl5m. Located ca. 1.5km. south-south-west of Tinazit and west-south-west of Mollakendi. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map IH site 274, Meriggi 1967, 279, 288, 287 (map II): site 11, Russell 1980, 135; fig. 29 (map 7); site 274, Sagona 1984:276-7 Site Site name 269 Kuyulu Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.2914 Northing: 38.58679 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x5m. situated just west of the village. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 291, Meriggi 1967, 288, 287 (map-lD: site 13, Russell 1980, 137; fig. 29 (map 7): site 291, Sagona 1984:277 Site Site name 270 Kehli (Mollakenoi) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.2795 Northing: 38.61315 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x4m. Situated midway between Karşıbağ and Mollakendi, ca. 1 km. south of Kehli near the right bank of a stream. Much disturbed. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 66, Burney 1958, 204 map III site 275, Meriggi 1967, 279, 288; 287 (map II): site 12; pls. LXXVII:4, Russell 1980, 135; fig. 29 (map 7): site 275, Sagona 1984:277 Site Site name 271 Hoğu (Hoğuköy) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3487 Northing: 38.6468 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 70x75xl0ni. Partly covered by modern village. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 73, Burney 1958, 197 sherd 176; 204 map III site 277, Meriggi 1967. 279, 288; 287 (map II): site l, Russell 1980, 135; fig. 29 (map 7): site 277, Sagona 1984:277 Site 272 Material Site name Karataş Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Description 341 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.3346 Northing: 38.73475 The thickness of the Early Bronze layer varies from1.10 to 1.25m Rock shetter. Located ca. 15km. north-north-east of Elazığ. Bibliography Kökten 1976, 7-8; pls. 6; 16:55-58; 17:59, Mellink 1971a:163, Kökten 1972:2 , Kökten 1974:4,lev.9, Kökten 1976:3,lev.16-17, Alkım (H) 1978:12-1 , Sagona 1984:278, Korfmann et al. 1994:125, site no. 773 Site Site name 273 Administrative District Hulvenk Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.1618 Northing: 38.69987 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x8m. Located ca. l.5 km. south-south-west of the village, just north of the Elazığ to Keban road. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 278, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 19, Russell 1980, 135; 11:278.4 (Group N); 29 (map 7): site 278, Sagona 1984:278 Site Site name 274 Administrative District Erzürük (Uzuntarla) Turkey: Elazığ figs. 8:278.2, .6, .13 (Group J); 10:278.15 (Group L); Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.0842 Northing: 38.71162 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x75x8m. Located ca. 1 km south-east to south-southeast of the contemporary village on the south side of the road to Sahinkaya. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 279, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 20, Russell 1980, 136; fig. 29 (map 7): site 279, Sagona 1984:278 Site Site name 275 Administrative District Aycili (Çöbeli) Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.0637 Northing: 38.72578 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 60x60x8m. Located ca. 500 m. West of the village and close to a rocky sided valley; ca. 200 m. from the Elazığ road. Bibliography Burney 1958, 194; 197 sherd 175, 201 sherd 211; 204 map III site 283, Meriggi 1967. 288; 287 (map II): site 21, Russell 1980, 136; fig. 29 (map 7): site 283, Sagona 1984:278-9 Site Site name 276 Administrative District İviktepe Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.9748 Northing: 38.77836 Material Description Surface sherds. Small but high Mound, ca. 120x100x7-8m. Situated on the edge of a deep steep-sided valley in the middle of what is now wasteland. Bibliography Whlalon 1979, 176-177; fig. 76 site N52/11, Sagona 1984:279 Site Site name 277 Administrative District Poyraz (Beşik) Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.0446 Northing: 38.6789 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x7m. Located ca. 2km. South of the village. Bibliography Russell 1980, 136; figs. 9:280.6 (Group K);29 (map 7): site 280, Sagona 1984:279 Site 278 Material Site name Administrative District Hınsor Turkey: Elazığ Description 342 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.0577 Northing: 38.65262 Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x5m. Heavily disturbed. Located ca. 750 m. east of the modern village. Near by spring to the east. Bibliography Burney 1958, 193-194; 163 sherds 2, 6, 25, 28-29; 197 sherds 171, 178-179, 191, 194, 198-199, 203; 201 sherd 212; 204 map III site 282, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 18, Russell 1980, 136; figs. 8:282.4 (Group J); 9:282.2 (Group K); 11:282.18 (Group N); 12:282.23 (Group R); 29 (map 7): site 282, Sagona 1984:279 Site Site name 279 Administrative District Hankendi (Hanköy) Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.0745 Northing: 38.58703 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x75x10 m. 25-30 m.high according to P. Meriggi); cut through by railway line. Located ca. 1.5km. south-east of the town. Bibliography Burney 1958, 160 sherd 30; 194-195; 197 sherds 177, 184-187, 195, 202; 201 sherds 207-208, 214, 217-220; 203 sherds 260-261, 272-274, 279; 204 map III site 281, Meriggi 1967, 277; 288, 287 (map II): site 16: p1. LXXXVI:3 (Çalo Harab), Russell 1980, 136; figs. 8:281.6-(Group J); 9:281.4 (Group K); 10:281.2 (Group L); 29 (map 7): site 281, Sagona 1984:280 Site Site name Administrative District 280 Tadım Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.2061 Northing: 38.58961 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x15m. Located immediately north of the village. Bibliography Burney 1958, 194; 197 sherds 189-190, 193; 204 map III site 290, Brown 1967, fig. 10:73, Meriggi 1967, 280; 288; 287 (map II): site 14. Suggests it could be the classical Oadima, Russell 1980, 137; figs. 8:290.2 (Group J); 29 (map 7), Sagona 1984:280 Site Site name 281 Uluova Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.2464 Northing: 38.50334 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound ca. 50x50x30 m. Located ca. 750 m. East-south-east of the village. Bibliography Burney 1958, 193; 197 sherd 1972; 204 map III, Meriggi 1967, 288; 287 (map II): site 15, Russell 1980. 137; figs. 9:289.1 (Group K); 10:289.6 (Group L); 11:289.5 (Group N); 29 (map 7): site 289, Sagona 1984:280 Site Site name 282 Dizik Huyuk Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5396 Northing: 38.53646 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located on a natural hiltock ca. 3km. north-west of Gezin. Bibliography Meriggi 1967, 278; 288; 287 (map II): site 6; pl. LXXVII:1, Sagona 1984:281 Site Site name 283 Sarsap Mevki (Sarsap) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5260 Northing: 38.48805 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 2km. East of the village and just south of the Maden Suyu. Bibliography Burney 1958. 197 sherd 173; 193; 204 map IIIsite 313, Meriggi 1967, 279; 288; 287 map II: site 7 (Sarsap Mezraa), Russell 1980, 139; fig. 29 (map 7): site 313, Sagona 1984:281 343 Site Site name 284 Saka-Başi (Pincirik) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.0073 Northing: 38.47029 Material Description Surface sherds. Small to medium sized-Mound. Located ca.70km. north-east of Malatya on the bank of a stream. Bibliography Meriggi 1967, 277-278; 288; 287 (map II): site 17, Sagona 1984:281 Site Site name 285 Habibuşağı Kale Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.7908 Northing: 38.43699 Material Description Surface sherds. Site consists of a fort and Flat settlement the latter of which has an area 70x80 m. Situated on a steep conical , rocky hill ca. 500 m. West of the village of Habibuağı, immediately north of the Kadiköy road, at Yazılı Kaya. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 82-83 site P52/2; pls. 61 possibly 75:1, 2; site P52/2, Serdaroğlu 1977, 117; p1. 60 site C VII-S3, Sagona 1984:281 Site Site name 286 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: Northing: Material Description Burnished and painted.Surface sherds. Flat settlement built on a pebble deposit. Located ca.2km. Westsouth-west of the village of Zeykan, ca. 25m. West-south-west of the road to Cafer. 38.7326 38.405 Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 59 site P51/10, Sagona 1984:282 Site Site name 287 Cafer Harabesi Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.7173 Northing: 38.40566 Material Description Very few Burnished and painted surface sherds. Medium-sized Mound, ca. 120x50-60x5m. Situated on a lower terrace ca. 220x100x10 m. Located ca. 50 m. South of the mahalle of Cafer, on a rise on the bank of Değirmendere. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 57-59 site P51/12; pls. 54, 70:11, Sagona 1984:282 Site Site name 288 Pirot Höyük (Pirut) Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.6968 Northing: 38.41577 Material Description Many Burnished and painted surface sherds. Large, double-coned mound ca. 310x130x10 m. With a lower terrace; the eastern cone ca. 140x140x10 m. Is flat-topped and step-sided. Situated on a former bank of the Euphrates, it is covered by the modern village on the western cone and lower terrace. Bibliography von der Osten 1929b, 99; fig. 109, von der Osten 1930, 144; fig. 150, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 46 (Pirut), Meriggi 1962. 268-269; pls. LXIV:6, Meriggi 1963, 281, Meriggi 1966, 100; p1. IX (map II): site 5, Özdoğan 1977. 55-56. P51/15; p1. 69: 7-12, Serdaroğlu 1977, 64-65; 119; pls. 5:12; 6:14; 42:1. 2, 4, 5. 7. 8. 12. 16; 43:9. 4. 16; 46:116; 59 site F VI S1-S2, Özdoğan 1977:48,203-204 , Yakar-Saizmann 1979:35, Karaca 1981:109,113-114, Mellink 1982:565, Karaca 1983-72 74, Mellink l984:449, Sagona 1984:282, Karaca 1984:103-107, Karaca 1985.39 41 ,res.8-11, Yakar 1985a:300, Korfmann et al. 1995:175, 1 76,11 23 Site Site name 289 Fırat Yolu Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.6727 Northing: 38.40008 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x4m. Located on the north side of the Malatya to Elazığ road, 27.5km From Malatya. 344 Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 163, Meriggi 1966, 100. Suggests that it coutd Bahri, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l: site 8, Russell 1980, 122; fig. 27 (map 5): site 163, Sagona 1984:283 Site Site name 290 Administrative District Bahri (Erenli) Turkey: Malatya 1 Site Class Site size: Easting: 38.6641 Northing: 38.3511 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 80x80 m. Located ca. 30km. North-east of Malatya on the south side of the Malatya to Elazığ road. Bibliography von der Osten 1930, 98, Meriggi 1962, 268-269, Meriggi 1963, 280; p1. XLVIII:5, Meriggi 1966, 100; p1. IX (map II): site 4. Suggests that it could be Firat Yolu Hüyük, Sagona 1984:283 Site Site name 291 Administrative District İspendere Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 25km. east of Malatya. 2 Easting: 38.5293 Northing: 38.33754 2 Easting: 38.4750 Northing: 38.32747 Bibliography Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41, 46; fig. l: site 4, Sagona 1984:283 Site Site name 292 Administrative District Furuncu Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: Material Description Burnished and painted Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 200xl00xl5m. Located ca. 1 km. north-north-east of Furuncu and ca. 15km. East of Malatya on the south side of the Malatya to Elazığ road which cuts through it. Bibliography Burney 1958, 203 sherd 281; 204 map III site 162; 205, Meriggi 1965, 281, Meriggi 1966, 100; p1. IX (map II): site 2, Russell 1980, 122; figs. 9:162.5 (Group K), 162.3, .8 (Group L), 162.39 (Group M); 12:162.55 (Group Q); 27 (map 5): site 162, Sagona 1984:283-4 Site Site name 293 Administrative District Çiftlik Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4683 Northing: 38.3305 Material Description Painted surface sherds only Flat-topped Mound. Located ca. 15km. North-east of Malatya on . the Malatya to Elazığ road. Part of the mound was dug away for the construction of the road. Bibliography Von der Osten 1930, 98 (Haci-Halil-Oğlu Çiftlik), Meriggi 1962, 267-268; pls. LXIII:1-3 (Haci-Halil-Oğlu Çiftlik), Meriggi 1963, 281 (Haci-HalilOĞLU Çiftlik), Meriggi 1966, 100; pls. IX (map II): site 2 (Haci-Halil-Oğlu Çiftlik), Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 46; fig. l: site 3, Sagona 1984:284 Site Site name 294 Arslantepe Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3638 Northing: 38.37951 Material Description Period VI. Large mound ca. 250xl80x30 m. Located to the north of the village ca. 8km. North-east of Malatya. Bibliography von der Osten 1929b, 92-95; fig. 100, Delaporte 1934. 257-284. it is difficult to determine the Malatya-Eiaziğ painted pottery from the drawings. The profile and mofifs of the following sherds make them likel y to be of that type; pls. M22:2-14, M25:l-2, M29:6, Delaporte 1939, 42-54. The above remarks appiy again; pls. 1C:1-7. 11:1-7, 12:1-5, 13:1. 14:7-8, Schaeffer 1948b, Schaeffer 1951, Weidner 1952-53, Burney 1958, 195; 201 sherds 235, 240; 203 sherd 247; 204 map III site 161; 205; 208, Briadwood and Briadwood 1960, 511 n.85, Mellaart 1962:25, Meriggi 1962, 271-272; pls. LXVI:14, Pugiisi 1964:93-94, Meriggi 1966, 100; p1. IX (mapII): site l, Alkım (H)1967:17, Pecorella 1967, Alkım (H) 1968:27, Palmieri 1969a, Palmieri 1969b, Palmieri 1969e, Pecorella 1969, 224225, Alkım 1970:17, Palmieri 1970, 203-205, Pugiisi 1970:99-107, Mellink1971, 167, Mellink1972, 173, Palmieri 1972:203-211, Alkım (H) 1973:30, Mellink1973, 175, A. Palmierie 1973. 55-60, 83-228, Palmieri 1974, Mellink 1975, 206, Easton 1976:169, Mellink1976, 268, Palmieri 1977, Palmieri 1978, 311-343, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41-42; fig. l: site l, Russell 1980, 122; figs. 8:161.4, .15 (Group J); 12:161.56 (Group R); 27 (map 5): site 161, Mellink 1981a:468, Palmieri 1981a, Palmieri 1981a:108-111, Mellink 1982:562 Palmieri 1983:235-236, Mellink 1983:432, Mellink 1984:447, Palmieri 1984a:97101, Palmieri 1 984b:207-208, Yakar 1984:68-69, Sagona 1984:284-5, Mellink 1985a:553, Palmieri 1985a:71-78, Palmieri 1985c:1 81-182, Palmieri 1986:29-36, 345 Palmieri 1987:67-74, Mellink 1987:6-7, Frangipane-Palmieri 1988:287, Palmieri-Frangipane 1988:127-129, Mellink 1988a:108-1 09, Mellink 1989:113, PalmieriFrangipane 1990:l91-196,şek.1-5, Mellink 1990:131, Frangipane 1991:209-223, Mellink 1991a:134, Frangipane 1992:177-196, Mellink 1992a:133, Ferioli-Fiendra 1993:269-271, Bökönyi 1993, Burney 1993:311-318, Caneva 1993:319-339, Conti-Persiani 1993:361-414, Frangipane 1 993a:21 3-229, Frangipane 1993c:31-103, Frangipane 1 994a:211-228, Korfmann et al. 1994:35-36,116, Müller-Karpe (A) 1994:37-40,şek.1 9 Persiani 1994:391-409, Frangipane 1995:165-171, Gates 1995:214, Caneva-Giardino 1996:452, Frangipane 1 996b:1 69-182, Joukovvsky 1996:177, Palmieri et al. 1996:447-449, Frangipane 1 997b:1 38-1 39, Gates 1997:249, Frangipane 1998a:291-309, Frangipane 1998b: 195-218Palmieri et al. 1998:115-121, di Nocera 2000:82-83, Frangipane 2000: 439-71, Yakar 2000:48-57, Greaves-Helvving 2001:476-477, Frangipane 2001:1-24; TAY Database Site Site name 295 Gelenciktepe (Markop) Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3715 Northing: 38.38236 Material Description A single Early Bronze Age stratum which contained Both burnished and painted pottery. Rock shelter. Located ca. 2km. East of the mound of Arslantepe; near-by spring. Bibliography Przyluski 1937, 3-7 (Markop), Puglisi and Palmieri 1966; 84-91; figs. 16-32, A. Palimeri 1967. Palmieri 1968, Mellink 1969a:209, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l site 2, Sagona 1984:285, Yakar 1985a:298, Mellink 1992b:209, Korfmann et al. 1994:85-86, site no. 485; TAY Database Site Site name 296 Silbistan (Toygar) Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3585 Northing: 38.45509 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound, 75x75x5m. Located ca. 4-5km. north of Eski Malatya, just north of Kayali on the left bank of a stream. Bibliography Burney 1958, 163 sherds 21, 23, 24, Meriggi 1966, 100. Suggests this site is the same as Cano. Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l: site 10, Russell 1980, 125; figs. 8:191.1 (Group J); 9:191.6 (Group L): 12:191.17 (Group Q); 27 (map 5): site 191, Sagona 1984:286 Site Site name 297 Şantepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.6455 Northing: 38.44346 Material Description A few burnished surface sherds. which may be Late Chalcolithic Small Mound, ca. 70x50x3m. Located ca. 1 km. south-east of the village of Canbot, immediately north of the poor road leading from Canbot to Kadiköy. Heavily disturbed due to cultivation. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 81 site P51/7, Sagona 1984:286 Site Site name 298 Kaz Mevkii Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.6162 Northing: 38.44905 Material Description Many surface sherds. flat settlement, formed over pebble deposits. Located ca. 2km. West-south-west of Canbot, and north-west of the house belonging to Mehmet Toğrulca, on the slope of a conical rise. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 80 site P51/6, Sagona 1984:286 Site Site name 299 Kale III Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.6067 Northing: 38.45049 Material Description Surface sherds. Small mound, ca. 50 m. Long, on a natural hill 25m high. Located ca. 2.5km. West of Canbot, on the south bank of the Euphrates Bibliography Özdoğan 1977. 80 site P51/5; p1. 73:2, 3, Sagona 1984:286 Site 300 Site name Meydancık Höyük II Administrative District Turkey: Malatya 346 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.6041 Northing: 38.44385 Material Description Surface sherds. Small mound. Located ca. 150 m. From Meydancık I. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1977, 121; pls. 57: F IX-S2. it was not specified which Early Bronze Age pottery was collected, Sagona 1984:287 Site Site name 301 Administrative District Meydancık Höyük I Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.6028 Northing: 38.44465 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 10 m. High. Situated on a rocky outcrop ca. 3km. northwest of Meydancık village. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1977. 120; pls. 57: F IX-S1. it was not specified which Early Bronze pottery was coltected, through apparently it was abundant. Sagona 1984:287 Site Site name 302 Administrative District Meydancık Kale Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.5982 Northing: 38.43509 Material Description Few Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small , steep-sided mound ca. 60xl00x6-8m. Situated on a pebble deposit on the east baflk of the Şişman Çay overlooking the Euphrates. Located ca. 1.3km. South-west of the village of Meydancık Bibliography Özdoğan 1977. 51-52 site P51/18; pls. 53, Sagona 1984:287 Site Site name 303 Administrative District Köskerbaba Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.5743 Northing: 38.45029 Material Description Many burnished and painted surface sherds. Medium-sized mound. Ca. 80x80x8-10 m. With a terrace to its north side. Situated on a natural rise on the east bank of the Euphrates. Located ca. 700 m. South-east of Firat railway station, 150 m. South-east of the Firat railway bridge. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 50-51 site P51/17; pls. 53, 68:3, 4, Sagona 1984:287-8 Site Site name 304 Administrative District Kale I Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.5683 Northing: 38.47066 Material Description Surface sherds. Site consists of a Flat settlement and fort, 70xl90 m. Built on a natural hill. Located ca. l.lkm north-west of the Köfte, north of the road running alongthe river bank from Köfte to Haci Mehmetli, and west of Hacinin DERESİ Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 79 site P51/4, Sagona 1984:288 Site Site name 305 Seyrangah Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.5313 Northing: 38.45399 Material Description Surface sherds. Small Mound, ca. 60x30 m. Standing on a narrow ridge, probably an old bank of the Euphrates. Located ca. 1.2km north of Kuluşağı and ca. 700 m. North of the railway. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977. 49 site P51/23, Sagona 1984:288 Site 306 Site name Meyoancık Höyük III Administrative District Turkey: Malatya 347 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.5231 Northing: 38.45417 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Situated on a rocky out-crop, ca. 9km. west of Meydancık village, north of Kuluşağı. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1977, 121, pls. 57: P VIII-S1. it was not specified which Early Bronze Age pottery was collected, Sagona 1984:288 Site Site name 307 Kırasa Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.5006 Northing: 38.4792 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small Mound, ca. 50x20x3m. Situated on a low rise on the bank of the Euphrates, which has cut away at its south side. Its north-east edge has been eroded by a stream while its north-west sector has been dug away for the construction of a modern village. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 77-78 site P51/1; pls. 56; 73:2-5, Sagona 1984:288-9 Site Site name 308 Adağören (Kilişik) Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.4799 Northing: 38.46661 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat-topped.mound ca. 150xl50xl0 m. Located ca. 2km. from Adağören on the way to Imamoğlu. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1977;'114; pls. 57 site J XI-SI. It was not specified which Bronze Age pottery was collected, Sagona 1984:289 Site Site name 309 Değirmentepe Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.4647 Northing: 38.47211 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x150x8m. Situated on a low natural rise which may have been an old bank of the Euphrates. Located halfway between Imamoğlu and Kilisik, between.the road and the Euphrates, on the land belonging to the village of Imamoğlu. Under cultivation. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 46 site P50/7; p1. 52, Sagona 1984:289; TAY Database Site Site name 310 Imamoğlu Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4417 Northing: 38.47058 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Medium-sized, steep-sided Mound, ca. 100x100x14m. Situated on a ridge near the confiuence of the Huyük and the Kirmizi Toprak streams, south-west of the village of Imamoğlu. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, pls. LXXVII: site 44 (İmamlı), Özdoğan 1977, 45-46 site P50/3; pls. 55, 66:4-9, 19, 20, 24; 67:1-3, 22, 23, Serdaroğlu 1977, 118; without a detailed description of the pottery it is difficult to detennine the Kura-Araks wares; but the following seem likely pls.: 43: 30-33; 48:126, 57: site GX1-S1, Mellink 1981a:469, Uzunoğlu 1981:17-19, Mellink 1982:564, Mellink 1983:434, Uzunoğlu 1983:133-136lev.2,res.16-22, Mellink 1984:450, Sagona 1984:289, Mellink 1985a:557209-21 3,res.5-20, Uzunoğlu 1985:237-243,, Uzunoğlu 1986:184-199res.9-29, Mellink 1987:11, Uzunoğlu 1987:217-220, Mellink 1988a:m-1 12, Uzunoğlu 1988:205-206, Uzunoğlu 1989:71-80,83-93, Korfmann et al. 1994:111, site no. 659, Oybak-Demirci 1997:173-176 Site Site name 311 Kamıklı Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.4764 Northing: 38.48816 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mount consisting of two cones with a total area of 120x70 m. The western cone is 70x70x5-6m. (ca. 100xl00x18m). according to U. Serdaroğlu 1977 table 2:5). Located next to the mahalle of Kamikli, on the Bilaluşağı road. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 76-77 site P50/1; pls. 55; 71:7, 8, 12; 72:10, 11, 13, Serdaroğlu 1977, 64, 119; pls. 5:13; 6:15; 57 site SI, Sagona 1984:290 348 Site Site name 312 Haroğlu Tarlası Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.4735 Northing: 38.49091 Material Description Afew surface sherds. Flat settlement, ca. 100xl00 m. Located ca.500 m. north-north-west of the village of Kamikli, in the field owned by Haroğlu; north of the Bilaluşağı road Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 75-76 site P50/2, Sagona 1984:290 Site Site name 313 İmikuşağı Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4389 Northing: 38.50825 Material Description many burnished and a few painted Surface sherds. Large, steep-sided, flat-topped mound ca. 80x90x14m; lower terraces on the east and south sides,ca. 200x200 m. Covered by village houses. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 75 site 050/1; pls. 55; 72:2-6, 22. 25j, Serdaroğlu 1977, 118; p1. 55 site F II-S1, Sagona 1984:290 Site Site name 314 Köse (Köy) Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4092 Northing: 38.50154 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small, flat-topped mound ca. 100xl00x20 m. Situated on a pebble deposit. Located east of the village of Kösenüyük, just north of the İmamoğlu road on the south bank of the Tohma Çay. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII; site 45, Meriggi 1962, 269, Meriggi 1966, 100; pls. IX (map II) site 7a, Özdoğan 1977, 43 site 050/14; pls. 53; 66:5, Serdaroğlu 1977, 119-120; p1. 53:0 I-S1, Sagona 1984:290-1 Site Site name 315 Cano Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3817 Northing: 38.4656 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Steep-sided, flat-topped mound ca. 50x90xl0 m. With terraces to the north and south ca. 110 m in length. Located ca. 1 km. South of the village of Boran, east of the Eski Malatya road. Two near-by springs. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 47, Meriggi 1962, 269; pls. LXIV:7, Meriggi 1966, 100; p1. IX (map II): 7. Suggests this site is the same as Silbistan, Özdoğan 1977, 41-42 site P50/5; pls. 53; 65:3, 5, 6, Sagona 1984:291 Site 316 Site name Hasırcı III (Hasırcılar) Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3603 Northing: 38.48179 Material Description Painted surface sherds only Mound, ca. 75x75x6m. Located ca. 3km. South of the Tohma Çay, and 3km. West of the Malatya to Hekimhan road. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 (map III) site 171; material reported but not illustrated, Meriggi 1965, 271 (AsireItepesi), P Meriggi 1966. 100; p1. IX (map II): site 8 (Asircitepesi), Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l: site 15, Russell 1980, 123; fig. 27 (map 4) site 171, Sagona 1984:291 Site Site name 317 Hasırcı I (Hasırcılar) Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3709 Northing: 38.48435 Material Description Painted surface sherds only Mound. Ca. 50x50x5m. Located on the south bank of the Tohman Çay. Ca. 2km. West of Kırkgöz Köprü north of Malatya. Bibliography 349 Yakar and A. Gürsan-Satzmann 1979, fig. l: site 13, Russell 1980, 123; figs. 12:168.1 (Group R); 27 (map 5): site 168, Sagona 1984:291-2 Site Site name 318 Administrative District Sinalı Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 250 m. west of the village. Easting: 38.3626 Northing: 38.50317 Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1977, 122; p1. 55: site L II-S1, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979; 42; fig, l: site 12, Sagona 1984:292 Site Site name 319 Administrative District Çiftlik Mevkii Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3584 Northing: 38.50092 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Flat settlement ca. 60x40 m. Situated on a pebble deposit. Located ca. 250 m. west of the village of Sinanlı. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 34 site 050/15, Sagona 1984:292 Site Site name 320 Administrative District Alişar Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 14km. north of Malatya. Easting: 38.3369 Northing: 38.47085 Bibliography Meriggi 1962, 271 (Alisar-Deresi), Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l: site 16, Sagona 1984:292, TAY Database Site Site name 321 Administrative District Harabe Tepe Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3151 Northing: 38.48847 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small, steep-sided mound ca. 75x50 m. With a small terrace on the north side. Built on a natural hill it is located ca. 500 m. South-east of the village of Oedekargin, on the north bank of the Tohma Çay Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 36 site P50./11, Sagona 1984:292-3 Site Site name 322 Administrative District Tilki Tepe Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.2978 Northing: 38.48423 Material Description Surface sherds. A steep-sided natural rise overlooking the Tohma Çay. Located ca. 200 m. east of Orta Mahmudu, beside a small spring. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 39-40. site P50/9, Sagona 1984:293 Site Site name 323 Sokulu Tarla Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.2829 Northing: 38.48871 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Located ca. 500 m, south-east of Yukarı Mahmudu. Near-by spring. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 39 site P50/10, Sagona 1984:293 350 Site Site name 324 Hayyim Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.2932 Northing: 38.49745 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small mound, ca. 125x50 m. Built on a natural hill it overlooks Tohma Çay ca. 500 m. West of Tecirli, ca. l00 m. South of the Pedekargin-Surur road. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 37 site 050/23, Sagona 1984:293 Site Site name 325 Samanköy Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.2167 Northing: 38.48675 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x75x20 m. Located in a valley ca. 200 m. north-west of the village. Bibliography von der Osten 1929b, 270, Burney 1958. 203 sherds 267, 280; 204 map III site 174; 205; 208. Meriggi 1962, 270-271; pls. LXV: 11-12, Meriggi 1966, 101 pls. IX (map II): site 9, Yakar and A. Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 46; fig. l: site 17, Russell 1980, 124; figs. 9:174.1 (Group L); 27 (map 5): site 174, Sagona 1984:293-4 Site Site name 326 Yukarı Örükçü Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.1034 Northing: 38.46882 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75x40 m. Situated on a rocky spur which has a cemetery on its slopes. Located ca. 500 m. East-north-east of the village, and 14km. north of Arga. Bibliography Burney 1958; 204 map III site 175, P. Men'ggi 1966, 101; pls. IX (map II): site 9a, Russell 1980, 124; sherds are not illustrated though table 3, p. 44 states they belong to Group J; fig. 27 (map 5): site, Sagona 1984:294 Site Site name 327 Anbarcık Höyüğü Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.2878 Northing: 38.5694 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat settlement, ca. 700 m. south-west of Ambarcik village. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 7, 115; pls. 54: site F X-S1. it was not specified which Bronze Age pottery was collected, Sagona 1984:294 Site Site name 328 Maltepe Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3004 Northing: 38.5758 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small steep-sided Mound, ca. 100x50x5m. Located ca.750 m. northwest of Ambarcık, on rocky ground on the bank of the Kuru Çay. Bibliography Meriggi 1966, 101; p1. IX (map II): site 14a, Özdoğan 1977, 30 site 050/21; p1. 64:1-3, Sagona 1984:294 Site 329 Site name Şemşiye Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3707 Northing: 38.56959 Material Description Burnished and painted sherds. Medium-sized mound situated on a pebble deposit on the bank of the Euphrates which has eroded a 351 substantial portion of the mound; what remains is ca. 70x90 x5m. Under cultivation. Bibliography Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII site 72 (Semsi Höyük), Özdoğan 1977, 72-73 site 050/10; pls. 55, 70:7, 6, /I:l-.5, 9-12; site 050/10, Darga 1981a:27-30, Darga 1981b:53-57, Mellink 1981a:469, Mellink 1982:564, Darga 1983:55-62, Mellink 1983:434, Darga 1984:91-96, Mellink 1984:450, Mellink 1985a:557, Yakar 1985a:249, Darga 1986a:11 9-1 28, Darga 1986b:73-80, lev.37-42, Darga 1987a:1 57-1 71, Mellink 1987:12, Darga 1987b:291-294, lev.179-188, Darga 1988:181-203, Mellink 1988a:113, Darga 1989a:1 81-1 85, res.2c-13c, Korfmann et al. 1995:196, site no. 1269, Darga 2000:140-146 Site Site name 330 Şahyurpu Mevkii Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.3683 Northing: 38.5848 Material Description Surface sherds. Cemetery. "Located ca. 1 km. north of Bilauşağı between the Kale Road and the Euphrates, and ca 500 m. From the bank of the Euphrates, in a field owned by Ramazan Beşik, on the south slope of a small flood-water bed. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 71-72 site 050/12, Sagona 1984:295 Site Site name 331 Kaleköy Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3706 Northing: 38.61513 Material Description Surface sherds. A number of painted bowl s from the village are said to have come from the site. Site consists of a fort, cemetery and building remains on a hill immediately behindKaleköy. The Early Bronze Age settlement or cemetery is in the vicinity of Kaleköy, but its locatlon has not yet been determined. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 70-71 site 050/9, Sagona 1984:295 Site Site name 332 Şevki Han Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.3379 Northing: 38.60934 Material Description A single burnished surface sherd Flat Settlement. Located ca. 1.5km. North of the modern village near the bank of the Euphrates between the Delikli and the Keleş (Sulu) streams, ca. 3km. north-east of Ambarcık. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 29 site 050/30, Sagona 1984:295-6 Site Site name 333 Karababa Harabesi Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3516 Northing: 38.62675 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds Flat settlement ca. 130x80 m. Situated on the southern slopes of Kilise Tepesi on the bank of the Euphrates. Located ca. 2km. south-east of Mamahar north of the Karababa stream. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 23 site 050/20; pl. 64:3, 5-8, Sagona 1984:296 Site Site name 334 Kilise Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3524 Northing: 38.62975 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Small Mound, ca. 80x60xl0 m. Located ca. 1.8km. South-east of Mamahar, on a high rock promontory of Kilise Tepe projecting towards the Euphrates. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 23-24; site 050/19, Sagona 1984:296 Site 335 Material Site name Değirmenbaşı Mevkii Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Description 352 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3892 Northing: 38.66826 Painted surface sherds. Flat settlement on a natural hill on the bank of the Euphrates. Located ca. 2.5km. South-east of Morhamam, immediately south of the confluence of the Aliağa Çayi , east of the Malatya road. Under cultivation. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977. 21 site 050/32, Sagona 1984:296 Site Site name 336 Uzunoğlan Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3933 Northing: 38.67018 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Steep-sided, flat-topped, medium-sized mound ca. 200xl50xl0 m. (200x200 m. According to U. Serdaroğlu ) situated on a natural hill on the banks of the Euphrates. Located ca. 2km. South-east of Morhamam, immediately north of the confluence of the Aliağa . Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 22 site 050/33, Serdaroğlu 1977, 122; p1. 53: site C VI-S1, 6-7 Site Site name 337 Nalıhasan Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.4279 Northing: 38.68027 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat settlement, ca. 60x60 m. Located ca.1km. north-east of the village of Arapaşağı, and ca. 500 m. South-west of Kartin Harabesithe bank of the Euphrates. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 69 site 050/7, Sagona 1984:297 Site Site name 338 Ataf Harabesi Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.4491 Northing: 38.68557 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat settlement, ca. 100xl50 m. Located ca. 3km. South-west of Hüyükköy, and 400 m. South-west of Uyucek, on the bank of the Euphrates. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 68 site 050/6, Sagona 1984:297 Site Site name 339 Üyücek Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4567 Northing: 38.68713 Material Description Many burnished and few painted surface sherds. Medium-sized mound, ca. 60x80xl3-14m. With lower terraces ca. 110xl80 m. Located 2.5km. South-west of Hüyükköy, north of the road to Arapuşağı, on the bank of the Euphrates. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 67, 68; site 050/5; pls. 55, 70:2, Serdaroğlu 1977, 123; p1. 53 site H VIII-S1, Sagona 1984:297 Site Site name 340 Hüyüköy Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4818 Northing: 38.69828 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Medium-sized mound ca. 60x60xl0 m. With a wide, lower terrace on the east side ca. 110xl80 m. (150xl50x25m). According to U. Serdaroğlu 1977, 117). The modern village covers the east and south sides of the mound and the terrace. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 65-66 050/2; p1. 54, Serdaroğlu 1977, 117; p1. 53 site L IX-S1, Sagona 1984:297-8 353 Site Site name 341 Administrative District Maltepe Höyük Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.4733 Northing: 38.73434 Material Description Many burnished and painted sherds Small mound ca. 50x50x5-7m., and a Flat settlement ca. 130x75m. The mound is situated on top of a steep rocky scarp on the east bank of the Euphrates while the Flat settlement is situated at the foot of the scarp. Located ca. 3.5km. north of Kumtutarlar (Ataf). Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 65 site 050/13; pls. 54; 70:3, 4, Sagona 1984:298 Site Site name 342 Administrative District Fethiye Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.1135 Northing: 38.63464 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100xl00xl5m. (20 m. High according to Puglisi). The modern village is immediately to the north. Bibliography von der Osten 1929b, 270, von der Osten 1930, 98; fig. 102, Kökten 1947b. P1. LXXVII: site 41, Burney 1958, 195; 203 sherd 269; 204 map III site 193, Bossert 1959. 291; p1. LX:34, Meriggi 1962. 270; pls. LXIV:8, LXV:9, Meriggi 1966, 101; p1. IX (map II): site 14, Puglisi and Meriggi 1964, 12-18; figs. 2-3; P15, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41-42, 46; figs. L: site, Russell 1980, 126; figs. 8:193.1. .13 (Group J); 9:193.4 (Group K), 193.2 (Group L); 12:193.28, .29 (Group R); 27 (map5) site 193, Sagona 1984:298 Site Site name 343 Administrative District Horomhan Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.2423 Northing: 38.73247 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50x8m. Located ca. 1 km. west-north-west of Yukari Sülmenli, and ca. 1 km. south-west of Tetkir. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 163 sherd 19; 201 sherds 232, 234; 203 sherd 254, 204 map III site 167, Meriggi 1966, 101; site 15b (Horom-ham), Yakar and GürsanSalzmann 1979, 41; 46; fig. l site 34. Russell 1980, 123; figs. 9:167.2 (Group L); 12:1.67.7 (Group Q); 27 (map 5): site 167, Sagona 1984:299 Site Site name 344 Administrative District Yukarı Sülmenli Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.2541 Northing: 38.7225 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound, ca., 75x50x5m. With a cemetery on the top. Located just north of the village, ca. 4km- south-south-west of Arguvan. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 01 sherds 227, 229-231, 37;—203 sherds 255, 257, 259, 276, 278; 204 map III site 166; 208, Meriggi 1966, 101; p1. IX (map II): site 15a, Brown 1967, fig. 10:78, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 42; 46 fig. l site 35, Russell 1980, 123; figs. 8: 166.1, .5 (Group J); 9:166.3 (Group L); 10:166.8 (Group M); 27 (map 5): site 166, Sagona 1984:299 Site Site name 345 Administrative District İsaköy Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3453 Northing: 38.73949 Material Description Painted and burnished surface sherds. Conical Mound, ca. 75x75x8m. (according to P. Meriggi it is 2025m. High, which probably inciudes the height of a natural hill). Located ca. 2km. South-south-east of the village which is ca. 5km. East-south-east of Arguvan. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 163 sherds l, 20; 201sherds 226, 228, 241; 203 sherd 208; 204 map III site 165; 205, Meriggi 1966, 71; pls. IX (map II): site 15; XVIH:8, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41-42; 46; fig. I site 36, Russell 1980, 123; figs. 9:165.1, .2 (Group L); 10:165.6, (Group M); 12:165.15 (Group Q), 165.14 (Group R); 27 (map 5): site 165, Sagona 1984:299-300 Site 346 Site name Karahöyük Administrative District Turkey: Malatya 354 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.3327 Northing: 38.82444 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound, ca. 125xl25x20 m. (at teast 40 m. 1-high according to P. Meriggi); covered by the modern village. Located ca. 6km. northeast of Arguvan. Bibliography Kökten 1944, map I site 3, Burney 1958, 195; 163 sherds 16-18; 201 sherd 236; 203 sherds 244-246, 248, 250-252, 256, 258, 264-266, 270-271, 275, 277, 282-284; 204 map III site 164; 205; 208, Meriggi 1966, 71; pls. IX (map II): site 16; XVIII:9, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 46; fig. l site 37, Russell 1980, 123; figs. 8:164.9 (Group J); 9:164.4 (Group L); 12:164.36, 61 (Group Q); 164.28, .39, .50, .51, .55, .70, .76, .79, .90, .91 (Group R); 27 (map 5): site 164, Sagona 1984:300 Site Site name 347 Aşağı Sazlıca Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.0933 Northing: 38.96966 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x100x10 m. Located on a spur over-looking the west bank of the Saz Çay, ca. 500 m. north of the village and 16km. north-north-east of Hekimhan. Bibliography Burney 1958, 163 sherd 27; 203 sherd 253; 204 map III site 180, Meriggi 1966, 101; pls. IX (map II): site 17d, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 46; fig. l site 33, Russell 1980. 124; figs. 9:180.3. .4 (Group L); 12:180.29 (Group R); sherds of Group L and K are not illustrated, table 3 p. 44; 27 (map 5): site 180, Sagona 1984:300; TAY Database Site Site name 348 Hornovil (Hornavil) Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.1104 Northing: 39.48175 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Ca. 60x60x5m. Located ca 2km. north of the town. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 201 sherd 222; 204 map III site 155, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l: site 62. (HornavU), Russell 1980, 121; figs. 8:155.6 (Group J); 9:155.2 (Group L); 28 (map 6): site 155, Sagona 1984:301 Site Site name 349 Sivrikaya Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.8090 Northing: 39.43491 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 3km. Downstream from Fero on the right bank of the Karabel Çay. Sherds cover a large area. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 201 sherd 224; 204 map III site lb7, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l: site 43, Russell 1980, 122; fig. 28 (map 6): site 157, Sagona 1984:301 Site Site name 350 Fero (İncilipinar) Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 37.7673 Northing: 39.43698 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Two forts ca. 100xl00 m. And 50x50 m.; the larger of the two has a Small mound in its centre. Located ca. 1 km. north-west of Fero close to the right bank of the Kembal Çay. Bibliography Burney 1958, 203 sherd 249; 204 map III site 156, Yakar and Gursan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l: site 42, Russell 1980, 121; fig. 8:156.1 (Group J); 12:156.10 (Group R); 28 (map 6): site 156, Sagona 1984:301 Site Site name 351 Höyük Değirmentepe Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 37.4499 Northing: 39.29626 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound. Ca. 60x60x1m. Located ca. 2km. South-east of Kavak on the left bank of a stream, and immediately north of the railway. Bibliography 355 von der Osten 1929b, 77; fig. 88, Kökten 1944, 667; pls. XC:6, 7; map I site 10, Kökten 1947b, p1. LXXVII: site 30a, Burney 1958, 201 sherds 242, 243; 203 sherd 285; 204 map III site 153; 205, Meriggi 1965, 277, 279; p1. XXXII (map II): site 14, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41, 46; fig. l site 41, Russell 1980, 121; figs. 8:153.1 (Group J); sherds of Group M not illustrated, tabte 3 p.44; 28 (map 6): site 153, Sagona 1984:301-2; TAY Database Site Site name 352 Administrative District Armutak (Kavaklısu) Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.0286 Northing: 39.21093 Material Description Burnished and painted surface sherds. Mound, ca. 50x50 m.; a stream which flows on its west side has eroded much of the Mound. Located just north-east of Armutak. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 159, Russell 1980, 122; figs. 8:159.1. .2 (Group J); 9:159.11 (Group L); 12:159.24 (Group R); 28 (map 6): site 159, Sagona 1984:302; TAY Database Site Site name 353 Administrative District Yeşilkale Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.7555 Northing: 38.96687 Material Description Surface sherds. A flat settlement covering the south slope and summit of a high rocky outcrop just south of the village. Situated on the bank of a stream, ca. 25km. north-north-west of Hekimhan. Bibliography Burney 1958. 195; 201 sherd 225; 204 map III site 188, Meriggi 1966, 101; p1. IX (map II): site 17e. Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l site 31, Russell 1980, 125; fig. 27 (map 5): site 188, Sagona 1984:302 Site Site name 354 Administrative District Ihşanlı Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.6361 Northing: 38.94158 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located just north of the village of Yünlüce. ca. 30km. north-east of Hekimhan. Bibliography Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l site 30, Sagona 1984:303 Site Site name 355 Bahcedamı Administrative District Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.6710 Northing: 38.89392 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located just east of the village of Yünlüce. Bibliography Yakar and A. Gürsan-salzmann 1979, 41-42; figs. L: site 29; 5, Sagona 1984:303 Site Site name 356 Yukarı Buçaklı Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.9474 Northing: 38.85278 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound ca. 50x50 m. Situated on top of a high pinnacle ca. 1 km. north-north-east of the village, and 5km. north-north-east of Hekimhan. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 179, Meriggi 1966, 101 site 17c, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l site 27, Russell 1980, 124; sherds of Group J not iHustrated, table 3p.44; fig. 27 (map 5): site 179, Sagona 1984:301 Site Site name 357 Hasarkaya Administrative District Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.8876 Northing: 38.81704 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 150x75m. Located ca. 5km. North-north-west of Hekimhan on the north-east side of a rocky outcrop overlooking 356 the Ulu Çay. Bibliography Burney 1958, 204 map III site 190, Meriggi 1966, site 17b, Yakar and A. Gürsan-Satzmann 1979, 41-42; fig. l site 28, Russell 1980, 190; fig. 27 (map 5): site 190, Sagona 1984:303-4 Site Site name 358 Administrative District Kuyuluk Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 37.9226 Northing: 38.76687 Material Description Painted surface sherds. , According to H.F, possibly also burnished Mound, ca. 50x50x3m. Located ca. 1 km. west of Hasartepe on north bank of a stream close to Yukarı Cüzüngut Köy. Bibliography Burney 1958, 163 sherds 3-5, 7-10, Russell 1980, 125; fig. 27 (map 5): site 185, Sagona 1984:304 Site Site name 359 Administrative District Hasartepe Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 37.9427 Northing: 38.77066 Material Description Surface sherds. Rocky outcrop ca. 75x75x20 m. Located on the north side of a valley which joins the Kuru Çay ca. 7km. south of Hekimhan. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 201 sherd 223; 204 map III, Meriggi 1966, 101 site 17a, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l site 26, Russell 1980, 125; fig. 27 (map 5): site 184, Sagona 1984:304 Site Site name 360 Administrative District Dışlıktepe (Kirkpınar) Turkey: Sivas Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.9508 Northing: 38.49749 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 35km. North-east of Malatya. Bibliography Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41-42; fig1: site 19, Sagona 1984:304 Site Site name 361 Administrative District İkinciler (Kazan) Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.9433 Northing: 38.30033 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 75mx75m. Located ca. 6.5km. south of Akçadağ just east of the road to Doğanşehir. Bibliography Burney 1958, 195; 201 sherds 237. 238; 204 map III site 177; 205, Meriggi 1966, 70, 101; pls. IX (map II): site 11, XVII:6, Brown 1967, fig. 10:79, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, 41; fig. l: site 21, Russell 1980, 124; figs. 8:177.1, .2 (Group J); 9:177.4 (Group L); 27 (map 5): site 177, Sagona 1984:305 Site Site name 362 Administrative District Ören Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.4081 Northing: 38.15028 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat-topped Mound, ca. 150xl50x20 m. (25-30 m. High according to P. Meriggi). Located ca. 1 km. south of the village just east of the Akçadağ to Poğanşehir road, and ca. 3km. West of the village. Bibliography Burney 1958, 201 sherd 239; 204 map III site 176; 205, Meriggi 1966, 70; 101; pls. IX (map II): site 12; XVII: 7, Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979, fig. l: site 22, Russell 1980, 124; fig. 9:178.6 (Group L); 27 (map 5): site 178, Sagona 1984:305 357 Site Site name 363 Malap (Bakış) Administrative District Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.9213 Northing: 38.25245 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat-topped mound, ca. 90x100x12m. Located 500 m. west of village dominating the route to the east. Bibliography Brown 1967, 164; figs. L: site 35; 10:74, Sagona 1984:305 Site Site name 364 Til Höyük (Akbayır) Administrative District Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.3615 Northing: 38.14693 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat-topped mound, ca. 160x200x14m. Located on the west side of the village; heavily disturbed. Bibliography H. H. von der Osten 1930, map (p. 106), P; Meriggi 1966, 102; pls. IX (map II): site 27, Brown 1967, 164; figs. L: site 34; 10:97-101, Sagona 1984:305-6 Site Site name 365 Kuçuk Til Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.3467 Northing: 38.16785 Material Description Surface sherds. Conical mound, ca. 70x80x8m. Located ca. 2km. north-east of Til Hüyük Bibliography Meriggi 1966, p1: IX:26, Brown 1967, 164; figs. L: site 33; 10:75, 90, Sagona 1984:306 Site Site name 366 Kara Elbistan Administrative District Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.2125 Northing: 38.20542 Material Description Surface sherds. Conical mound, ca. 70xl00x6m. Located on the north side of village, partly covered by modern cemetery Bibliography von der Osten 1930, 106 map (incorrectly positioned according to Brown 1967, 163), Dönmez and Brice 1949, fig. 2: site 8; pls. XXX:A, Özguc 1948, map I, P. Garelli 1963, 103 and n.3, Meriggi 1966, 102; pls. IX (map II) site 30, Brown 1967, 163; figs. L: site 32; 10:86, Sagona 1984:306 Site 367 Site name Ozan Höyük (Eevzaniye) Administrative District Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.1778 Northing: 38.30918 Material Description Surface sherds. Round-topped mound, ca. 60x80x5m. Located on south side of village; much disturbed by illicit digging. Bibliography von der Osten 1930, 106 map (Azaniyeh), 108 (Anzan Hüyük), Dönnez and Brice 1949, fig. 2: site 7; pls. XXX: Meriggi 1966, 102; pls. IX (map II): site 31, Brown 1967, 163, figs. L: site 30; 10:76, 87, 92, Sagona 1984:306-7 Site Site name 368 Çoğulhan (Cholu Han) Administrative District Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.0694 Northing: 38.33782 Material Description Surface sherds. Conical mound ca. 100x110x10 m. Located to the north-west of 358 the village, which lies on the main road from Elbistan to Tanır. Bibliography von der Osten 1930, 106 map VIII (Cholu Han), Dönmez and Brice 1949, fig. 2 site 4 (Çolhan Köy); pls.XXX:A, Özguc 1949, 62 (Cavli Han), Meriggi 1966, 102; pls. IX (map): site 32 (Coglu Han). Brown 1967, 161; figs. L site 18; 10:89, Sagona 1984:307 Site Site name 369 Administrative District Tilafin (Tilafşun) Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class size: 1 Easting: 36.9378 Northing: 38.20696 Material Description Surface sherds. Conical, steep-sided mound ca. 90x100x1501! Suuated on a rocky outcrop dominating the Göksün Su valley north of the river. Bibliography von der Osten 1930, 106 map (Tilafshun), Dönmez and Brice 1949, fig. 2: site 2 (Tel Afşin) Garetli 1963, 103 (Tel afsin), Brown 1967, 162; figs. L: site 25; 10:9194, 102, Sagona 1984:307 Site Site name 370 Administrative District Mehre (Ortaklı) Turkey: Kahraman Maras Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.0458 Northing: 38.15154 Material Description Surface sherds. Conical, steep-sided and eroded Mound, ca. 100x110xl2m. Located on the east side of village, beside the Ceyhan. Bibliography Brown 1967, 163; figs. L: site 27; 10:77, Sagona 1984:307-8 Site Site name Administrative District 371 Sürgü Turkey: Malatya Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 37.975 Northing: 38.00414 Material Description Surface sherds. Conical mound, ca. 90xl20x9m. Located ca. 500 m. West of the village, south of the main road across a stream, in the middle of a small plain. Bibliography Gareili 1963, 98, P. Meriggi 1965, 281; pls. XLIII:26a, Meriggi 1966, 101; pls. IX (map II): site 3, Brown 1967. 164; figs. L: site 37; 10:73, 80-85, 88, 95-96, Sagona 1984:308 Site Site name 372 Administrative District Tebzek Turkey: Adıyaman Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 37.9324 Northing: 37.71122 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 60x60x8m. Located ca. 1.5km. South of the village on the north bank of the Aksu Çay. Bibliography Russell 1980, 137; figs. 8:300.2; 26 (map 4): site 300, Sagona 1984:308 Site Site name 373 Bozhöyük Administrative District Turkey: Adıyaman Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.3553 Northing: 37.63597 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 125xl5-20 m. Located ca. 1 km. north-west of the village in a slight depression. No near-by water supply. Bibliography Meriggi 1966, 74; pls. VIII (map I) site 8, Russell 1980, 137; figs. 8:296.9; 26 map 4 site 296, Sagona 1984:308 Site 374 Site name Samsat Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Adıyaman Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.5089 Northing: 37.51979 Material Description Presently under excavation. Site consists of a large steep-sided mound ca. 300x150x37-40 m. 359 And a lower city ca. 500x350x37-40 m. Part of the mound, at least is built on a natural conglomerate hill. Site has been disturbed in various parts by modern habitations and erosion. Bibliography Meriggi 1966, 98; p1. VIII (map I): site 4, Meriggi 1967, 275; p1. LXXIII:2, Özdoğan 1977, 130-134 site T51/14, Serdaroğlu 1977, 66-70; p1s. 7, 8, 9, 10:21. Without a description of the illustrate pottery it is difficult to determine which is Kura-Araks, though the following appear to be: 43:10, 45:115.2. 64 site B III SI, Sagona 1984:309 Site Site name 375 Göktepe Administrative District Turkey: Urfa Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.0682 Northing: 37.68509 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 200x200x20 m.; modern village covers southern and western slopes. No near-by water supply. Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980, 177 site T53/1, Sagona 1984:309 Site Site name 376 Kara Köyün Administrative District Turkey: Urfa Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.2891 Northing: 37.7645 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 100x75xl5m; covered by modern village on southern and western slopes. Wells are located close to the north. Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980, 177 site T53/3; p1. 16, Sagona 1984:309 Site Site name 377 Hanîgevram Administrative District Turkey: Diyarbakır Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.7795 Northing: 37.96985 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, upper section ca. 100x75x2 5m, lower section ca. 400x250x25m. Modern village covers lower slopes except in the north. A stream bed is located near-by to the north-east. Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980, 171 site R56/9-p1. 12, Sagona 1984:309-10 Site Site name 378 Köyanla (Miyaoın) Administrative District Turkey: Diyarbakır Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.8404 Northing: 38.03966 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 150xl00xl5m. Modern village covers the lower slopes except in the eastern, north-eastern and northern areas. Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980, 171 site R56/14; p1. 12, Sagona 1984:310 Site Site name 379 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Diyarbakır Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.5616 Northing: 38.0461 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 250x120x15m. Covered by recent ruins. Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980, 170 site R55/12; p1. 11, Sagona 1984:310 Site Site name 380 Körküyü Administrative District Turkey: Diyarbakır Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 39.6064 Northing: 38.13423 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 40x40xl5m. Located ca. 15km. North-east of Çermik. 360 Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980, 170 site R55/13; p1. 11, Sagona 1984:310 Site Site name 381 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Diyarbakır Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 39.6494 Northing: 38.14793 Material Description Surface sherds. Flat Settlement. Located ca. 300 m. South of Hilar village, and ca. 20km. north-east of Çermik. Bibliography Çambel and Briadwood 1980. 170 site R55/7b; pls 11, Sagona 1984:310-11 Site Site name 382 Yarımca Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ 2 Site Class Site size: Easting: 39.9401 Northing: 38.71646 Material Description Surface sherds. A small Mound, ca. 25m. High. Located on the edge of a steep slope on the north bank of the Murat river, ca. 4km. North- east of Glilüçtü where the old railway crosses a large bndge over the Murat river. The modern village covers part of the mound. Bibliography Esin 1974, 123, .Kökten 1976, 7; pls. 4:2:12, Dürü 1979a, 64, Sagona 1984:311 Site Site name 383 Sekerat (Yazıbaşı) Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ 2 Site Class Site size: Easting: 39.9845 Northing: 38.75103 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, ca. 150xl25-150x6m. Located ca_ 2km. North of the village and ca. 75m. South-east of the Elazığ to Bingöl road. Bibliography Burney 1958, 163 sherd 31. 1980. 136; figs. 10:286.1 (Group L); 11:286.3 (Group N); 29 (map 7): site 286, Sagona 1984:311 Site Site name 384 Pinartepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 40.0053 Northing: 38.73491 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound between the villages of Kaplaçmaz and Seydili. Heavily disturbed by illict digging. Two large areas have been opened up and used as threshing floors. Bibliography Kökten 1976. 7; pls. 5; 13:37. 38. 45. 46; 14:36, 39. 44, Sagona 1984:311 Site Site name 385 Biricik Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Adıyaman Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.2931 Northing: 37.46585 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound, upper slope s c a. 40x40x15m., lower slopes ca. 120x120x15m. With an extensive terrace to the north-east. Situated on a small natural rise on the river bank. Consequently it has been eroded by the Euphrates to the south and the Kücüktepe. Bibliography Özdoğan 1977, 142-143 site U50/1; pls. 57; possibly 90:4, Serdaroğlu 1977, 115, p1. 65 site C IV-SI, Sagona 1984:312; TAY Database Site Site name 386 Çataltepe Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4872 Northing: 36.55717 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound ca. 500 m. From a tributary of the Muratpaşa Su headwaters. 361 Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 21; map III site 13, Sagona 1984:312 Site Site name 387 Acarköy (Halil Ağa) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4520 Northing: 36.55963 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound.Located 1 km. from the left bank of the Kara Su and 1.5km from the right bank of the Muratpaşa Su. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 21; map III site 12, Sagona 1984:312 Site Site name 388 İlikpinar Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4117 Northing: 36.53372 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound, rather steep and high. On the left bank of the Kara Su, ca.6km. north-west of Muratpaşa . Spring near the base. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 21; map III site 14, Sagona 1984:312-3 Site Site name 389 Kör Haliliye Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5037 Northing: 36.48183 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound, fairly high. Located ca. 3.5km. East of Muratpaşa , and 1.5km. South-east of the left bank of the Muratpaşa Su. Water from a mountain stream and spring. Bibliography Briadwood 193-7, 22; map III site 27, Sagona 1984:313 Site Site name 390 Akpınar Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.5286 Northing: 36.43317 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, fairly high mound; fairly steep except on south-east. Located ca. 2km. North-east of the Muratpaşa to Al-Hammam road. Ruins of modern buildings distinguishable on top. Excellent spring at base on south-east. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 24, 38; map IV site 52, Sagona 1984:313 Site Site name 391 Bokluca (Baldiran) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4449 Northing: 36.43358 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large, high mound; not very steep. Located ca. 4km. Southwest of the Muratpaşa to Al-Hammam road. Modern village on south and west slopes. Late classical roof tiles scattered on surface. Stream coming from near-by spring. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 23; map III site 35, Sagona 1984:313 Site Site name 392 Tell Matta Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3889 Northing: 36.45419 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound, fairly high. Located ca. 6km. south-east of Kirikhan in a swampy area. 362 Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 38; map III site 28, Sagona 1984:313-4 Site Site name 393 Dana Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.2941 Northing: 36.43174 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low mound with no characteristic features. Located 1 km. east of the Kırıkhan-Antioch road. Water supply was probably from a mountain stream now part of an irrigation system. Bibliography R. J. Braidwood 1937, -21; map II site 9, Sagona 1984:314 Site Site name 394 Bağlama Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.2531 Northing: 36.40246 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large, high mound with steep north and east sides, ca. 300 m. East of the Kırıkhan-Antioch road. Traces of dressed stone wall s from a late, small, square building are on top of Mound. Spring just west of the mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 21; map II site 10, Sagona 1984:314 Site 395 Site name Tell Uzunarb (Boz Höyük) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.2997 Northing: 36.23537 Material Description Surface sherds. According to Briadwood, Sir Leonard Woolley made a soundage on the mound in the spring of 1936. The results, remain unpublished Large, high mound; quite steep except on the west, where a gentle depression runs down to the base. Located ca.5.5km. South-west of Demirköprü and ca. 2km. South of the road to Antakya. Modern village south-west of the mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 24, 29; map VI site 84, Sagona 1984:314 Site Site name 396 Tell Anbar Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3210 Northing: 36.27611 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large but low Mound. Located ca. 2km. North of the Nahr al'Asi (Orontes River), and 1 km. south-south-west of Tell Misri. No near-by springs. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 28; map VI site 77, Sagona 1984:315 Site Site name 397 Tell Mişrı Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3271 Northing: 36.28149 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large but low Mound. Located ca. 2km. South of the Lake of Antioch. No near-by springs. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 28; map VI site 76, Sagona 1984:315 Site Site name 398 Tell İbrahimıyyah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3381 Northing: 36.28079 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound, low and characterless. Located ca. 4km. North of Demirköprü. No surface water except for a near-by irrigation ditch 363 Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 31; map VII site 109, Sagona 1984:315 Site Site name 399 Tell Saçaklı Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3573 Northing: 36.25428 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, low mound. Located ca. 750 m. North-east of Demirköprü. Modern village encroachillg along the western stope. Water avaitable from Asi Nehri (Orontes River). Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 33; map VII site 125, Sagona 1984:315 Site Site name 400 Tell Ta’yinat Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.3773 Northing: 36.24765 Material Description At a depth of 6-9m. In operation T4 (Amuq Phase H); 2-5m. In operation T4, 5-8m. In operation T8 (Amuq Phase I); in. depth in operation T4, 3-4m. In operation T8, operation T13 (Amuq Phase I); surface to 1.5m. In operation T4, 2m. The site is presently being excavated by a team from the University of Toronto. Mound, ca. 700x500xl5m. Located ca. 1.4km. East of bend of Asi Nehri (Orontes River) at Demirköprü, on the north side of the road to Yenişehir. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, l, 4, 6, 10, 33, 38; fig. 6; map VII site 126, Briadwood and Briadwood 1960, 13-14, intermittently 345-497; p1.5.m, Watson 1971:80-82, Mellaart 1981:1 52-1 60, Sagona 1984:316, Yakar 1985a:357-358, Müller-Karpe (A) 1994:41,şek.22, Korfmann et al. 1995:205, 1328; Harrison & Batiuk 2000 Site Site name 401 Tell Tabarat al-Akrad Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4047 Northing: 36.23834 Material Description Levels IV-I.J Mound, ca. 180xl30 m. Located east of Atchana and north of Tell Saluq. Bibliography Hood 1951, 113-119, 122-125, 132-141; figs.f 7:12-16, 20-21; 8:17-19; 9; pls. XI, XII, Lamb 1956:90,şek.3, French 1968:237, ek 104, Mellaart 1981:152-160 , Sagona 1984:316, Yakar 1 985a:358-359, Korfmann et al. 1995:1 99, site no. 1277 Site Site name 402 Tell Saluq Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4101 Northing: 36.23011 Material Description Surface sherds. Small, but high Mound. Located ca. 6km. South-east of Demirköprü. Covered by a modern village. No near-by springs. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 34; map VII site 138, Hood 1951, 113 n.l, Sagona 1984:316 Site Site name 403 Tell Asır Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3708 Northing: 36.1828 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large mound, 2km. East-south-east of Jisr Maksur. Water from a stream from Jabal al-Aqra’. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 35; map VII site 150, Sagona 1984:316-7 Site 404 Material Site name Tell Mulla Ta’aha Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Description 364 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4032 Northing: 36.20673 Surface sherds. Fairly large mound; steep sides with a low terrace stretchillg out to the south on which most of the Khirbet Kerak sherds (Amuq H) were found. Located ca. 1.5km. East of Nahr al'Asi (Orontes River) which was its water supply. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 35; map VII site 146, Sagona 1984:317 Site Site name 405 Tell al-Salam Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4334 Northing: 36.2139 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized Mound. Located ca. 3.5km. East of the Nahr al-'Asi (Orontes River), and ca. 6.5km. North-east of Jisr Maksur. Near-by spring. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 35; map VII site 147, Sagona 1984:317 Site Site name 406 Tell Kafr Innah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4464 Northing: 36.21059 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large mound. Located ca. 5.5km. West of Harim. Part of it covered by a modern village. Near-by stream. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 35; map VII site 148, Sagona 1984:317 Site Site name 407 Khan Bessine Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4655 Northing: 36.21516 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized, fairly high Mound. Located ca. 5km. North-west of Harim. Spring just west of Mound. Buildings of a Khan on top of Mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 34; map VII site 140, Sagona 1984:317-8 Site Site name 408 Tell Hamoah al-Qibli Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4776 Northing: 36.22275 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized Mound. Located ca. 4.5km.north-west of Harim. Stream runs near-by. Bibliography Briadwood 1937. 34; map VII site 142, Sagona 1984:318 Site Site name 409 Götübüyük Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4302 Northing: 36.23709 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized but high Mound. Just south of the Nahr al-Fuwar, which provides the supply of water. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 34; map VII site 139, Sagona 1984:318 Site 410 Site name Tulul Salihiyyah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay 365 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4567 Northing: 36.24162 Material Description Surface sherds. According to R. J. Briadwood, Sir Leonard Woolley made soundings at the site in the spring of 1936. The results, remain unpublished. A pair of small, low mounds. Located west of Tell Salihiyyah. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 33; map VIII site 128, Sagona 1984:318 Site Site name 411 Tell Salihiyyah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4652 Northing: 36.24036 Material Description Surface sherds. According to R. J. Briadwood, Sir Leonard Woolley made soundings on the mound in tne spring of 1936 The results remain unpublished. Large, high and fairly steep mound; gently sloping depression opens to the north-west 1.5km. South of the Demirköprü to Yenişehir road, just north of the Nahr al-Fuwar. Few modern houses on the mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937. 34; map VII site 129, Sagona 1984:318-9 Site Site name 412 Tell Bahlilah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4818 Northing: 36.2482 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized, fairly low and gentty sloping mound South of the road from Demirköprü to Yenişehir. No near-by springs Modern village on the mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 34; map VII site 133, Sagona 1984:319 Site 413 Site name Tutlu Höyük (Dutlu Höyük) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4113 Northing: 36.29697 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized Mound. Neither high nor steep. Near marsh on eastern side of Lake of Antioch. No near-by spring. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 30; map VII site 105, Sagona 1984:319 Site Site name 414 Terzi Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.3989 Northing: 36.30709 Material Description Surface sherds. Large and fairly high Mound. Weathered western slope caused by wave action on Lake Antioch. Bibliography Briadwood 1937. 30; map VII site 104, Sagona 1984:319 Site Site name 415 Tell Hasanuşağı Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4263 Northing: 36.31816 Material Description Surface sherds. Large mound; high and steep except for a slight depression on the west. Located ca. 1.5km. From the shores of Lake Antioch. No near-by springs. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 30, 38; map VII site, Sagona 1984:319-20 Site 416 Site name Kara Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Hatay 366 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.3584 Northing: 36.34676 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, fairly high and steep Mound. In marshy area on the shores of Lake Antioch. Consists of two mounds, a large and a small. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 29; map VII site 86, Sagona 1984:320 Site Site name 417 Tell Sha‘ir ‘Askar Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.5315 Northing: 36.26622 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large, but not steep Mound. Located ca. 4.5km. West of Rıhanıyyah, and ca. 500 m. From the teft bank of the Kizil Irk. Village around it, church on top. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 37; map VIII site 173, Sagona 1984:320 Site Site name 418 Tell Ghazihaji Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.5250 Northing: 36.28213 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound; surrounded in part by a depression. A cut has been made in the north side 5km. west-north-west by Rıhanıyyah. No near-by springs. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 36; map VIII site 165, Sagona 1984:320 Site Site name 419 Putoğlu Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.5316 Northing: 36.28923 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound. Located ca. 5km. North-west of Rıhanıyyah. No near-by surface-water supply except in irrigation ditches. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 36; map VIII site 166, Sagona 1984:320-1 Site Site name 420 Tell Dhahab Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.5843 Northing: 36.26498 Material Description Amuq Phase H Small , high mound ca. 60x60x10 m. Located ca. 1.5km. South-east of Rıhanıyyah. (Few blocks of dressed limestone on top). Near-by spring. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 4, 37, fig. 2; map VIII site, Briadwood and Briadwood 1960, 14-15, intermittently 345-395; p1.6, Mellaart 1981:152-160 , Sagona 1984:320 , Yakar 1985a:358 , Korfmann et aL 1995:203, site no. 1311, Harrison 1999; Harrison and Batiuk 2000.129 şek.3 Site Site name 421 Tell al-Judeideh Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5884 Northing: 36.26733 Material Description Periods XI (Amuq Phase H); X (Amuq Phase I); IX (Amuq Phase I) Mound. Ca. 350x250x31m. On north bank of a pond and east bank of the stream Ki zil Irk (Nahr al-Judaidah) which flows from the pond.Situated ca. 1.5km. south-east of Rıhanıyyah. Bibliography McEwan 1937, 10-11, Briadwood 1937, 4. 7, 10, 37-38, 41-42; fig.2; map VIII site 176, Briadwood and Briadwood 1960, 5-12. intermittently 345-457, p1. 3A, French 1968:227,ek 50 , Watson 1971:75-80 , Mellaart 1981:131-275, Sagona 1984:321, Yakar 1 985a:357-358, Korfmann et al. 1994:114, site no. 685, Müller-Karpe (A) 1994:40-41,şek.21, Yener et al. 1996:67-70, Gerber 2000a:205-209 Site Site name Administrative District 367 Site Class 2 Easting: 36.5147 422 Tell Mastepe Turkey: Hatay Northing: 36.33378 Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized, fairly high Mound. Located ca. 500 m. From the left bank of the Nahr al-'Afrin, and ca. 7km. North-west of Rıhanıyyah. Modern village about the mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 36; map VIII site 156, Sagona 1984:321-2 Site Site name 423 Çatal Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5464 Northing: 36.29737 Material Description Floors (Amuq Phase H); 3-4 (Amuq Phase l); 1-2 (Amuq Second Mixed Range). Mound, 430x265x25.5m. On the left bank of the Nahr al-'Afrin, and ca. 4km. north-west of Rıhanıyyah. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 4, 11, 24, 37, 39, 41, 55; fig. l; map VIII site 167, Briadwood and Briadwood 1960, 4-5, intermittently 345, Mellaart 1981, Sagona 1984:8183,322, Yakar 1985a:358, Korfmann et al. 1994:59 site no. 286 Site Site name 424 Tell Qinanah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5634 Northing: 36.29817 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized mound; probabty built on a natural conglomerate hill. Located ca. 3km. North of Rıhanıyyah on the right bank of the Nahr al-'Afrin. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 37; map VIII site 169, Sagona 1984:322 Site Site name 425 Tell Qirmidah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5878 Northing: 36.29628 Material Description Surface sherds. Two mounds; the southern is small , low and covered by the modern village; the northern is medium-sized and low and situated above an old terrace of the Nahr al-'Afrin. Possible Khirbet Kerak sherds come from the northern mound. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 37; map VIII site 172, Sagona 1984:322 Site Site name 426 Tell Davutpaşa Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.6089 Northing: 36.31873 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, high and steep mound. Located ca. 6km. north-east of Rıhanıyyah, and 500 m. from the left bank of the Nahr al-‘Afrin. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 36, 41; map VIII site 164, Sagona 1984:322-3 Site Site name 427 Tell Kurcoğlu Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5297 Northing: 36.37815 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large, very high mound; steep except on the south where it slopes gently. Located ca. 400 m. West of the road to Rıhanıyyah, and 4km. West of At-Hammam. (in a modern cemetery at are a number of cut and uncut basalt fragments. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 11, 25; fig. 4; map IV site, Sagona 1984:323 368 Site Site name 428 Tell al-Hammam Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5905 Northing: 36.37153 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, fairly high and steep mound with a gentle depression opening out to the south and a smaller but sharper depression opening out to the north. Just south of the modern town of Al-Hammam and the road to Afrinhan. Near-by springs. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 25; map IV site 57, Sagona 1984:323 Site Site name 429 Tell Jindaris Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class 2 Site size: 20 Easting: 36.6797 Northing: 36.39616 Material Description Surface finds. Very large but not high or steep mound, with a gentle depression öpen to the south-west. Just south of the road from Al-Hammam to Afrinhan. Traces of fortification wall on south and west. Modern village at base. Small stream carries good supply of water. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 24-25, 38; fig. 5; map IV, Sagona 1984:323, Sürenhagen 1999:159-67 Site Site name 430 Tell Jalamah Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: Northing: 36.7719 36.359 Material Description Surface sherds. Large and fairly high mound, with steep sides on north only. In between two streams which unite to form a tributary of the Nahr al'Afrin. Traces of fortifications at various places along the slopes. A gentle depression opens out to the south-west. Spring just west of the site. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 24, 28; map V site 72, Sagona 1984:324 Site Site name 431 Tell Qirbah Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.7358 Northing: 36.41971 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly-large, but low Mound. Half way along the Al-Hamman to Afrinhan road, on the west side. Mountain spring runs by base. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 27; map V site 66, Sagona 1984:324 Site Site name 432 Tell Shaikh Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.7662 Northing: 36.44837 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, but neither high nor steep Mound. Two thirds of the way to Afrinhan on the west side of the Al-Hammam to Afrinhan road. Mountain stream at base. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 27; map V site 63, Sagona 1984:324 Site Site name 433 Tell Hamo Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.7721 Northing: 36.42393 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized and fairly high Mound. At confluence of two mountain streams which unite to form a tributary of the Nahr al'Afrin. Modern village at base. Bibliography Briadwood 1937. 27; map V site 67, Sagona 1984:324 369 Site Site name 434 Tell Bab Lit Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.8296 Northing: 36.48515 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, but neither high nor very steep Mound. Located ca. 4km. South-west of Afrinhan just west of the road Al-Hammam. Traces of the stone foundation of fortification wall at various points around the slopes. A number of springs about the base form a stream. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 26; map V site 59, Sagona 1984:325 Site Site name 435 Tell ‘Ain Dara Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.8523 Northing: 36.45939 Material Description Surface sherds. Large, high and fairly steep Mound. Located ca. 6km. South-southeast of Afrinhan on the left bank of the Nahr al-'Afrin. Evidence of fortification on the north of the mound, and possibly by small mounds about base to north, east and south-east. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 26-27, 38; map V site 62, Sagona 1984:325 Site Site name 436 Tell Turundah Administrative District Syria, Afrin Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.8793 Northing: 36.5009 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium-sized, high and fairly steep Mound. Located ca. 2.5km. South of Afrinhan, on the left bank of the Nahr al-‘Afrin. Spring near-by. Mosaic made up of large white tesserae at base of mound, on the south-east. Bibliography Briadwood 1937, 26, 38; map V site 60, Sagona 1984:325 Site Site name 437 el-Qitar Administrative District Syria, Euphrates Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.1833 Northing: 36.39014 Material Description apossible Khirbet Kerak sherd collected from the surface, found during the 1982/83 University of Melbourne excavations at the site. Site covers part of the slopes of a distinctive, high rocky outcrop ca. 650x350 m. On the right bank of the Euphrates. Located south of the village of Qushlat Jusuf Basha ca. 25km. South-east of Membij. Bibliography Sagona 1984:325-6 Site Site name 438 Tell Selenkahiyah Administrative District Syria, Euphrates Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.0631 Northing: 36.10471 Material Description Stratum 3. Mound, located on the west bank of the Euphrates ca. 50km. northeast of Tabqa. Bibliography Matthiae 1980, 103, Sagona 1984:326 Site Site name 439 Tell Halawa Administrative District Syria, Euphrates Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.1150 Northing: 36.12372 Material Description From the earliest phase of the Early Bronze Age sequence equivalent to the Early Pynastic I/II period Site consists of two mounds: Site A ca. 300x400 m. And Site B ca. 100xl00 m. Located on the east bank of the Euphrates ca.50km. north-east of Tabqa. Bibliography Orthmann 1981, 47; pls. 11:3, 56:7, Sagona 1984:326 370 Site Site name 440 Administrative District Tell Mardikh (Ebla) Syria, Aleppo Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.7990 Northing: 35.79956 Material Description A few sherds found in the latter part of Phase IIA Large Site consists of central mound (Acropolis) ca. 170xl70 m. and a flat depression (Lower City) covering an area ca. 1000x730 m. Situated ca. 55km. south-south-west of Aleppo. Bibliography Matthiae 1980, 52-53, Sagona 1984:326 Site Site name 441 Administrative District Ras Shamra (Ugarit) Syria, Latakiye Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 34.9289 Northing: 32.10278 Material Description Level III A. Large Mound. Located ca. 11 km. North of Lattaqiya. Bibliography Schaeffer 1932, fig. 12:15-16, Schaeffer 1948a, 34-37, pls. XIII:48, 50, Schaeffer 1949, fig. 99:10, 11, 14, Courtois 1962, 349; figs. 18:G-K; 19:), Kuschke 1962, 256, 274; p1. VI:l. 2, Schaeffer et al. 1962, 204-212; fig. 17; pls. 111:1, de Contenson 1969, 45-81; figs* 2:2; 10; 18; 19; pls. III, Sagona 1984:326, De Contenson 1989, De Contenson 1992, Mirosedji 2000, Site Site name 442 Administrative District Qal‘at er-Rous Syria, Latakiye Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 34.9109 Northing: 31.85688 Material Description One sherd in Layer 8 and other in Layer 7 Squarish Mound, ca. 300x300x15-10 m. Surrounded on the west, north and east sides by the city wall in the form of a mound l Om. Broad and 5m. High, and on the south side by the Er-Rous river. Situated on the coast, it is located ca. 6.5km. Bibliography Wright 1937, 73, Ehrich 1939, 70, Schaeffer 1948a, 41, Schaeffer et al. 1962, 209, Sagona 1984:327, Oldenburg 1991 Site Site name 443 Administrative District Tell Sukas Syria, Latakiye Site Class Site size: Material Description Two sherds in each of lower and middle Layer 5 Mound. Located north of Banyas. 3 Easting: 34.7164 Northing: 31.54407 3 Easting: 35.2306 Northing: 31.92566 Bibliography Wright 1937, 73, Ehrich 1939. 70, 73-74, Schaeffer 1948a, 43-44, Sagona 1984:327 Site Site name 444 Administrative District Hama Syria, Hama Site Class Site size: Material Description Level K. Large pear-shaped mound with upper area ca. 336x215x46m. And lower slope s ca. 400x300 m. Located within the modern city. Bibliography Ingholt 1940, 19-21; pls. V:4, 6, Sagona 1984:327, Thussen. 1988 Site Site name 445 Tall Gamus Administrative District Syria Site Class Site size: 3 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 25km. west of Tall Kalah. Bibliography Assaf 1978/79. 176, Sagona 1984:328 371 Easting: 35.2587 Northing: 31.91205 Site Site name 446 Rosh Haniqra Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.4305 Northing: 31.86829 Material Description At a depth between 1.10 and 1.50 m. Below the surface in central area of mound. Small mound, steep not high south and west slopes; south side is banded by a valley while the north rises gradualiy merging with a riear-by mountain. Situated on the lowest terrace of the Rosh Hani'qra ridge, ca. 1 km. from the sea, and 1.5km from the Israel boarder. Bibliography Amiran 1952, 93, n.10, Prausnitz 1952, Perrot 1952, 296-98, Yeivin 1952, 142, Tadmor 1978, 1024, Sagona 1984:328, Esse 1991 site 6 Site Site name 447 Hazor (Tell el-Qedah) Administrative District Israel Site Class 2 Easting: 35.0799 Site size: 15 ha Northing: 31.5648 Material Description Area A (Upper City) strata XIX-XXI (Y. Yadin Et al. 1961; in 1976 Y. Yadin states that Khirbet Kerak pottery is found only in strata XIX-XX) comprises 25-33% of the assemblages, declines to 10% in possible "post Khirbet Kerak Site comprises the mound proper ca. 540x260x40 m. Upper slope ca. 470x175x40 m. Lower slope; and a large rectangular enciosure of ca. 1000x700 m. To the north of the Mound. On the west this enciosure is profected by a huge rampart of beaten earth and a deep moat. Bibliography Yadin et al. 1961, pls. CLIV:1,3 (CCC:4); CLV:1 CCC:3). 2, 30 (CCC:6); CXCXI: 3 (CCC:5), Yadin 1972, 482, 495, Sagona 1984:328, Esse 1991 site 37, Greenberg 2000 Site Site name 448 Tell Quneitira Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 36.5216 Northing: 36.56534 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located on the west shore of Lake Tiberias, north of Tiberias. Bibliography Amiran 1952, 93; fig. 2, Sagona 1984:329 Site Site name 449 Khirbet Kerak Administrative District Israel Site Class 2 Easting: 36.3912 Site size: 20 ha Northing: 36.50315 Material Description Early Bronze Age Level IV. Mound,ca. 25 hectares according to Albright (ca. 20 hectares according to Maisler et al.). Located ca. 10 km. south of Tiberias on the south-west shore of Lake Tiberias. Bibliography Albright 1926, 27-29,Maisler 1948, 168-170, Maisler , Stekelis and Avi-Yonah 1952a, 165-173; 1952b, 223-229, Biran 1965, 14, Biran 1968, 37, Ussishkin 1968, 266-268,Hestrin 1975, 253-256, Sagona 1984:329, Esse 1991 site 155, Greenberg 2002, 2003 Site Site name 450 Tell Hammeh Administrative District Jordan Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.4791 Northing: 36.46905 Material Description Five soundings were made by N. Glueck and C. S. Fisher in 1932. Steep-sided mound with tombs to the south. Located on the north bank of the Yarmuk river ca. 6km. To the east of the southern shore of Lake Galilee, tombs. Bibliography Glueck 1935, 329, Glueck 1951, 138 site 324 reported no Khirbet Kerak sherds, though he suspected that this negative evidence was purely accidental in view of the site's location in the north Jordan valley.Mellaart 1962, 154 site 71. According to Mellaart the site ,may possibly have Khirbet Kerak sherds - personal correspondence, Sagona 1984:329 Site Site name 451 el-Fakhat Administrative District Jordan Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.5006 Northing: 36.42305 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, top of which is ca. 50x50 m. Located 1.5km. South-west of Umm Queis. Situated on a hill on the east side of the Rod 'Ain Umm Qeis. Just to the north of the mound is the spring of Ain Fakhat, and ca. 500 m. To the north-west is the most important spring in valley. 372 Bibliography Glueck 1951, 142-143, site 98, Sagona 1984:330 Site Site name 452 'Arqub el-Dahr Administrative District Jordan Site Class 2 Easting: 36.5041 Site size: 0.4ha Northing: 36.42586 Material Description Two fragments in the Early Bronze Age III deposit Mound ca. 3-4 dunams, and caves in a scarp to the west of the settlement; the richest of the caves was ca. 3m. In diameter and 2m. At its highest point; the scarp delimits the site on the east, south and west sides. Located ca. 1 km. to the north-east of Ed'an. Bibliography Glueck 1951, 146-147 site 93. No Khirbet Kerak was found, but suspected, Parr 1956, 62-63; fig. 17:208, 214, Mellaart 1966, map V.9, Sagona 1984:330, Esse 1991 no site no. Site Site name 453 Aqrabah Administrative District Jordan Material Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.5568 Northing: 36.29985 Description Mound. Located ca. 20km. north of Irbid. Bibliography Mellaart 1966, map V and personal correspondence, Sagona 1984:330 Site Site name 454 Tell Jamid Administrative District Jordan Site Class 4 Easting: 36.2556 Site size: 2.5ha Northing: 36.45962 Material Description One surface sherd Isolated rock out-crop, ca. 250xl00 m., with a steep south slope in a bend of the Yarmuk river; has a maximum elevation from the river of 61m. Stone foundations of a wall. Fallen basalt border wall, and ruins of Turkish buildings alt stili evident. Bibliography Meltaart 1962, 129 site l, 130-131, Mellaart 1966, map V, Sagona 1984:330-1 Site Site name 455 Tell esh-Shuneh Administrative District Jordan Site Class 1 Site size: 2.5 Easting: 36.3066 Northing: 36.28643 Material Description Khirbet Kerak sherds were found in J. Mellaart's soundings and later by Philip. Very large but, not high mound ca. 700xl00-150x10-5m., according to J. Mellart; H. de Contenson claims it is l000 m. Long. Overi looks the Wadi Arab; ca. 2km. From the ford Makhadat Umm esSisan which crosses the Jordan river. Bibliography de Contenson 1960, 13, Mellaart 1962, 129 site 15, 131-133; fig. 3; p1.XXV, Mellaart 1966, 74; map V, Sagona 1984:331; Esse 1991 site 230, Leonard 1992; Baird and Philip.1994, 2000 Site Site name 456 Khirbet Qaysun Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.3158 Northing: 36.30434 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located south-west of Tiberias near Kefar Tavor. Bibliography Zimbalist (Zori) 1946, Amiran 1952. 93; fig. 2, Sagona 1984:331 Site 457 Site name Tel Qishon (Qisan) Administrative District Israel Site Class 2 Site size: 7 ha Easting: 35.7854 Northing: 35.60216 Material Description Strata I and II, almost complete assemblage. Comprises central mound, two small hillocks, a small lower terrace on the north, and a large flat terrace on the south. Located at the junction of Nahal ‘En Dor and Nahal Tavor. 373 Bibliography Mellaart 1966, map V. information originally from G. L. Harding and supplied to the author by J. Mellaart. Amiran and Cohen 1977, 165, Arnon and Amiran 1981, 210; pls. 17b, Sagona 1984:331-2, Esse 1991 site 143 Site Site name 458 Tell Harbaj Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 10 km. south-east of Haifa. Easting: 35.9553 Northing: 35.33283 Bibliography Mellaart 1966, map V, Sagona 1984:332 Site Site name 459 Megiddo Administrative District Israel Site Class 2 Site size: 6 ha Easting: 35.9772 Northing: 35.24205 Material Description strata XVI-XIX, Undifferentiated sherds and various bowls Site comprises a large mound ca. 360x2 70x40-60 m (ca. 15 acres; 60 dunams) and a lower city. Situated on a spur jutting out from the Carmel Ridge into the western par t of the Plain of Esdraelon at the point where the Wadi 'Aruna (Iron) enters the plain. Bibliography Shipton 1939, 39, G. Loud 1948, pls. 5:14 (106:8), 107:27, Amiran 1952, 94 n. 16 is right in suggesting that the former vessel has been incorrectiy reconstructed, and shoutd have only one handle, Sagona 1984:332, Esse 1991 site 194 Site Site name 460 Tell Ara Administrative District Israel Site Class 1 Site size: 2ha Easting: 36.7492 Northing: 35.13682 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located ca. 14km. south-west of Megiddo. Bibliography Amiran 1952, Mellaart 1966, map. Maisler originally reported considerable quantities of Khirbet Kerak at this site; Sagona 1984:332 Site Site name 461 Tell Ta‘annek Administrative District Israel Site Class 2 Easting: 36.0727 Site size: 4.5ha Northing: 34.61161 Material Description Early Bronze Age Phases II and III, Undifferentiated sherds and various bowls. Mound, ca. 340xll0x40 m. Located in the plain of Esdraelon on the south-west flanks of the ‘Aruna ('iron) Hills 8km. south-east of Megiddo. Bibliography Albright 1944, 15-16, n.12, identifies Early BronzeAge II and III pottery from E. Setin's excavation but doesn't report if it indudes Khirbet Kerak, Lapp 1964a, 6, Lapp 1964b, 245, Lapp 1966a, 2, Lapp 1968, 98, Lapp 1969a, 4 n.4, 14 n.23, Lapp 1969b, 581, Sagona 1984:333, Esse 1991 site 257 Site Site name 462 ‘Affuleh (Affulah) Administrative District Israel Site Class 1 Site size: 2.4 Easting: 35.1182 Northing: 33.08564 Material Description M. Dothan’s Stratum VIII which presumably indudes T7 Sukenik's Burials 15 and 16 in Pit E, and Pit F, Full Compliment. Mound, ca. 270x135x11m. (ca. 6 acres). Located in the centre of the Esdraelon plain between Megiddo and Beth Shan, ca. 360 m. South of the railway station on the west side of the road to Jerusalem. Bibliography Sukenik 1948, 11-13; figs. L, 6; pls. X, XI, Dothan 1975, 33-34,Sagona 1984:333, Esse 1991 site 197 Site Site name 463 Ain el-Meiteh Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound. Located to the north-west of Beth Shan. 374 Easting: 35.5710 Northing: 33.01671 Bibliography Meltaart 1966, map V, Sagona 1984:333 Site 464 Site name Administrative District Beth Shan (Beit Shean) Israel Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 35.5169 Northing: 32.81509 Material Description Level XII and in the lower part of Level XI, full compliment Site comprises large mound ca. 274x40-65m. With steep sides except on the north-west on the right bank of the Jalud river, large cemetery to the north of the mound and on the other side of the river, and a classical theatre to the south of the Mound. Bibliography Fitzgerald 1935, 18-21; pls. VII, VIII: 1-10, Sagona 1984:334, Esse 1991 site 300, Mazar 2000 Site Site name 465 Administrative District Tell Ras al-‘Ain Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.5758 Northing: 32.70998 Material Description Single sherd now in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem. Mound ca. 280x200xl6m. Later citadel on top and reservoir on the north-east slope. Situated at the head of the springs which form the Yarqon (‘Auja) River. Located ca. 10 km. east of Tel Aviv. Bibliography Amiran 1952, 95 n.18, Sagona 1984:334 Site Site name 466 Administrative District Gezer Israel Site Class 3 Site size: 12ha Easting: 35.6091 Northing: 32.68677 Material Description One sherd in the north end of trench 10, Undifferentiated Sherds. Mound, ca. 650x200-250 m. (ca. 30 acres). Situated on the footfhills of the western flank of the Central Ridge. Located ca. 8km. Southsouth-east of Ramleh and ca. 1 km. south of the modern village. Bibliography Macalister 1912, 151, Sagona 1984:334, Esse 1991 Site Site name 467 Tell el-Hesi Administrative District Israel Site Class 3 Site size: 10ha Easting: 35.6705 Northing: 32.64881 Material Description One sherd in Field VI, but not in a sealed locus, Undifferentiated sherds and simple bowl. Site comprises a central mound ca. 150x80x40 m (ca. 25 acres) with a small acropolis in its north-east corner built on a natural hillock, and a lower city of 22 acres surrounding the southern and western sides of the Mound. Located on the left bank of the Wadi Hesi. Bibliography Petrie 1891, pls.V; VI, Fargo 1979, 26, Sagona 1984:334-5 Site Site name 468 Bethel (Beitin) Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.6912 Northing: 32.64308 Material Description Four Khirbet Kerrak sherds were the only Early Bronze Age Remains. Low spur separated from the higher ridge to the east by the Wad etTahuneh, and from the next ridge on the west by a narrower shallower valley. Located 3km. west-north-west of Ai. Bibliography Kelso et al. 1968, 22, Sagona 1984:335 Site Site name 469 ‘Ai (et-Tell ) Administrative District Israel Site Class 2 Site size: 11ha Easting: 35.8017 Northing: 32.7086 Material Description Sanctuary A near the city-wall, Temple A on the acropolis (designated 'Palais' by Marquet-Krause, and ‘Citadel' by J.A. Callaway ) Site consists of a mound ca. 400x450 m. Consists of a central citadel with a lower terrace (city) to the south, and a necropolis to the north-east. Located ca. 4km. East of Ramallah. Bibliography 375 Marquet-Krause 1949, 141-142, 195, 202-203; pls. LXXV:1521 (and iron); LXXXI:1252 (8th and lOfh row), 1248 (8th row); LXXXV:1261 (fitst row), 1261, 1298. 1501 (2nd row), Callaway 1964, Amiran 1967, 185-186, Callaway 1972, 257-258, 299-305 fig. 60:8,11, Callaway 1975, 48, Callaway 1980 et a1. 159161, 191-195, Sagona 1984:335, Esse 1991 Site Site name 470 Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) Administrative District Palestinian Authority Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 35.8803 Northing: 32.73129 Material Description J. Garstang's Tomb A and the upper levels of the Early Bronze Age deposit particularly Room 109, and K.M. Kenyon’s Tombs D2, F4 and F2, Small simple and sinuous sided bowls. Mound, ca. 330x 150x17-21.5m. (ca. 4 hectares). Situated in the Jordan Valley, ca. 10 km. north of the Oead Sea on the west bank of the Jordan river. Modern village to the north of the mound. Bibliography Garstang 1932a. 19-22; pls. 111:9, 10, 12, Garstang et a1 . 1935, 154-157; pls. XXVII:7; XXVIII: 10, 12-23 XXIX 21-22, Kenyon 1960,figs. 38:27-35; p.12: sherds 549, 552; 44:10, 11, cf. 15, 18; 57:41-43, Sagona 1984:335-6 Site Site name 471 Beit Sahur Administrative District Israel Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.6063 Northing: 32.60874 Material Description One bowl, Undifferentiated sherds. Cave site ca. 6x9m. Situated in the garden of Hanna Aza Hilal of Beit Sahur just south of Bethlehem. Bibliography Hennessy 1966. vessel 34; pls. XXII, fig 1:34, Sagona 1984:336, Esse 1991 Site Site name 472 Uch Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. AS 108 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 35.4256 Northing: 32.68274 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 35.4108 Northing: 32.65621 Bibliography Braidwood 1933, AVRP Database Site Site name 473 Koyuncuhoyuk Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. AVRP Survey Very steep-sided mound, heavily grassed on slopes; top ploughed and S-facing slopes also partly ploughed down center; pottery is very sparse on all grassed slope, but slightly more common on the ploughed top; the best collection come from cut B at E end. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 15 Site Site name 474 Tell Wasfe Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.0914 Northing: 32.75936 Material Description Surface sherds. AVRP survey - Braidwood dated Hellensitic Roman. The site has been cut virtually in half so that the E side up to a small group of houses is now missing; Bulldozing has revealed a clean vertical section (65 m N-S and 7 m high); in section mudbrick walls, floors and stratigraphy are all clearly outlined. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 31 Site 475 Site name Tell Kizilkaya (d) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay 376 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 35.1883 Northing: 32.58253 Material Description Surface sherds. Area of shallow slope wash deposits of grey ashy soil on lower limestone slopes to SE of main tell; common sherds in shallow cut that follows contours of limestone slope; sherds collected both from cut and from upcast immediately downslope; smaller cut upslope. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 36 Site Site name 476 Temel Kizilkaya Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 35.1041 Northing: 32.51268 Material Description Surface sherds. Main part of Site consists of large building of massive limestone blocks, weathered and roughly dressed. Building is 16.4 x ca. 62 m; building, which is partly robbed of stones, is associated with Early and Middle Bronze Age pottery; S of dolmen field (AS 207). Bibliography AVRP Database AS 208 Site Site name 477 Karaja Khirbat Ali Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 35.2218 Northing: 32.51641 Material Description Surface sherds. Extensive site covering perhaps 200 x 100 m over slopes of hill; visiting in 1998 restricted by cotton but artefacts common on hill slopes; on upper slopes (main GPS) cultural deposits are 1 m deep or greater, and sherds are large; therefore despite considerable erosion . Bibliography AVRP Database AS 168 Site Site name 478 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.2866 Northing: 32.59734 Material Description Surface sherds. Very large mounded tell site, situated on a hill above spring. Top of sites is located 50 m to N of the old Beylan pass road and extends beyond road to S, while road continues to NW of the site. Abundant rubble and occasional tiles and sherds cover entire site. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 246 Site Site name 479 Tell Kecebey Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. AS 75 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.5025 Northing: 36.47778 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.5028 Northing: 32.50312 Bibliography AVRP Database AS 75 Site Site name 480 Tell Hijar Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. Very low and flat mound with numerous limstone - occasional basalt - stones (upto 1 m high); perhaps partly covered by valley floor sediments; surrounded by cotton fields which cover E part of site; area A is uncultivated; washed by former lake which has resulted in Bibliography AVRP Database AS 180 Site 481 Site name Kucuk Avara (Ciflik Turham Administrative District Turkey: Hatay 377 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.4479 Northing: 36.27917 Material Description Surface sherds. Very small low mound; now virtually totally destroyed by modern ciflik; cut on E side and most of remainder built over (sketch on AS 218 sheet); small part of site is evident to E within ploughed fields and pottery is also visible on soils of irrigated gardens to N. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 114 Site Site name 482 Tell Abdal Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. AS 174 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.5380 Northing: 36.27374 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4887 Northing: 36.23697 Bibliography AVRP Database AS 174 Site Site name 483 Besarslan (Tell Hamda) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. Moderately low rounded mound at SW end of village, now called Besarslan; site mainly under karakol but extensive cut (3 and more m deep) on E side of tell has exposed a considerable thickness of deposits; pottery moderately common in cuts but no outcropping. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 143 Site Site name 484 Tell Salihiyyah Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: Northing: 36.5097 36.297 Material Description Surface sherds. High mound steep at all sides except at the NW side which is gently sloping downwards; mound consists of 2 tops, divided by a low saddle and of which the E top is the highest; broad valley cutting mound on SE and NW sides may indicate the former location of gates. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 108 Site Site name 485 Tell Akrad Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.4006 Northing: 36.24226 Material Description Surface sherds. Low medium-size mound with a ciflik on top, which obscures the complete top; large cut at S side; heavily damaged. Bibliography AVRP Database AS 137 Site Site name 486 Halak Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.3307 Northing: 36.2318 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound with steep N and NE sides; S side is gradually climbing; SW side has been bulldozed; trees/pines on N and NE side; summit partly covered with cotton Bibliography AVRP Database 378 Site Site name 487 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.2999 Northing: 36.19009 Material Description Surface sherds. Small mound with gently sloping sides. North side is cut 2-3m high. Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 488 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 36.5319 Northing: 36.28406 Material Description Surface sherds. Small low mound, now cut on E side of track (N-S) leading S from Haji Mursal Ciflik; large dressed limestone stones now occur along side of dirt track clearly come from this site; field extending to E of cut is unploughed and has abundant pottery and building debris. Bibliography AVRP Database Site 489 Site name Tell Mirmiran (Tell Anbar) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.3385 Northing: 36.27104 Material Description Surface sherds. Long low mound, which is heavily damaged: NE part has been removed; N and MW ends of slopes has been cut; a trench has been cut right through it (N - S). Bibliography AVRP Database Site 490 Site name Tell Habash (Sultan Merkezi) Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.2391 Northing: 36.24512 Material Description Surface sherds. A) watermill penstock, almost complete; according to local guard this was in use until 60 years ago; architecturally the infilled arches are original Late Roman and the upper stonework Byzantine (HP); B) deep section described above; C) tell, to SW of mill. Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 491 Pasakoy Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.2368 Northing: 36.36804 Material Description Surface sherds. Fairly large mound with a round top and a terrace at SW side; slopes are steep at N and NE side and gradually climbing at W and S side; part of the W slope is covered by a cemetery; slight cut at SW side. Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 492 No Name Administrative District Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Material Description Surface sherds. Small high tell in upper valley S of Amuq Plain. Bibliography AVRP Database 379 Easting: 36.2498 Northing: 36.19097 Site Site name 493 Administrative District Tomsa Hoyuk Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.2677 Northing: 36.19772 Material Description Surface sherds. Medium sized tell in valley S of Amuq Plain. Tell is located on valley floor, W of modern village. Main site is on tell, but possible lower town extend to W, mainly Late Roman. Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 494 Administrative District No Name Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.2737 Northing: 36.16638 Material Description Surrface sherds Medium sized mound on side valley floor. Very large cut through NE side of the Mound. North side of mound is partially eroded by the small stream. North along river bank a there is a lower town, predominately Late Roman. Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 495 Administrative District Tell Hoyuk Tepe Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. AS 288 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.3555 Northing: 36.21439 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.4175 Northing: 36.59036 Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 496 Administrative District Guzelce Turkey: Hatay Material Description Surface sherds. Medium size prominent mound; uncultivated but covered with shrubs, weeds and many stones to max. size of 50-60 cm; pottery not particularly common and diagnostic forms seem quite rare. Bibliography AVRP Database Site Site name 497 Administrative District Kinet Hoyuk Turkey: Hatay Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.1726 Northing: 36.82961 Material Description Few sherds found in EB levels of excavations Large multi period site on west side of Amanus on the coast near modern town of Dortyol. Bibliography M.H. Gates Personal communication Site Site name 498 Qalat Siriani Material Administrative District Syria: Lataqiye Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 35.9414 Northing: 35.61941 Description Surface sherds. A high, truncated mound with a flat oval summit. 150x100 m in size. Bibliography Courtois, J.C. Syria XL p261 Site Site name Administrative District 380 Site Class 2 Easting: 35.8878 499 Rouset al-Amir Syria: Lataqiye Northing: 35.55749 Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. Mounded settlement with lower town on . Mound 300 m in length apprx 10 m. Site about 40 m from Nahr-el-Kebir. Along Aleppo Lattaquie road Bibliography Courtois, J.C. Syria XL p261 Site Site name 500 Administrative District Tell Afis Syria: Idlib Material Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 36.7990 Northing: 35.90365 1 Easting: 36.3851 Northing: 36.1351 Description Limited number of sherds found starting in Late Chalcolithic levels, stop in EB IV Large multi period site in the plain of Idlib. Bibliography Mazzoni 2000: Site Site name 501 Administrative District Tell Bek Syria: Salqine Site Class Site size: Material Description Surface sherds. RBBW abundant A two mound formation of medium size. Located west of Saliqne in a large widening of the eastern bank of the Orontes Bibliography Mazzoni 1999:113 Site Site name 502 Administrative District Qarqur Syria: Ghab Site Class 1 Easting: 36.3151 Site size: 22.26 Northing: 35.75855 Material Description Large amounts of RBBW found in mixed contexts Large multi period site c.7km from Jisr al-Shagour Bibliography Dornemann 1999:146-7 Site Site name 503 Tell Beth ha'Emeq Administrative District Israel Material Site Class 3 Site size: 6.07 Easting: 35.1625 Northing: 32.96636 Description Esse Site No. 45 Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Givon 1993, Thompson 1979 site 1626:10 Site Site name 504 Tell Dan Administrative District Israel Material Description Rare, few bowls found in fill layers Large iron age site Site Class 3 Easting: 35.6557 Site size: 20 ha Northing: 33.25498 Bibliography Esse 1991 site 2, Miroschedji 2000a, Greenberg 2000 - Fig. 11.4:2, Biran 1994, Biran et al 1996 Site 505 Site name Qadesh - Naphtali Administrative District Israel Material Description Undifferentiated sherds Esse Site No. 24 381 Site Class 2 Easting: 35.5358 Site size: 10 ha Northing: 33.11564 Bibliography Esse 1991 site 24, Miroschedji 2000a, Aharoni 1953, 1957, Thompson 1979 site 1927:01 Site Site name 506 Lawiyeh Administrative District Israel Material Description Unidentified sherds and Large bowls with fluted decoration. Esse Site No.74 Site Class 3 Site size: 9.11 Easting: 35.6603 Northing: 32.83775 Site Class 2 Site size: 0.45 Easting: 35.4067 Northing: 32.64853 Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Kochavi 1996 Site Site name 507 Khirbet. Safsafa Administrative District Israel Material Description Undifferentiated sherds Esse Site No.203 - Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Esse 1991 site 203, Zori 1977, Thompson 1979 site 1822.03 Site Site name 508 Tell Yaqush Administrative District Israel Material Description Full assemblage Esse Site No.230 Site Class 1 Easting: 35.5588 Site size: 2.5 ha Northing: 32.61629 Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Esse 1991 site 230, 1990, Gophna 1976, Thompson 1979 site 2022.25 Site Site name 509 ‘Ain Yezreel Administrative District Israel Material Description Undifferentiated sherds Esse Site No.261 Site Class 2 Easting: 35.3362 Site size: 0.5ha Northing: 32.55263 Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Esse 1991 site 261, Thompson 1979 site 1821.04, Gophna 1976 Site Site name 510 Yosef ha-Yeshanah Administrative District Israel Material Description Undifferentiated sherds Esse Site No. 276 Site Class 3 Easting: 35.4254 Site size: 0.7 ha Northing: 32.53104 Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Esse 1991, Thompson 1979 site 1821.12, Zori 1977 Site 511 Site name Tel Estaba Administrative District Israel Site Class 1 Site size: 1 Easting: 35.5108 Northing: 32.51023 Material Description Esse records no EB material, while Mazar describes a significant amount of KKW identified at the site Esse # 298, Small mound across from Betrh Shean 382 Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Mazar 2000, Thompson 1979 site 1921.09, Zori 1962 Site 512 Site name Kh. Ez-Zeraqon Administrative District Jordan Material Site Class 3 Site size: 7ha Easting: 35.9026 Northing: 32.57552 Site Class 3 Site size: 25ha Easting: 35.5187 Northing: 32.12742 Description Undifferentiated sherds, large bowls with fluted decoration 7ha site 12 km NE of Irbid Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Mittmann 1994, Genz 2000, Esse 1991 Site Site name 513 Kh. El-Mahruq Administrative District Israel Material Description Bibliography Damati and Eisenberg 1993, Miroschedji 2000a, Yeivin 1977 Site Site name 514 Nizzanim Administrative District Israel Material Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 34.6249 Northing: 31.77705 Description Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Yukutieli and Gophna 1994 Site Site name 515 Tell Yarmouth Administrative District Israel Material Site Class 3 Easting: 34.9623 Site size: 16.19 Northing: 31.70804 Description Bibliography Miroschedji 2000a, Miroschedji 2000b Site Site name 516 Tell Erani Administrative District Israel Material Site Class 3 Easting: 34.7725 Site size: 24.28 Northing: 31.61055 Description Bibliography Miroschedji 2000, Brandl 1989 Site Site name 517 Tel Lachish Material Administrative District Israel Site Class 3 Easting: 34.8367 Site size: 12.55 Northing: 31.56461 Description Bibliography Miroschedji 2000, Tufnel 1957 Site Site name Administrative District 383 Site Class 3 Easting: 34.7449 518 Tel Nagila Israel Material 4.05 Northing: 31.50309 Site Class 3 Site size: 1.21 Easting: 34.8488 Northing: 31.38501 Site size: Description Bibliography Miroschedji 2000, Amiran and Eitan 1967 Site Site name 519 Administrative District Tel Halif (Regev) Israel Material Description Bibliography Miroschedji 2000, Seger 1989 Site Site name 520 Administrative District Babe edh-Dhra Jordan Material 4 Easting: 35.5629 Northing: 31.27447 Site Class 3 Site size: 6.4 Easting: 35.8926 Northing: 31.85535 Site Class Site size: Description Grave goods. Bibliography Miroschedji 2000, Schaub and Rast 1989 Site Site name 521 Administrative District Tell el-Umeri Jordan Material Description few sherds found in excavations Bibliography Harrison 2000, MPP 4, Fig. 5.15:12, 5.22:4, 5.14:32 Site Site name 522 Kurban Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Urfa Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.4430 Northing: 37.45535 Material Description Small number of sherds found in Late Chalco and early EB levels (V & IV) Two flat hills (Ikiz Höyük) in the shape of asaddle. The southern hill measured 9-10 m in height and 250 x 180 m iandhe northern one was 4 m in height and 170 x 120 m.60 km northwest of the Sanliurfa Province. Bibliography Algaze et al 1990: 333 Site Site name 523 Gre Virike Administrative District Turkey: Birecik Site Class 3 Easting: 38.05 Site size: 70x60 Northing: 36.88905 x15 Material Description Few examples found in excavation. Lies on the road running from Birecik to the south in parallel to the Euphrates, 1.1 km northwest of the Akarçay Village. 70x60x15m Few examples of Karaz found in excavations Bibliography Ökse 1999, Ökse-Bucak 2001, TAY Database Site Site name 524 Oylum Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Gaziantep Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 37.2004 Northing: 36.6931 Material Description Lower EB Levels produce a few sherds On the road running from Kilis to Gaziantep, 7 km east-southeast of the Kilis Province. The mound and the modern village it was named after lie south of the highway. Bibliography Özgen et al. 1996:185; TAY Database 384 Site Site name 525 Hayaz Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Adiyaman Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.3776 Northing: 37.47976 Material Description Few sherds found in excavations. Under the Hayaz Village located near the Atatürk Dam, south of the Adiyaman Province before it was flooded by the Atatürk Dam. It's survey code was U 50/4 Bibliography Özdoğan 1977:133-134,220, Serdaroğlu 1977:11 7,lev.8, Roodenberg 1981a:93-94, Roodenberg 1981 b:3-8, şek.3-7, Roodenberg 1981c:187, Mellink 1982:562, Roodenberg 1982:27, Buitenhuis 1984:68, Clason 1984:43,47,şek.1, , Özbek 1984:155-156, şek.1-3, Thissen 1984:75-129, Mellink 1987:8, Korfmann et al. 1994:100,590, site no. 11; TAY Database Site Site name 526 Hassek Höyük Administrative District Turkey: Urfa Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 38.9795 Northing: 37.7163 Material Description LCH 3Period - Limited number of Karaz ware recovered from the EBA levels Located on the southern bank of the Euphrates on a low terrace. A Flat settlement 10 m high. The EBA settlement was situated on the hill top and extended 150 m far to the west . The Surface finds. revealed that the settlement covered an area of 350 x 150 m Bibliography Özdoğan 1977:148-149, 221-222, Mellink 1980:506, Behm-Blancke 1980:214, Behm-Blancke 1981:103-108, Mellink 1981a:469, Behm-Blancke et al. 1982:5-89, Mellink 1982:563, Behm-Blancke 1983:65, Mellink 1983:433, Behm-Blancke et al. 1984:163-168, Mellink 1984:449, Yakar 1984:68, BehmBlancke 1985:181-190, Behm-Blancke et al 1985:31-65,66-69,92-104,105-111 , Mellink 1985a:555, Yakari 1985a:367-368, Behm-Blancke 1986:87-101, Behm-Blancke 1987a:139-147, Behm-Blancke 1987b:117-128, Mellink 1987:10, Behm-Blancke 1988:71-72, Mellink 1988a:m, Mellink 1989:115, .Mellink 1990:136, Behm-Blancke 1992:65-78, Mellink 1 992a:1 35, Korfmann et al. 1994:99, 100,585, no'lu buluntu yeri, Behm-Blancke 1997:765, Behm-Blancke 1999:8184, Gerber 2000b:21 3-214,217, Yener 2000:63; TAY Database Site Site name 527 Pağnik Öreni Administrative District Turkey: Agin Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.8033 Northing: 38.94043 Material Description Karaz ware - samples of jugs with triangular lugs. Karaztype base for cups decorated with incision and excission [Harper 1971:pl.63/4 Was located in the Pagnik Village, 3 km southeast of the Agin Distric. Now flooded by the Keban Dam. Bibliography Burney 1958:1 78,har.ll, Mellink 1969a:225, Alkım (H) 1970:34, Harper 1970:132 , Mellink 1970a:176, Harper 1971:91, Alkım (H) 1973:68-69, French 1973:73, Korfmann et al. 1 995:1 73, site no. 1102; TAY Database Site Site name 528 Büyüktepe Bayburt Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 40.2266 Northing: 40.2542 Description Bibliography Sagona 1990:426, Sagona et al. 1991:145-158, Mellink 1992a:1 33, Sagona l 992:305,şek.1, Sagona et al. 1992:29-30, Sagona 1 993:193-194, şek.1/1-6, Sagona 1994:229-230, çiz.1/1,2,4, Sagona et al. 1993:69-77, Gates 1994:256, Sagona et al. 1 995:1 61 -1 62; TAY Database Site Site name 529 Tell Qafr Administrative District Syria: Lattaquie Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.9018 Northing: 35.70337 Material Description Surface sherds. Truncated mound near the Nahal el-Qandil. Mentioned only in passing by Courtois - was apparently surveyed by M. Saade and not published. He showed Courtois the material. Bibliography Courtois 1963: 262, 265 (note 2), 272 Site 530 Material Site name Van Kalesi Höyüğü1 Administrative District Turkey: Van Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.4017 Northing: 38.47647 Description 70 km north of the Van Castle, west of the Van Province. A road 385 runs between the castle and the Mound. low ridge extending in the east-west direction in parallel to the Van Castle. It measures 70 m in width and 1000 m Bibliography Kınal 1954:77, Burney 1958:172,192, Russel 1980:50,126, Tarhan-Sevin 1991:432,435, res.23, Mellink 1 992a:1 36 , Tarhan-Sevin 1992:1084-1091 , TarhanSevin 1 993b:853,859, Korfmann et al. 1994:221, site no. 1435, Tarhan 2000:198-199; TAY Database Site Site name 531 Administrative District Daruk Syria: Lataquie Material Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 35.8987 Northing: 34.91982 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 38.7850 Northing: 38.93921 Description Bibliography Courtois 1963:262, 265 Note 2; Site 532 Site name Kalecik/ Kalaycıktepe Administrative District Turkey: Elazığ Material Description Sherds found in sounding. Good number including incised lid. Flat settlement located on a long outcrop, steep on three sides, extending to the Arapkir Stream. K. Kökten opened two trenches of 2 x 4 m. Not to be confused with Kalecik Höyügü. Bibliography Serdaroğlu 1969:186-189, Mellink 1970a:1 77, Serdaroğlu 1970:31-35, Serdaroğlu 1972:7-13299, Mellink 1973a:192, Alkım (H) 1978:47-48 , Whallon 1979:171-72, Russel 1984:260, Korfmann et al. 1994:11 6, site no. 694 Kökten 1974:3; TAY Database Site Site name 533 Çayanu Administrative District Turkey: Site Class 3 Site size: 4.4 Easting: 39.7479 Northing: 38.23936 Material Description Few examples found in grave from the layer III housing. Braidwood said equivilant to Phase I in Amuq. Fat mound measures 4.5 m in height and 160 x 350 m. On the northern part of the village of Sesverenpinar (Hilar), 7 km southwest of Ergani Bibliography Çambel-Braidwood 1 980:21, Benedict 1980:127, Özdoğan et al. 1991 :şek.1 5B, Korfmann et al. 1994:60,site no. 301, Özdoğan (A) 1999:39; TAY Database Site Site name 534 Çildirin Hoyuk Administrative District Turkey: Agin Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 38.6493 Northing: 38.93621 Material Description 2 building levels producing Karaz ware. Double mound located in the lowland right above the Arapkir Stream, about 6 km west of the Agin District, west of the Yeniyapanlar Village. Bibliography Kökten 1971:19, Kökten 1974:7-8, Kökten 1972:2, Alkım (H) 1 978:11-1 2, Korfmann et al. 1994:63,site no. 325; TAY Database Site Site name 535 Dilikaya Höyüğü Administrative District Turkey: Edremit Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 43.2296 Northing: 38.33617 Material Description EB II & III Settlement. Rectangular, quadrangular and circular houses. monumental fortification wall exceeding 3 m high at trenches L6-L7 West of Dilkaya Village 24 km southwest of the Van Province. It stands on a natural sand dune on the northern bank of the Hosap Suyu where it spills to the Lake Van [Çilingiroglu-Derin 1992:topographical plan at pic.1]. The mound has been destroyed Bibliography Çilingiroğlu 1985:159, Çilingiroğlu 1 986a:1 51-1 55, Çilingiroğlu 1986b:216-217, Çilingiroğlu 1987a:81-83, plan 1-4, Çilingiroğlu 1987b:217, Çilingiroğlu 1988:229-232, res.2-4, Çilingiroğlu 1989:261-262, plan 2-4, Mellink 1989:158, Çilingiroğlu 1990:247-2481, Mellink 1990:133, Kozbe 1990:533-554, Çilingiroğlu 1 991 a:271-272,res.3-4, Çilingiroğlu 1991b:71-72, Çilingiroğlu-Derin 1992:403-407, Mellink 1992a:133, Çilingiroğlu 1993:469-475, Korfmann et al. 1994:221, site no. 1434; TAY Database Site Site name Administrative District 386 Site Class 1 Easting: 38.9362 536 Yeniköy/Gavur Höyüğü Turkey: Tunceli Northing: 38.95678 Site size: Material Description 2 building levels(2 and 3) producing Karaz ware, full assemblage Small and flat mound measuring 14 m in height and ca. 200 x 150 m,3 km north of the Lalusagi Village, northeast of the Pulur/Sakyol Village. Flooded by Keban Dam. Bibliography Koşay 1976a:103,lev.71/1, Koşay 1976b:1 75-1 82, Alkım (H) 1978:92, Korfmann et al. 1994:228, site no.1484; TAY Database Site Site name 537 Gengačin Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Easting: 44.6735 Site size: 1.134 Northing: 37.74372 Material Description surface sherd - non diagnostic 120x120x8m site covered for the most part by the modern village and cemetery near the Nazlu Cay. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site: 98 Site Site name 538 Tappeh Rabat Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Easting: 44.6826 Site size: 2.068 Northing: 37.71484 ha Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:II, III, V Ovoid shaped tell 170x155x13 with later fort on acropolis Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:97 - Figs. 63:39, 64:32, 66:41 Site Site name 539 Tappeh Anganeh Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 3.87 Easting: 45.1282 Northing: 37.78888 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:II, III Quasi circular mound with a lobe projecting from N side. 235x210x13m Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:19 - Figs. 63:9,10; 64:3,4; Site Site name 540 Tappeh Maidan Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Easting: 45.0787 Site size: 3.532 Northing: 37.75789 Material Description surface sherd - non diagnostic fragments Mound in a rough figure 8 shape with acropolis. 225x200x7m. In the plain N of Urmia Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:20 – Site Site name 541 Tappeh Baglar Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Easting: 45.0780 Site size: 1.428 Northing: 37.74702 7 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:II, IV, V, IX Roughly triangular in shape 140x130x7m. Heavily damaged on the north and western sides. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:21 - Figs: 63:80; 65:21; 66:36; 76:78 Site 542 Site name Tappeh Nazlu 2 Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan 387 Site Class 1 Easting: 45.0123 Site size: 0.714 Northing: 37.68633 35 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:III Originally an elongated oval in shape, but heavily damaged. 170x70x8m Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:12 - Fig: 64:58 Site Site name 543 Administrative District Qal’eh Ismail Aqa Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Easting: 44.9105 Site size: 13.14 Northing: 37.6575 8 Material Description Surface sherds. - few non diagnostic sherds Large mound 500x335x90 m along the Nazlu Cay. Large fortifications from later periods. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:87 – Site Site name 544 Administrative District Tappeh Balajuk Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 2.06 Easting: 44.9584 Northing: 37.60168 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:III, VI Oval shaped mound 175x150x9m with village on the SE. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:7 - Figs: 64:3,4, 27, 29, 20; 67:17 Site Site name 545 Administrative District Zeyanlu Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Site size: 3.14 Easting: 45.0050 Northing: 37.62323 Material Description Surface sherd - fragment Large mound 200x200x10-15m completely covered by modern village. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:3 Site Site name 546 Administrative District Balu 1 Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 2.7 Easting: 45.0256 Northing: 37.62081 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:I, II Low, oval shaped mound 215x160x18, heavily damaged Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:1 - Figs: 63:9; 64:48 Site Site name 547 Tappeh Askerbad Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 2.45 Easting: 45.0499 Northing: 37.64674 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:III, IV, V Large high tell 260x120x17m almost completely destroyed. Probably originally a double mound, only cores remain. Along canal from the Nazlu Cay Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:23 - Figs: 64:28,29; 65:36; 66:10 Site 548 Material Site name Miraziz Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Description 388 Site Class 1 Easting: 45.1182 Site size: 0.734 Northing: 37.57544 Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases: II Small steep mound 110x85x6m, heavily damaged on northern and southern sides. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site: 42 - Fig: 63:17 Site Site name 549 Administrative District Tappeh Kočebaš 1 Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 1.04 Easting: 45.1484 Northing: 37.61721 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases: III, V Small circular mound 120x110x4m heavily damaged. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:34 - Figs: 64:7,8,10; 66:40,41 Site Site name 550 Administrative District Tappeh Guijalu Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 1.63 Easting: 45.1539 Northing: 37.63079 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:II, III, IV, VII Large elliptical mound 170x160x10 m with high acropolis and relatively flat lower town/ terrace. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:33 - Figs: 63:18-23; 64:32; 65:26,27; 68: 16,17 Site Site name 551 Administrative District Qayehlu Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 0.35 Easting: 45.1935 Northing: 37.63943 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:II Small elliptical mound 90x50x4m near the base of hills that lead to the lake. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:36 - Fig: 63:21 Site Site name 552 Administrative District Xarbeh Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 7.85 Easting: 45.1054 Northing: 37.54737 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:VII, VIII, IX Large low mound apprx 400x250x3m almost completely destroyed. Near the Sahr Cay Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:73 - Figs: 68:79, 47; 69:12; 74:6; 76:44 Site Site name 553 Tarmani Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 6.28 Easting: 45.1618 Northing: 37.5416 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:III Small low mound 100x80x1m on the northern summit of a natural hill. 500 m from the Sahr Cay Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:72 - Fig: 71:5 Site 554 Site name Tappeh Tellu Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Easting: 44.8107 Site size: 0.707 Northing: 37.48246 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:III, IV, V, VIII Small but high, steep, and flat topped elliptical mound 100x90x8m. Near a stream from the Darband Cay. 389 Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:88 - Figs: 64:48; 65:32; 66:34 Site Site name 555 Tappeh Ražan Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Easting: 44.8939 Site size: 0.074 Northing: 37.38494 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:III Small elliptical mounf 35x27x3m with allot of cut stone bleeding from the sides. In valley near village of Doleh Pasan. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:75 - Figs: 64:52, 32 Site Site name 556 Tappeh Nargi Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Easting: 44.9265 Site size: 1.534 Northing: 37.29842 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:V, VII, VIII Moderately sized but high mound in a roughly triangular shape 170x115x16m. Near stream. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:81 - Figs: 66:54; 68:57, 73, 75; 69:9,10 Site Site name 557 Tappeh Gerdevan Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Easting: 44.9506 Site size: 1.758 Northing: 37.25212 Material Description Surface sherd - insignificant fragments Medium rounded mound 160x140x7m. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:80 – Site Site name 558 Tappeh Jarabad Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 0.35 Easting: 44.9605 Northing: 37.22283 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases:VII, VIII Small but high mound 80x55x18m. A series of cist tombs as well as taces of habitation were uncovered. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:78 - Figs: 68:55; 69:1 Site Site name 559 Tappeh Baranduz Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 45.0774 Northing: 37.41403 Material Description Surface sherds. - insignificant fragments Completely covered by modern village Small fortification found on summit. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:55 – Site Site name 560 Tappeh Sekan Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Easting: 45.0930 Site size: 0.471 Northing: 37.39973 Material Description Surface sherd - insignificant fragment Small ellipsoid mound 55x40x1.5m now encirled by a canal from the Baranduz Cay. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:57 390 Site Site name 561 Tappeh Leyli Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 0.44 Easting: 45.1658 Northing: 37.39002 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases: II, VII Small high circular mound 80x70x8m. In the plain 500 m from the Baranduz Cay. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:60 - Figs: 63:62; 68:63 Site Site name 562 Tappeh Dizajtakye Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Site size: 7.51 Easting: 45.1688 Northing: 37.4245 Material Description Surface sherds. - two insignificant fragments Large and high mound 330x290x29m ellipsoid in shape. In the plain near the Baranduz Cay. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:51 – Site Site name 563 Tappeh Turkman Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 3 Site size: 1.08 Easting: 45.2394 Northing: 37.43444 Material Description Surface sherds. - insignificant fragment Medium sized and steep mound 125x110x9m in a roughly circular shape. Edges of the tell heavily damaged. On stream from the Baranduz Cay. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site:65 Site Site name 564 Tappeh Jamfeslu Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Site Class 1 Site size: 0.95 Easting: 45.0195 Northing: 37.49078 Material Description Surface sherds. - Gijlar Phases: VII, VIII Roughly eliipitically shaped mound 135x90x8m with a wide and flat top. Bibliography Pecorela 1984:314 Site: 74 - Figs: 68:77; 69:24 Site Site name 565 Rasahtian Tepe Administrative District Iran: Kurdistan Material Description Surface sherds. Circular mound Site Class 2 Site size: 1.93 Easting: 47.8366 Northing: 34.58004 Site Class 2 Site size: 1.92 Easting: 47.9178 Northing: 34.56956 Bibliography Young 2004 - Site H1 Site Site name 566 Abaleh? Karkaneh Tepe Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Circular mound Bibliography Young 2004 - Site H2 391 Site Site name 567 Tepe Gafer Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Circular mound Site Class 1 Site size: 0.8 Easting: 47.9106 Northing: 34.50252 Site Class 1 Site size: 0.44 Easting: 47.8942 Northing: 34.53418 Site Class 1 Site size: 0.16 Easting: 48.0794 Northing: 34.57363 Site Class 2 Site size: 0.29 Easting: 48.0900 Northing: 34.58819 Site Class 1 Site size: 0.64 Easting: 47.9794 Northing: 34.4574 Site Class 1 Site size: 0.34 Easting: 47.9125 Northing: 34.44833 Site Class 1 Site size: 3.61 Easting: 47.881 Northing: 34.40833 Bibliography Young 2004 - Site H13 Site Site name 568 Sarab i Ski karab Tepe ? Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Irregularly shaped mound Bibliography Young 2004 - H8 Site Site name 569 ?? Karkaneh Tepe Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Oval mound Bibliography Young 2004 - Site V47 Site Site name 570 Mirajabad Tepe Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Oval mound Bibliography Young 2004 - V40 Site Site name 571 Gabistanis?? Tepe Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Oval mound Bibliography Young 2004 - Site K33 Site Site name 573 Tepe Kureh Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Circular Mound Bibliography Young 2004 - Site K39 Site Site name 574 Pu-i Qal'eh Tepe Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Oval mound 392 Bibliography Young 2004 - Site K14 Site Site name 575 Tepe -i Duab Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Oval mound Site Class 2 Site size: 0.96 Easting: 47.9079 Northing: 34.37863 Site Class 2 Site size: 0.42 Easting: 48.2188 Northing: 34.6479 Site Class 1 Site size: 1.54 Easting: 41.5799 Northing: 39.96951 Bibliography Young 2004 - Site K4 Site Site name 576 Najafabad Tepe Administrative District Iran: Luristan Material Description Surface sherds. Oval mound Bibliography Young 2004 - Site V22 Site Site name 577 Administrative District Çöğender Site 4 Material Description Surface sherds. c. 1.6 km NE of Çöğender; c. 1.4 km WNW of Övenler; c. 140 x 140 m; on the N side of a dirt track branching E from the Baldizi road linking the village to the main Erzurum. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:8 Site Site name 578 Çöğender Site 2 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5622 Northing: 39.97156 Material Description Surface sherds. c. 900 m NW of Çöğender; the site is immedi ately E of a dirt track linking Çöğender and Kevenklik; swamp and a river tributary lie to the W and N; fields are located on the other sides; Sos Höyük Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:6 Site Site name 579 Çögender Site 1 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5603 Northing: 39.96603 Material Description Surface sherds. c. 600 mW of Çöğender 1.2 km NE of Sos Höyük; W of a dirt track linking Çöğender and Kevenklik; fields lie to the N and E, swamp to the S and W; water is plentiful with river tributary Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:5 Site Site name 580 Kevenklîk Site 4 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5365 Northing: 39.9746 Material Description Surface sherds. 1.7 km SW of Kevenklik; c. 2.2 km NW of Sos Höyük sherd scatter in the fields indicating the remains of a modest Settlement. Watered by springs and channels; the site is sheltered with knolls and hills to the east. Bibliography 393 Sagona 2000 Site:4 Site Site name 581 Kevenklik Site 3 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class 1 Site size: 0.22 Easting: 41.5343 Northing: 39.97823 Material Description Surface sherds. c. 1.6 kmm. SW of Kevenklik possible ancient cemetery marked by substantial stone grave circles and one linear alignment similar to those at Yiğittaşı Site 2 (Area B); c. 40 x 70 m; small sherd scatter, dips in the land and back-fîlled areas suggest past tomb robbing. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:3 Site Site name 582 Kevenklik Site 3 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Material Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5885 Northing: 39.97043 Description c. 1.6 kmm. SW of Kevenklik possible ancient cemetery marked by substantial stone grave circles and one linear alignment similar to those at Yiğittaşı Site 2 (Area B); c. 40 x 70 m; small sherd scatter, dips in the land and back-fîlled areas suggest past tomb robbing. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:10 Site Site name 583 Övenler Site 3 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6027 Northing: 39.97689 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound, c. 50 x 35 m and pottery scatter; c. 1.9 km NE of Övenler in fields bordering the road as it branches E toward Taşlıkaynak.The river is known locally simply as Dere [river] or Çökenden Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:16 Site Site name 584 Taşlikaynak Site 2 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class 1 Easting: 41.6187 Site size: 0.212 Northing: 39.9788 Material Description Surface sherds. Small mound with some rocky mounds formed by land clearance, pits may indicate robbing; c. 45 x 60 m; located on the upper river terraces as for ESı6-i7 and ES19; c. 1.4 km S of Taşlıkaynak. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:18 Site Site name 585 Kurbançayiri Site 1 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6438 Northing: 39.99287 Material Description Surface sherds. Substantial mound on the S outskirts of Kur-bançayın; robber's pits have been dug into the top and sides; at the W side of the road to Pasinler; c. 5 km from Pasinler Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:20 Site Site name 586 Pasinler (Hasankale) Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6953 Northing: 39.94438 Material Description Surface sherds. A large castle, c. 60 x 80 m, dominating the modern town of Pasinler; The castle sits atop a natural rocky spur, part of the range to the N of the site: restored walls were built on iron Age 394 foundations; the impression of large water pipes in the mortar and Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:24 Site Site name 587 Bulamaç Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6099 Northing: 39.94701 Material Description Surface sherds. A large mound situated in the valley floor of the Çöğender River with extensive lower settlement; wall lines are visible at the surface and complex stratigraphy is apparent in the disturbed areas. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:25 Site Site name 588 Demirdöven Site 2 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.7303 Northing: 39.98786 Material Description Surface sherds. A ruined fort, or castle, is situated just below the summit of the Hasanbaba Mountain; the fort is visible from the church, ES26, and appears as a rise, breaking the natural line of the mountain slopes; the strategic significance of this location cannot be underestimated Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:27 Site Site name 589 Beşîktepe (Tepecik Site Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.7857 Northing: 39.92544 Material Description Surface sherds. Mound with some signs of minor disturbance; c. 1 km E of Tepe cik; on the N side of the road running E out of Tepe cik; located on the S river terrace; good views E up the Pasinler plain; Pasinler lies some 9.2 km to the WNW; the river is located to the N. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:31 Site Site name 590 Büyük Tüy Site 1 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.4737 Northing: 39.95842 Material Description Surface sherds. A very large mound; robber's pits have exposed wall lines and other ancient debris; commanding views E to Pasinler; the location is sheltered, nestled into the slopes of the highlands to the immediate W; the village of Büyük Tüy is situated c. 100 m SE of the mound. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:35 Site Site name 591 Saksi Site 1 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5132 Northing: 39.97184 Material Description Surface sherds. Large oblong mound on the NE outskirts of Saksi; a section of a cyclopean wall is exposed on its lower SW flank; wall lines are visible on top of the mound and there is evidence of some disturbance; the site is located on the terraced slopes of the N. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:36 Site Site name 592 Saksi Site 2: Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5188 Northing: 39.97144 Material Description Surface sherds. Small oblong and narrow mound on top of a natural ridge; c. 50 m E of the large mound in Saksı village; some disturbance and land clearance has resulted in long piles of field stones to the W of the 395 site; the location is described in ES36. Period of occupation: Late Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:37 Site Site name 593 Kara Velet Site 1 Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.5236 Northing: 39.89386 Material Description Surface sherds. A large, ancient burial ground, thoroughly plundered; the site is located on a natural rise, the fîrst line of the S foothills, c. 450 m W of Karavelet and S of the Alvar-Alibezirğan road; the village and the site are separated by a deep gully with a stream flowing along its Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:38 Site Site name 594 Kayalik Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.4645 Northing: 39.92878 Material Description Surface sherds. A substantial fort or castle on top of a large volcanic outcrop with extensive lava flows at its lower reaches on the W side; the village of Uzunahmet lies to the E and S of the hill; extensive ring walls of ashlar blocks have been disturbed at the SW end, but can be traced Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:42 Site Site name 595 Eskî Köy [Alvar Site 1] Administrative District Turkey: Erzurum Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 41.6546 Northing: 39.92923 Material Description Surface sherds. Extensive settlement disturbed by gas pipe trenches; architecture was said37 to have been exposed at a depth of 2 m; c. 2.3 km SE of Bulamaç [ES25]. Period of occupation: Early Bronze Age, iron Age, Medieval. Bibliography Sagona 2000 Site:56 Site Site name 596 Gegharot Administrative District Armenia Site Class 1 Site size: 3.43 Material Description Surface collections and excavations - Classified Kura-Araxes III Mound with cyclopean Iron Age fortress Easting: 44.2251 Northing: 40.70562 Bibliography Smith 1998 Site Site name 597 Aragats-berd Administrative District Areminia Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 44.2851 Northing: 40.69577 Material Description 21% attributed to EBA South of Gegharot on E section of Tsakahovit plain Bibliography Smith 1998 Site Site name 598 Ali Meydani 1 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description 396 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6446 Northing: 40.02185 Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 75 Site Site name 599 Ali Meydani 2 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6384 Northing: 40.01253 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6532 Northing: 40.0425 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6221 Northing: 40.03191 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5558 Northing: 40.14721 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.8702 Northing: 40.24546 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.9114 Northing: 40.23387 Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 76 Site Site name 600 Ali Meydani 3 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 73 Site Site name 601 Hans Deresi Mevkii 2 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 78 Site Site name 602 Çengiler Tepesi Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 97 Site 603 Site name Çayıryolu Tepe 4(Sünür) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 49 Site 604 Site name Çayıryolu Tepe 1(Sünür) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 46 397 Site 605 Site name Çayıryolu Tepe 2(Sünür) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.9239 Northing: 40.23504 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.9753 Northing: 40.19634 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6489 Northing: 40.03033 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.6209 Northing: 40.04327 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.5936 Northing: 40.02476 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.9014 Northing: 40.23017 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.8488 Northing: 40.18118 Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 47 Site Site name 606 Gundulak Tepe Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 43 Site Site name 607 Han Deresi Mevkii 3 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 74 Site Site name 608 Han Deresi Mevkii 1 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 77 Site Site name 609 Sadalak (Satala) Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 79 Site Site name 610 Çayırolu Tepe 3 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site Site 611 Material Site name Karaçayı r Mevkii Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Description 398 Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site Site Site name 612 Karaköy Hoyuk Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 39.1471 Northing: 40.21884 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 40.1273 Northing: 40.32371 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 40.2372 Northing: 40.1081 1 Easting: 39.1882 Northing: 40.16959 Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site Site Site name 613 Çidgemtepe Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site Site Site name 614 Sirakayalar 1 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site Site Site name 615 Taşlık 2 Administrative District Turkey: Gümüşane Bayburt Material Description Surface sherds. No description Site Class Site size: Bibliography Bayburt Survey BS Site 101 Site Site name 616 Azramastepesi Administrative District Azerbaidzan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.4581 Northing: 41.14414 Material Description Almost exclusively Kura-Arax Round, 100 mDiameter 3m high. On plain 5km east of Shomutepe Bibliography Narimanov 1992 Site 617 Site name Shulaverisgora Administrative District Azerbaidzan 399 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.7749 Northing: 39.67659 Material Description Almost exclusively Kura-Arax On right slope of Khrami River Valley, 2.5km SW of the village of Imri. 100x40x2m. Wxcavation undertaken Bibliography Narimanov 1992 Site Site name 618 Administrative District Babadervish Azerbaidzan Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 44.9751 Northing: 39.69551 Material Description 30-40cm of Kura-Araxes material On natural hill, at confluence of Akstafa and Dzhogazchai rivers Bibliography Narimanov 1992 Site Site name 619 Administrative District Tell Mozan Syria: Habur Site Class 3 Site size: 18ha Easting: 40.9961 Northing: 37.05921 Material Description Questionable andiron like objects found. Large high mound on Wadi Dar'a off the Khabur. Comaded major pass to Cu mines and Mardin pass into Anatolia Bibliography Buccelatti, Mk 2003, Personel communication Site Site name 620 Administrative District Tell Banat Material Syria: Euphrates Site Class Site size: 4 Easting: 38.2936 Northing: 36.45812 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.9746 Northing: 39.72049 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.0744 Northing: 39.8439 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.7646 Northing: 39.97635 Description Single bowl found in tomb Bibliography Porter, A. 1995 Site Site name 621 Administrative District Hoğalı Material Description Kura-Araxes III No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 622 Administrative District Uzarlik tepe Material Description Kura-Araxes III No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 623 Administrative District Uctepe Material Description Kura-Araxes III No Description 400 Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 624 Administrative District Mainatepe Material Description Proto-Kura-Araxes No Description Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 47.4528 Northing: 39.58233 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.4601 Northing: 36.16917 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.2432 Northing: 39.53037 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 45.4522 Northing: 38.31865 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.0609 Northing: 37.03791 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.1155 Northing: 36.98682 Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 625 Administrative District Tepe Sahap Material Description Kura-Araxes III No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 626 Administrative District Qara tepe Material Description Kura-Araxe III No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 627 Administrative District Tassug - Qara Tepe Material Description Kura-Araxes I, II, III No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 628 Administrative District Cerq Baba Material Description Kura-Arax I-II material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 629 Administrative District Tepe Qal'eh Kurd Material Description Kura-Arax I-II material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 401 Site Site name 630 Administrative District Nacit Tepe Material Description Kura-Arax I-II material No Description Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 46.1934 Northing: 36.69621 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.8184 Northing: 39.22565 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 47.6010 Northing: 35.83278 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 50.0573 Northing: 36.25925 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 48.9408 Northing: 34.34754 Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 631 Administrative District Misartai Material Description Kura-Arax III material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 632 Administrative District Bagar Tepe Material Description Kura-Arax I-II material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 633 Administrative District Tepe Sagzabad Material Description Kura-Arax I-II material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 634 Administrative District Malayer Material Description Kura-AraxesIIII material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 635 Administrative District Qara Tepe Material Description Kura-Araxes I-II material No Description Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 402 Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 50.7242 Northing: 35.5747 Site Site name 636 Administrative District Gobristan Material Description Kura-Araxes III Material No Description Site Class Site size: 1 Easting: 49.3555 Northing: 40.07027 Bibliography Reichert 1992 - TAVO MAP B II 15 Site Site name 637 Nahal Tabor Cemetery Administrative District Israel Material Description Undifferentiated sherds No Description Site Class 4 Easting: 35.5281 Site size: 0.54 ha Northing: 32.62279 Bibliography Esse 1991: 43, note 52 - no site no, Site Site name 638 Tell 'Arqa Administrative District Syria 3 Easting: 36.0654 Northing: 34.5483 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.4063 Northing: 35.42798 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.4860 Northing: 35.84992 Site Class Site size: Description No Description Material Bibliography Thalmann 1991:25 Site Site name 639 Qalat Moudiq (Apamea) Administrative District Syria Material Description "little red-black burnished ware is present at Qalat Mudiq" Dorneman, statement in comparrison to Qarqur - no reference??? Large Classical period site Bibliography Dorneman 1999:146 Site Site name 640 Tell Hassane Administrative District Syria: Rouj Basin Material Description 1 sherd puyblished in Courtouis, New Japanese Surveys produce no evidence 1km n of Ain Kerkh. 350x160 m Bibliography Courtois 1973:94, Fig. 26 Site Site name 641 Ognok (Üçdere) Administrative District Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 403 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 41.6354 Northing: 38.78764 Site Site name 642 Administrative District Yekmal (Yürekli) Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 41.8025 Northing: 38.79474 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 41.7437 Northing: 38.76623 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 41.8692 Northing: 38.70707 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 41.7623 Northing: 38.82377 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 41.4853 Northing: 38.75432 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 42.46 Northing: 39.01867 Site Class Site size: 2 Easting: 42.3380 Northing: 39.04511 Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site Site name 643 Administrative District Kirtakom (Tabani) Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site Site name 644 Administrative District Girçay (Gerçayiri) Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site Site name 645 Administrative District Tifnik2 (Durugöze) Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site Site name 646 Administrative District Muş Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site Site name 647 Administrative District Later (Elmakaya) Turkey: Muş Material Description Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site 648 Material Site name A Şeyhyakup (Gülünova) dministrative District Turkey: Muş Description 404 Surface sherds. No description Bibliography Rothman and Kozbe 1997 Site Site name 649 Administrative District Tilmen Hoyuk Turkey: Islahiye Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.7200 Northing: 37.1516 Material Description Some sherds found in Alkim excavations 6 km east of Islahiye District, in Gaziantep, 1800 m south of Bostanaga Village, north of the road leading to Islahiye. Located oin swamp area surrounded by the branches of Karasu River, is 225 m in diamete x 21m highr. Its original diameter was 245 m Bibliography Alkım 1966:39 Site Site name 650 Administrative District Gedikli Turkey: Islahiye Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: 36.8308 Northing: 37.2358 Material Description EBA levels is ca. 18 m. Few ETC sherds found in Stratum IIIf as well as on the eastern lower terrace 23-24 km northeast of the Islahiye District, northwest of the Gaziantep Province. Known as Karahöyük, referred to as Gedikli. 240 x 190x24 m Bibliography Alkım 1966: 38-39 Site Site name 651 Administrative District Tarsus Turkey: Tarsus Material Description Single bowl sherd found in excavations and examined by Matson Large multi period site Site Class Site size: 3 Site Class Site size: 3 Easting: Northing: 0 Easting: Northing: 0 0 Bibliography Goldman 1956:356 Site Site name 652 Administrative District Susa Iran: Khuzistan Material Description One incised and filled sherd found in Susa D level Large multiperiod site Bibliography Dyson 1973:698 405 0 406 Index of Sites by Sites in Alphabetical Order Site Name Site No. ‘Ain Yezreel 509 Abaleh? Karkaneh Tepe 566 Abastumani 21 Abelia 50 Acarköy (Halil Ağa Hüyük, Halil Beg 387 Adağören (Kilişik) 308 Adi Geni 211 'Affula (Affulah) 462 Agdzhagala 109 Ai (Et-Tell) 469 Ain el-Meiteh 463 390 Aktamur (Akhtamir, Kiz-Tamir) 108 Ali Meydani 1 598 Ali Meydani 2 599 Ali Meydani 3 600 Alikirpuni (Ali Kirpo, Kocatarla) 204 Alişar (Alişar Mezrea, Alişar -Deresi) 320 Altıntepe 194 Altıntepe 247 Amiranis Gora Anbaracık Höyüğü Ani Kalesi 93 117 Aqrabah 453 Aragats (Arakhapze) Aragats-berd Arashendi Ardahan Ardvi Arevik (Ghuziguidan) Argveti 98 74 181 97 113 5 92 Armavir Blur 112 Armutak (Kavaklisu) 352 214 Aşağı Sazlica 347 Aşağı Şeyhacı Tepe si (Şeyhhacıköy) 240 Astkhapzor (Asdghatsor) 134 Aşvan Kale (Muratçık) 229 Ataf Harabesi 338 Aycılı (Çöbeli) 275 94 616 Baba Dervish 2 (Akstafa) 65 Baba Dervish 3 (Akstafa) 66 Baba Dervish l (Akstafa) 64 Baba Qassem 178 Babadervish 618 Bab edh-Dhra 520 Bagar Tepe 632 44 Bağlama (Ain al-Samak) 394 Bahcedami (Kalatepe) 355 Bahri (Erenli) 290 Balu 1 546 Bamut 80 Baoaani 71 Barafraq 176 33 Beit Sahur 471 Besarslan (Tell Hamda) 483 Beshtasheni (Akhyllar) 32 Beşiktepe (tepecik Site 2) 589 Beth Shan (Beth Shean, Tell el-Husn) 464 Bethel (Beitin) 468 Beyg Owbasi (Qahrabap) 164 Biricik Höyük 385 Bodbe 407 41 Aşağı Mollahasan Barmaksyz-Manglisi 597 Arich (Artik) 294 Bagineti 327 Apablur (Kghzyak Blur) Arslantepe Azramastepesi 23 52 452 Azat Hüyük 72 Site No. 'Arqub el-Phahr (‘Arqub ez-Zahar) Arukhlo 27 Akpınar ('Ain Al-Baida', Tell Baida) Alaverdi Aroas-Ubani 22 Adil Cevaz Kalesi (Kümbet Hüyük) Akhalkalaki (Amiranis Gora) Site Name 76 Site Name Site No. Site Name Site No. Bokluca (Baldiran) 391 Didube Boy Tepe 248 Dilikaya Höyüğü Boz Hüyük 373 Dilzhan (Redkin-Lager) Bukyeri (Aşağımıselli) 228 Dişliktepe (Kirkpınar) 360 Bulamaç 587 Dizik Hüyük 282 Bulanık 208 Dmanisi Büyük Tüy Site 1 590 Dovri 104 Büyüktepe Bayburt 528 Dow Tepe PAin 169 Cafer Harabesi 287 Dumeila Cakıltepe ( Körtepe) 264 Dvin Cano Tepe 315 Dzagina ÇatalL Hüyük 423 Dzhemikent Çataltepe (Tell Habish?) 386 Dzhogaz 82 Çay Boyu (Köy Üstü) 230 Dzhupzhevan 83 Çayanu 533 Elar 106 Çayırolu Tepe 3 610 el-Fakhat 451 Çayıryolu Tepe 1 (Sünür) 604 el-Qitar 437 Çayıryolu Tepe 2 (Sünür) 605 Ernis (Erciş) 212 Çayıryolu Tepe 4 (Sünür) 603 Erzürük (Uzuntarla) 274 Çengiler Tepe si 602 Eski Köy [Alvar Site 1] 595 Cerq Baba 628 Fero (İncirlipınar) 350 Chumuş-Inits 144 Fethiye (Hasan-Badrak) 342 Çidgemtepe 613 Fırat Yolu Hüyük (Kapıkaya. Mmemikan) 289 Çiftlik (Hacihaliloğlu Çiftlik) 293 Franganots 110 Çiftlik Mevkii 319 Furuncu 292 Çildirin Hoyuk 534 Gabistanis?? Tepe 571 Cinis (Ortabahçe) 188 Gaçardoğansalı (Koçar Doğanşalı) 125 Çöğendere Site 1 579 Gaitmazı Çöğendere Site 2 578 Garni 121 Çöğendere Site 4 577 Gaybeyan (Gaybiyan, Yoncaliöz) 197 Çoğullhan (Cholu Han, Çoğlu Han, Çavlı) 368 Gazanots 103 Dana Hüyük 393 Gedikli 650 Gegharot 596 Dangreulis Gora 56 46 535 85 37 25 123 43 142 55 Daruk 531 Gelinciktepe (Markop) 295 Değirmenbaşı Mevkii 335 Gengačin 537 Değirmentepe 238 Geoy Tepe 155 Değirmentepe 309 Gezer (Tell Jezer, Tell el-Jasari) 466 Demirdöven Site 2 588 Giamrez 107 Didi Akhalı Sopeli 13 Gıjlar Tepe 154 408 Site Name Site No. Site Name Site No. Gil'îar 147 Haşıye (Hasya, Aksacli) 189 Girçay (Gerçayiri) 644 Hassek Höyük 526 Giyan 177 Hayaz Höyük 525 Gobristan 636 Hayyım Tepe 324 Godin Tepe 175 Hazor (Tell el-Qedah, Tell Waqqas) 447 Gökçeli (Gökceali) 126 Hindi (Hindiköy, Söğülü) 190 Göktepe 375 Hino (Hinoköy, Baklatepe) 215 Gomareti 36 Hinsor 278 Götübyük 409 Hoğalı 621 Gre Virike 523 Hoğu (Hoğuköy, Yurtbaşi) 271 Gremi 72 Hornovil (Hornavil, Maltepe) 348 Grmakhevistavi 38 Horomhan (Horom-Hanı) 343 Gudabertka 18 Höyük Değirmenpr (Kayak, Yeşilyurt) 351 Gülüàanbaba Tepe si 254 Hulvenk 273 Gundulak Tepe 606 Hunan (Suboyu) 200 Gurahazhi 137 Hüyük Köy Hüyük 340 Gurtepe 234 İemiri (Otbicer) 218 Guzelce 496 Iğdir (Malaklu) 127 Güzelova (Tufanç) 185 Ihşanlı 354 Habibuşağı Kale 285 İkinciler (Kazan Hüyük) 361 Haftavan Tepe 153 Ilanı Tepe 149 Halak Tepe 486 İlikinar Hüyük (Hakhor) 388 Hama 444 Il'to Hamam 184 Imamoğlu Hüyük (Imamlı) 310 Han Deresi Mevkii 1 608 İmikuşağı Hüyük 313 Han Deresi Mevkii 3 607 Imiris Gora Han İbrahim Şah (Esenkent) 233 İsaköy 345 Hanak 180 İspendere 291 Hanîgevram 377 Ivceklerin Tepe si 193 Hankendi (Hanköy, Çalo Harab) 279 İviktepe 276 Hans Deresi Mevkii 2 601 Jannatabad 174 Haraba 235 Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) 470 Harabe Tepe 321 Kabala 150 Haroğlu Tarlası 312 Kabre Koshab 165 HasanLU 158 Kachreti 75 Hasarkaya 357 Kafakent 140 Hasartepe 359 Kale I 304 Hasırci I (Hasıtcılar) 317 Kale III 299 Hasırcı III (Hasırcılar Asırcıtepesi) 316 Kale Topt 163 409 69 57 Site Name Site No. Site Name Site No. Kalecik 179 Khirbet Qaysun Kalecik 216 Khirsa 77 Kalecik (Kalaycik) 225 Khizanaaht Gora 14 Kalecik/ Kalaycıktepe 532 Khovle 20 Kaleköy 331 Khramis Pipi Gorakhramis Pipi Gora 58 Kamıklı Hüyük 311 Kiketi 48 Kamo (Nor Baıazet) 133 Kilise Tepe (Habusu, İkizpemir) 245 Kara Elbistan 366 Kilise Tepe si 334 Kara Hüyük 224 Kinet Hoyuk 497 KaraBaba Harabesi (Mamahar) 333 Kirasa Tepe si 307 Karaçayı r Mevkii 611 Kirtakom (Tabani) 643 KaraHüyük 346 Kîul'tepe (Nakhichevan) 2 151 Karaja Khirbat Ali 477 Kîul'tepe (Nakhichevan) l 152 Karaköse 129 Koda Karaköy Hoyuk 612 Könk (Yenikapı) 261 Karaköyun 376 Kör Haliliye (Tell Kirkhizpınar) 389 Karataş 272 Koreti Karatepe (KaraHüyük) 416 Körkuyu 380 Karavelet Site 1 593 Körpınar 255 Karaz (Kahramanlar) 186 Körtepe 242 Karhanki-Berd 100 Körtepe 243 Karkaneh Tepe 569 Körtepe 246 91 Körtepe 258 Kayalık Tepe (Uzunahmet Site 1) 594 Körtepe 266 Kaz Mevkii 298 Körtepe (Cayırlar Tepe si, Boztepe) 265 Korucutepe (Aşağı İçme) 241 314 Karnut Kechill 68 456 51 1 Kehli (Mollakenöi Karşıbağ) 270 Köse (köy) Hüyük Kekerli (Kirkgöze) 209 Kösitchofer 87 Kemaksı Mevkii Maşatlık 252 Köskerbaba 303 Kevenklik Site 3 581 Kötek Kevenklik Site 3 582 Kövenk (Kuvank, Guntaşı) 267 Kevenklik Site 4 580 Köyanala (Miyaoin, Mayadun) 378 Kh. el-Mahruq 513 Koyuncuhoyuk 473 Kh. Ez-Zeraqon 512 Kucuk Avara (Ciflik Turham Bey) 481 Kh. Safsafa 507 Küçük Til Hüyük 365 Khan Bessine 407 Kuçuktepe 195 35 Kul Tepe 166 4 Kulbakebi 8 449 Kulokhom 9 Khapik Kharakhtini Khirbet el-Kerak (Beth-Yerah) 410 99 Site Name Kurban Höyük Site No. Site Name 522 KurbançaYiri Site 1 585 Kuruçayır Tepe si 260 Site No. Mirajabad Tepe 570 Miraziz 548 Mişakşin (Değirmenköy) 205 Kushchi 29 Misartai 631 Kuyulu 269 Mksr 26 157 Kuyuluk 358 Mokhra Blur (Kultepe Eschmiaozin) 116 Kvatskhelbi 15 Mollakent 206 Kvernaki 17 Mukhannath Tapa (Mukhanat Tapa) 120 Later (Elmakaya) 647 Muş 646 Lawiyeh 506 Muşuri 131 Lchashen 132 Nacit Tepe 630 Leninakan 90 Nahal Tabor Cemetery 637 Najafabad Tepe 576 Liz (Erentepe) 207 Lousakert (Karashamb) 105 Lugovoe Mainatepe 624 Makhachkala 138 Malap (Bakış) 363 Malayer 634 Maltepe 328 Maltepe (Kilhidik Uzuntepe) 221 Maltepe Hüyük 341 Mam al-Kutan 141 Mamrash 146 Maşatlık 244 Maşatlık (Sarpulu) 263 Mastara Nakhnorebis-Chala 78 Nalihasan Narcherkezevi Natsar Gora 96 Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) 459 Mehre (Ortakli) 370 Mekegin 139 Menteşe 222 Metsamor 115 Mets-Chal 84 337 2 11 Nizzanim 514 No Name 161 No Name 168 No Name 236 No Name 237 No Name 239 No Name 286 No Name 379 No Name 381 No Name 478 No Name 487 No Name 488 No Name 492 No Name 494 Noemberiannoemberian 62 Norabats 118 Norşuntepe (Alişam Norşin) 250 Meydancık Hüyük II 300 Meydancık Hüyük I (Cökçertepe) 301 Meydancık Kale Mevkii 302 Nuli Meyoancık Hüyük III 306 Ognok (Üçdere) Mezarlık Tepe 249 Okami Mingechaur 148 Ören Novyi Arshti 411 49 79 6 641 28 362 Site Name Site No. Site Name Osman Bozu 67 Övenler Site 3 Site No. Şahyurpu Mevkii 330 583 Saka-Başı (Pincirik) 284 Oylum Höyük 524 Saksı Site 1 591 Ozan Hüyük (Evzaniye Köy Doğanköy) 367 Saksı Site 2: 592 Samanköy 325 Samsat Hüyük 374 Ozhagatsatekh Ozhanberp (South Koitur) Oozni (Guniia) 63 101 30 Samshviloe 40 Pağnik Öreni 527 Şantepe 297 Palasa-Syrtskie 145 Sapakhlo 59 Pasakoy 491 Sarab i Ski karab Tepe ? Pasınler (Hasankale) 586 Sarnaghpur Patnos 210 Sarpulu (Kazancı Çağlar) 262 Persi (Bazmakn) 102 Sarsap Mevki (Sarsap Mezraa) 283 Piklis 198 Savka Tepe 259 Pılır 220 Sekerat (Yazıbaşı) 383 Pınartepe 384 Şemşiye Tepe (Şemşi Höyük) 329 Pirgorgar Tepe 170 Seracik (Saracık, Saraycık) 227 Pirot Höyük (Pirut, Kıyıcak) 288 Serzhen Iurt Poyraz (Beşik) 277 Sev Blur (Karatepe) 114 Pu-i Qal'eh Tepe 574 Şevki Han 332 Pülür (Gökepere) 191 Şeyhpirim II 202 Pülür (Ömertepe) 187 Şeyhyakup (Gülünova) 648 Pülür (Sakyol) 226 Şeyhyusuf (Boyuncuk) 199 Putoğlu 419 Seyrangah Tepe 305 Qadesh - Naphtali 505 Shaglama II (Shamlug) 60 Qaish Tepe 172 Shaglama III 61 Qal’eh Ismail Aqa 543 Sheitan-e Zenoan 160 Qal'at er-Rous 442 Shengavit 119 Qalat Moudiq (Apamea) 639 Shresh Blur 111 Qalat Siriani 498 Shula Veris Gora Qara Tepe 626 Shulaverisgora 617 Qara Tepe 635 Silbistan (Toygar) 296 Qarqur 502 Sinanlı 318 Qayehlu 551 Sioni Ras Shamra (Ugarit) 441 Siptoros (Oruçbeyli) 192 Rasahtian Tepe 565 Sirakayalar 1 614 Rosh Haniqra (Tell et-Taba'iq,) 446 Sivrikaya 349 Rouset al-Amir 499 Soğkom Tepe si (Sohkom. Yarpuzlu) 201 Sadalak (Satala) 609 Sokulu Tarla 323 412 568 95 81 54 70 Site Name Site No. Site Name Site No. Sos (Sosköy, Yiğittaşı) 183 Tel Estaba 511 Stepankert 136 Tel Halif (Regev) 519 Sürgü 371 Tel Lachish 517 Susa 652 Tel Nagila 518 Tadım 280 Tel Qishon (Qisan) 457 Tell Abdal 482 Tagavaranist (Takavoranast) Tall Gamus Tamarisi 86 445 53 Tell Afis 500 Tell 'Ain Dara (Endar, ‘Andariyyah) 435 Tappeh Anganeh 539 Tell Akrad 485 Tappeh Askerbad 547 Tell al-Hammam 428 Tappeh Baglar 541 Tell al-Judeideh 421 Tappeh Balajuk 544 Tell al-Salam (Tell i-Slam?) 405 Tappeh Baranduz 559 Tell Anbar 396 Tappeh Dizajtakye 562 Tell Ara 460 Tappeh Gerdevan 557 Tell 'Arqa 638 Tappeh Guijalu 550 Tell Asir 403 Tappeh Jamfeslu 564 Tell Bab Lit (or Lait?) 434 Tappeh Jarabad 558 Tell Bahlilhah 412 Tappeh Kočebaš 1 549 Tell Banat 620 Tappeh Leyli 561 Tell Bek 501 Tappeh Maidan 540 Tell Beth ha'Emeq 503 Tappeh Nargi 556 Tell Dan 504 Tappeh Nazlu 2 542 Tell Davutpaşa 426 Tappeh Rabat 538 Tell Dhahab (Altıntepe) 420 Tappeh Ražan 555 Tell el-Hesi 467 Tappeh Sekan 560 Tell el-Umeri 521 Tappeh Tellu 554 Tell Erani 516 Tappeh Turkman 563 Tell esh-Shuna 455 Tarmani 553 Tell Ghazi Hajji Mursal (Gazimursel) 418 Tarsus 651 Tell Habash (Sultan Merkezi) 490 Tell Halawa 439 Tash Bash 34 Taşköprü 251 Tell Hammeh 450 Taşkun Kale 231 Tell Hamo 433 Taşkun Mevkii 232 Tell Hamoah al-Qibli 408 Taşlık 2 615 Tell Harbaj 458 Taşlıkaynak Site 2 584 Tell Hasanuşağı. (Yerkuyu) 415 Tassug - Qara Tepe 627 Tell Hassane 640 Tatlıcak 223 Tell Hijar 480 Tebzek 372 Tell Hoyuk Tepe 495 413 Site Name Site No. Site Name Site No. Tell İbrahımıyyah (Tell Ibrahiniyyah) 398 Tepe Gafer 567 Tell Jalamah (Jalhamah) 430 Tepe -i Duab 575 Tell Jamid 454 Tepe Keshavar 159 Tell Jindaris (Cendires, Genderesse) 429 Tepe Kureh 573 Tell Kafr innah? (Kefrenne) 406 Tepe Qal'eh Kurd 629 Tell Kecebey 479 Tepe Sagzabad 633 Tell Kizilkaya 475 Tepe Sahap 625 Tell Kurcoğlu 427 Tepe Salamatabad 171 Tell Mardikh (Ebla) 440 Tepe Tchalais 162 Tell Mastepe 422 Tepe Toweh 173 Tell Matta (Maltah?) 392 Tepe cik 182 Tell Mirmiran (Tell Anbar) 489 Tepecik (Makaraz Tepe ) 256 Tell Mişrı 397 Terzi Höyük 414 Tell Mozan 619 Tetri Tskaro 39 Tell Mulla Ta'ha' 404 Tifnik (Duruğoze) 203 Tell Qafr 529 Tifnik2 (Durugöze) 645 Tell Qinanah? 424 Til Hüyük (Akbayir) 364 Tell Qirbah (Tell Quraibah) 431 Tılafşın (Tılafshun, Tel Afşın), 369 Tell Qirmidah 425 Tilki Tepe 322 Tell Qunetira 448 Tilkiepe 217 Tell Ras el-'Ain (Apheq, Rosh ha-'Ayin) 465 Tilmen Hoyuk 649 Tell Saçaklı 399 Tilmen 219 Tell Salihıyyah 411 Tinazit (Dogankuş) 268 Tell Salihiyyah 484 Tkviavi 12 Tell Saluq 402 Tmogvi 26 Tell Selenkahiyya 438 Tomsa Hoyuk 493 Tell Shaikh ('Abd al-Rahman) 432 Treli (Digomi) 47 Tell Sha'ir 'Askar (Tell Sabi) 417 Trialetti Kurgans 31 Tell Sukas 443 Tsartsis Gora Tell Ta'annek (Ta'anach) 461 Tsinvali Tell Tabara el-Akrad (Tabarat al-Akrad) 401 Tulintepe (Tülün-tepe) 257 Tell Tayinat (Tainat) 400 Tulul Salıhıyyah 410 Tell Turundah 436 Tutlu Hüyük (Dutlu Hüyök) 413 Tell Uzunarb (Boz Hüyük) 395 Uch Tepe 472 Tell Wasfe 474 Uctepe 623 Tell Yaqush 508 Uluova 281 Tell Yarmouth 515 Uplisitskhe (Lashe) 19 Temel Kizilkaya 476 Urbnisi 16 Tepe Douineh 167 Üyücek Tepe 414 3 42 339 Site Name Site No. Yosef ha-Yeshanah 510 Uzarlik Tepe 622 Yukarı Buçaklı 356 Uzunoğalan Tepe si 336 Yukarı Örükçü 326 Van Kalesi Höyüğü1 530 Yukarı Sülemnli (Selmenli) 344 Vedi (Ararat) 124 Zaglik 135 Velikent 143 Zarina 7 Xarbeh 552 Zemoavchala Yanik Tepe 156 Zeyanlu 545 Yarik Tepe 253 Zguderis 10 Yarimca Hüyük 382 Zhpanovo (Mashtofs Blur) 88 Yaycı 128 Zhrakhovit 122 Yekmal (Yürekli) 642 Ziyaret 196 Yeniköy/Gavur Höyüğü 536 Zöhrap (Yalinçayır) Yeşilkale 353 Zülfübülak (Şeytanova) Yıgintepe 130 Zveli 415 45 89 213 24 416 APPENDIX B: RBBW Pottery From the Amuq Valley Appendix B: Pottery Plates Plate I Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour AS164_99_18 12 10R6/6 AS52c_96_01 16 2.5Y4/1 Top: 10R5/8 AS173_99_15 Bottom: 5YR6/6 Red Int. Colour 2.5YR6/3 2.5Y5/3 Rim:10R5/8 Body:7.5YR6/6 Ext. Mar Core 10YR6/4 2.5Y2.5/1 2.5Y2.5/2 5YR6/6 7.5YR7/4 4 5 84A_99_06 180D_95_3 23 35 6 7 8 9 10 253A_01_17 137_99_90 105_01_12 105_01_18 126_99_TB9 30 15 17 22 25 11 76_98_16 16 12 176_01_02 26 Rim:5YR6/6, Body:2.5YR2.5/0 10R5/8 13 14 137_B3_01 105_98_2/10 20 26 10YR5/6 10YR5/8 10YR4/8 10YR 5/8 15 AM14613 32 Rim:5YR5/6, Body:N2.5/ 2.5YR5/8 N3/ 16 17 164_99_13 137_B1_05 Bd 21 2.5Y8/2 5YR7/3 2.5Y3/0 10YR8/4 18 137_B1_16 20 2.5Y3/0 19 137_99_82 16 10R5/6 20 176_01_02 26 21 137_B1_15 20 22 176_01_02 26 23 137_B1_09 20 24 25 137_B1_01 105B_97_02 18 16 Lip:5YR6/4 Body:2.5YR2.5/0 10R5/8 10R5/6 10R5/8 10R5/6 10R 5/8 5YR 7/8 Rim:2.5Y3/0 Body:5YR6/4 Rim:2.5Y3/0 Body:5YR6/4 10R5/8 Red 2.5 YR 2.5/0 10R5/8 7.5YR6/4 10R5/8 10R5/6 10R 5/6 5YR 7/8 lip: 5YR6/6 body:2.5YR2.5/0 Rim:2.5Y3/0 Body:5YR6/4 2.5YR4/8 10R5/8 Lip:5YR6/4 Body:2.5YR2.5/0 2.5 YR 2.5/0 Red Red 2.5 YR 5/8 10YR7/4 N2.5/7 7.5YR5/6 N3/ 7.5YR 5/1 2.5YR 5/0 Int. Mar 5YR6/6 Form Bw 1 Bw 1 Bw 1 Und Bw 1 Bw 1 Oxi Und Oxi Bw 1 Bw 1 Bw 1 Bw 1 Bw 1 Redu Bw 1 2.5YR3/0 Redu Bw 1 10YR7/3 5YR 7/6 Oxi Oxi Bw 1 Bw 1 2.5YR5/8 Und Bw 1 5Y7/2 5YR7/6 10YR8/4 Redu Und Bw 2 Bw 2 10YR8/4 5YR7/6 10YR8/4 Und Bw 2 10YR5/4 2.5Y4/1 10YR5/4 Und Bw 2 Redu Bw 2 Und Bw 2 Redu Bw 2 Und Bw 2 10R6/6 5YR6/4 7.5YR 6/4 5YR6/4 5YR6/4 7.5YR 6/4 2.5YR3/0 2.5Y3/0 Firing Oxi Und Und 10YR8/4 2.5YR2.5/1 10YR8/4 5YR7/6 2.5YR2.5/ 1 2.5 YR 5/8 10YR8/4 10YR8/4 Bw 2 Bw 2 Key: Sherd Registration No.: Site No._ Year collected _ Number in collection AM :Antakya Museum Collection Number Br.: Braidwood 1960 Publication Figure Number 417 Diam: Diameter in cm. Colour (Munsel): Ext.=Exterior; Int.=Interior; Mar.=Margin Firing :Oxi-Oxidized; Redu. = Reduced; Und.= Underfire Form – Vessel Form: And. = Andiron; Krt = Krater; PT = Pot Stand; Hlm = Holemouth; CRB = Cyma Recta Bowl; CRC = Cyma Recta Cup; Jr = Jar; Bw = Bowl; Bn = Basin; Ld= Lid, RR = Rail Rim; Bs = Base Colour Scheme: Grey= Red; Black = Black; No Colour = Black; White = Ribbing/ Incision 418 Plate I 419 Plate II Pottery Descriptions No. Sherd No. Diam. Int. Colour 1 137_B4_03 15 5YR4/8 2 180D_95_2 18 10R6/6 3 137_B3_07 20 10R5/6 4 137_B3_08 14 5YR5/3 5 137_B3_03 15 5YR7/6 6 137_B3_05 20 2.5YR6/8 7 137_B3_09 20 10R5/6 8 253A2_01_02 30 10YR6/4 9 105_01_03 12 10R5/6 10 99B_99_09 21 2.5YR4/8 11 176_02_09 24 2.5YR5/6 12 105_01_47 19 10R5/6 13 176_01_14 16 2.5YR5/8 14 105_01_02 20 10R5/8 15 173_99_14 20 10R5/8 16 86C_99_04 22 10R5/6 17 164_99_05 24 10R5/8 18 126_99_TB3 24 2.5YR 5/8 Ext. Colour 32.5YR4/8 10R6/6 10YR6/6 2.5YR5/4 10R6/8 2.5YR6/8 5YR7/4 10YR7/4 10R5/6 2.5YR4/8 2.5YR5/6 10R5/6 2.5YR5/8 10R5/8 10R5/8 7.5YR6/4 10R5/8 Ext. Mar. 7.5YR7/4 5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 5YR6/6 7.5YR6/8 Core 10YR7/3 10YR7/2 7.5YR5/0 5YR4/1 5YR7/3 7.5YR7/4 5YR7/3 N4/ 10YR4/1 N2.5/ 5YR5/3 10YR4/1 2.5YR5/8 5YR6/1 5Y4/1 10YR6/4 10YR5/3 7.5 YR 6/4 2.5YR 5/8 420 Int. Mar 7.5YR7/4 5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 5YR6/6 7.5YR6/8 Firing Oxi Oxi Und Und Oxi Oxi Oxi Und Und Und Oxi Und Oxi Und Und Oxi Oxi Oxi Form Bw 3 Bw 3 Bw 3 Bw 3 Bw 3 Bw 3 Bw 3 Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Bw 4a Plate II 421 Plate III Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour 173A_96_2 20 2.5YR5/6 137_99_61 20 10R6/6 137_99_79 21 10R5/6 180D_95_1 35 2.5YR5/8 126_99_TB 25 10 R 5/8 2 253A2_01_ 24 10YR6/4 24 105_98_9 30 7.5YR2.5 /0-5/4 169B_97_2 30 10 R 4/8 105_01_45 27 10R5/6 180A_95_4 42 10 R 5/8 3 105_01_43 17 7.5YR5/4 9_96_21 20 10R5/6 105_01_14 21 10R5/8 2.5 YR 6/6 126_99_TB 25 1 105_98_4_ 25 7.5YR6/6 4 86C_99_06 30 10R6/6 76_98_15 35 7.5YR3/0 Int. Colour 2.5YR5/6 10R5/6 10R5/6 2.5YR5/6 10 R 5/8 2. 10YR4/2 Ext. Mar 7.5YR6/6 10YR5/4 7.5R6/6 10YR6/3 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR4/0 7.5YR6/4 10YR6/6 7.5YR7/6 7.5YR6/4 10YR5/1 105_98_25 7.5YR6/4 29 7.5YR6/4 10R5/6 10 R 4/8 10 R 5/8 7.5YR5/4 2.5YR6/3 10R5/8 2.5 YR 6/6 Core 5Y3/1 N3/ 10YR5/1 5YR3/0 Int. Mar 7.5YR7/6 10YR5/4 7.5R6/6 10YR7/6 Firing Oxi Und Und Und Redu Form Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Redu Bw 4Bi 2.5YR4/0 Und Bw 4Bi 10YR6/6 Oxi Oxi Und Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Und Oxi Und Und Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi 10YR6/4 10YR6/4 2.5YR5/6 7.5YR 6/4 10YR4/1 7.5YR5/4 7.5YR7/6 5Y 3/1 10YR6/4 2.5YR5/6 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR6/6 7.5YR3/0 Redu Bw 4Bi 10R5/6 7.5YR3/0 7.5YR6/6 7.5YR3/0 Oxi Redu Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi Bw 4Bi 10YR5/4 422 7.5YR2/0 10YR5/4 Und Plate III 423 Plate IV Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour 176_01_14 16 2.5YR5/8 105_01_40 20 10R 5/8 52_99_02 27 10R6/6 147_99_01 2.5YR4/8 105_01_06 18 10R 5/8 120_99_25 24 Rim:10R6 /6,Body:7. 5YR7/4 105_98_1_ 38 2.5 YR 4/6 16 99C_99_30 16 10R5/6 105_01_51 17 10R5/6 76_98_11 20 2.5YR4/6 Int. Colour 2.5YR5/8 10R6/6 10R 5/6 2.5YR4/8 10R 5/8 10R5/8 2.5 YR 4/6 10R5/6 10R6/6 2.5YR4/6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 137_99_42 120_99_15 52_99_02 86B_99_01 105_98_17 99C_99_32 76_98_13 26 26 27 19 20 28 32 10R4/8 10R6/6 10R5/6 2.5YR6/6 2.5YR4/6 10R5/2 10 YR 4/8 10R4/8 10R6/6 10R5/6 10R5/6 2.5YR4/6 10R5/6 10 YR 5/8 18 86C_99_03 27 10R4/6 10R5/6 Ext. Mar 10YR6/4 5YR7/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5 YR6/6 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR 6/4 10YR6/4 7.5YR4/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5 YR 6/4 7.5YR6/4 424 Core 2.5YR5/8 5YR5/6 N/3 2.5Y3/0 5YR5/6 2.5Y4/1 Int.Mar 10YR6/4 5YR7/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5 YR6/4 N4/ 5YR5/6 7.5YR4/0 7.5 YR6/6 7.5YR6/4 N3/ N3/ 10YR5/6 2.5N/ 7.5YR5/0 10YR7/6 7.5 YR 2/0 2.5N 10YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR4/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5 YR 6/4 7.5YR6/4 Firing Oxi Oxi Und Und Oxi Und Form Bw 4B2 Bw 4B2 Bw 4B2 Bw 4B2 Bw 4B2 Bw 4B2 Und Bw 4B2 Und Oxi Und Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Und Redu Oxi Und Und Oxi Und Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Bw 4B3 Und Bw 4B3 Plate IV 425 Plate V Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour 105_98_5 13 2.5YR6/6 174AB_96_2 21 2.5YR5/8 164_99_15 24 Lip:5YR6/4 Body:2.5YR 2.5/0 76_98_1 31 10R5/2 166B_99_05 16 Red 9_96_20 22 2.5YR6/6 52_99_04 28 2.5YR5/6 176_99_12 30 Lip: 5YR6/6 Body: 2.5YR2.5/0 253A2_01_0 18 2.5YR5/4 3 164_99_22 N Red D 176_02_10 24 Rim:10YR7/ 4, Body:N4/ 99C_99_14 30 Red 76_98_13 32 5YR3/1 99C_99_28 35 10R5/6 169B_97_03 20 Red 99B_99_10 30 2.5YR4/6 108C_97_4 21 2.5YR4/8 173_99_44 30 top: 7.5YR6/4 bottom: 2.5Y2/0 173_99_36 30 7.5YR3/0 76_98_10 30 Red 133_97_01 37 10 R 5/6 Int. Colour 2.5YR6/6 2.5YR5/8 2.5YR2.5/0 10R5/2 Red 2.5YR6/4 2.5YR5/6 10R5/8 Ext. Mar 2.5YR6/6 Core 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR 7/4 2.5YR5/8 Int.Mar 2.5YR6/6 10YR7/6 7.5YR4/1 7.5YR6/4 2.5YR4/2 5YR6/6 7N3/ 2.5YR3/0 .5YR6/4 7.5YR4/1 2.5YR4/4 Firing Oxi Und Oxi Form Bw 5a Bw 5a Bw 5a Und Und Und Oxi Bw 5a Bw 5a Bw 5a Bw 5a Bw 5a Oxi Bw 5b1 Red Red 5YR3/2 10R5/6 Red 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR4/8 2.5YR6/8 Bw 5b1 N2.5 Red 10YR6/4 10YR3/3 N3/ 10YR6/4 Redu Und 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR7/4 2.5Y4/0 7.5YR4/0 7.5YR4/0 5YR7/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR7/4 2.5Y4/0 Und Und Und 7.5YR7/4 7.5YR5/0 Und 2.5YR6/6 Red 10 R 5/6 2.5YR3/0 426 Redu Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Bw 5b1 Plate V 427 Plate VI Pottery Descriptions No. Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour Int. Colour 1 86A_95_01 15 5YR5/6 5YR5/6 2 86C_99_02 22 10R6/4 10R6/4 3 52_99_03 25 10R4/6 10R5/6 4 27_96_1 24 2.5YR5/4 10YR5/8 5 137_99_22 28 10R5/8 10R5/8 6 76_98_7 36 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR4/6 7 137_99_89 17 10R4/6 10R5/6 8 108C_97_1 22 10 R 5/8 10 R 5/6 8 9 108B_99_2 25 10YR7/3 10YR7/4 0 10 76_98_3 24 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR4/6 11 176_99_2 30 Red Red 12 138_99_11 25 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR4/8 13 126_99_TB 30 Red Red 4 14 105_98_3_ 20 10YR5/8 10YR5/8 2 15 105_98_4_ 20 10YR7/6 10YR7/6 2 Ext. Mar 5YR4/4 7.5YR6/4 10YR5/4 7.5YR6/3 428 Core 2.5YR4/0 7.5YR5/4 7.5YR4/1 10YR6/4 10YR6/4 7.5YR3/2 N4/ 2.5YR4/3 Und Redu Form Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Und Bw 5Bii 7.5YR5/4 Redu 10YR6/4 Oxi Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii Bw 5Bii 7.5YR3/0 Redu Bw 5Bii 10YR7/6 Oxi Bw 5Bii N5/ Int.Mar 7.5YR4/2 7.5YR6/4 10YR5/4 7.5YR6/3 Firing Redu Oxi Und Oxi Oxi Plate VI 429 Plate VII Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sherd No. 138_99_10 126_99_TB7 105B_97_05 76_98_14 253A_01_21 137_99_94 76_98_9 105B_97_06 86C_99_07 86C_99_05 176_99_9 164_99_20 Diam.Ext. Colour 14 2.5YR6/4 15 10YR3/1 10 18 10YR6/8 20 5YR3/1 24 5YR7/4 26 10R4/6 30 10YR5/8 29 10 R 5/6 32 10YR7/2 34 10R5/6 15 2.5YR6/6 20 10R 6/6 Int. Colour 2.5YR5/6 7.5YR6/6 10YR6/8 5YR3/2 5YR6/3 10YR4/6 7 10YR5/8 10 R 5/6 7.5YR7/2 10R5/4 2.5YR6/6 5/6 2.5YR 13 14 15 139A_97_1 253A_01_01 105_98_2 20 24 22 10 R 5/6 10R6/6 10YR5/8 10 R 5/6 10R6/6 10YR4/8 16 17 18 19 20 76_98_3 253A_01_33 86C_99_08 76_98_2 120_95_2 30 26 28 24 35 2.5YR4/8 10R5/8 10R4/6 5YR4/6 2.5YR5/4 2.5YR5/8 10R5/8 10R4/4 5YR4/6 2.5YR5/4 Ext. Mar 5YR6/6 10YR6/4 5YR5/3 7.5YR6/6 10R 5/8 2.5YR4/06/4 7.5YR6/6 7.5YR5/4 7.5YR7/4 430 Core 10YR3/1 R 3/1 5YR6/4 10YR3/3 10YR6/4 7.5YR5/1 2.5YR2/0 2.5YR3/0 N2.5/ 10R5/4 7.5YR4/0 2.5YR 5/8 2.5YR4/0 7.5YR6/6 2.5YR4/0 10YR6/4 N4/ N2.5/ 5YR4/6 7.5YR4/0 Int.Mar 5YR6/6 7.5YR5/3 10YR6/4 7.5YR6/6 10R 4/6 2.5YR4/0 -6/4 7.5YR6/6 7.5YR5/4 7.5YR7/4 Firing Und Redu Oxi Redu Oxi Und Und Redu Redu Oxi Und Und Form Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Redu Oxi Und Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Oxi Und Und Redu Und Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Bw 5Biii Plate VII 431 Plate VIII Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 4 Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour 105B-97_01 15 10YR5/4 137_99_09 20 10R6/6 177_98_A4_2 28 2.5YR6/6 137_99_29 28 10R6/8 Int. Colour Ext. Mar 10YR5/4 10R6/6 5YR6/4 10R6/6 10R6/6 7.5YR6/6 Core 10YR3/1 5YR5/1 Firing Redu Und Redu Und Form Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 253B_01_01 137_99_46 105_98_4_5 Brd Fig.401:3 AM 4709 283_01_01 253B_01_04 24 24 25 10R5/6 10YR5/4 10YR5/2 10R5/6 10YR5/4 10YR5/2 10YR7/4 7.5YR3/0 10YR5/2 Oxi Redu Oxi 10YR5/3 7.5YR4/1 7.5YR7/4 10YR5/1 Oxi Oxi Und Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A 18 19 24 2.5YR4/8 10R5/8 10R5/6 10R5/6 10R5/8 10R5/6 12 105B_97_04 23 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR5/6 10YR5/4 N4/ Und Bw 6A 13 14 15 16 17 18 AM 4569 137_99_51 120_95_1 105_98_1_1 76_98_12 105A_97_08 25 25 32 18 25 35 10R5/6 2.5YR5/6 10YR6/8 10YR4/8 7.5YR5/6 2.5YR 4/6 10R5/6 2.5YR5/6 10YR6/8 10YR4/8 7.5YR4/4 2.5YR 4/6 Red Und Und Redu Und Und Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6A Bw 6B Bw 6B Bw 6B 2.5Y4/1 Int.Mar 5YR6/4 7.5YR6/ 6 10YR5/ 3 10YR5/ 4 N4/ 5YR7/4 7.5YR 6/4 432 5YR4/1 2.5YR4/0 2.5YR3/? 5Y 4/1 5YR7/4 7.5YR 6/4 Plate VIII 433 Plate IX Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 Sherd No. Diam. Ext. Colour Int. Colour 52_99_01 36 10R 5/8 10R 5/6 99A_99_15 36 10R5/6 10R5/6 84A_99_07 42 10R 6/6 10 5/8 4 5 6 7 8 9 133_97_01 17B_98_07 105A_97_7 137_99_60 105_01_13 137_99_31 37 36 45 50 48 47 10R5/6 5YR4/6 10R 4/4 10R6/8 10R4/8 10R4/8 10R5/6 5YR4/6 2.5YR 4/4 10R6/6 10R5/6 10R4/8 10 177_98_A4 _3 84A_99_02 169B_97_1 86A_99_02 76_98_04 36 2.5YR5/8 2.5YR5/8 42 55 48 50 10R5/6 2.5YR4/4 10 R 5/8 2.5YR4/6 2.5YR4/8 2.5YR4/4 10 R 5/8 2.5YR4/6 11 12 13 14 Ext. Mar 10YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/6 7.5YR5/4 2.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 5YR7/4 434 Core 7.5YR6/4 N4 7.5Y6/4 5YR4/6 N4/ N3/ N3/ 2.5YR2.5 /0 5YR6/6 5Y3/1 2.5YR4/0 2.5YR3/0 5YR4/1 Int.Mar2 5Y 3/1 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR6/6 7.5YR5/4 2.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 5YR7/4 Firing Oxi Oxi Und Form Bn1 Bn1 Bn1 Oxi Redu Und Und Und Und Bn1 Bn1 Bn1 Bn1 Bn2 Bn3 Oxi Bn3 Und Und Redu Und Bn3 Bn3 Bn3 Bn3 Plate IX 435 Plate X Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 Sherd No. 138_99_06 108B_99_24 137_99_03 Diam. Ext. Colour Int. Colour Ext. Mar 10R4/6 10R4/6 31 7.5YR7/4 5YR6/4 36 7.5YR2/0 2.5YR6/6 2.5YR4/0 4 AM 4608 11 5 AM 3732 10 6 7 176_02_03 176_02_02 10 9 8 9 AM 4682 176_02_07 11 15 10 AM 10557 8.5 11 AM 10558 12 12 AM 4610 14 13 AM 3722 12 14 15 137_B1_08 AM 10556 10 10 16 137_B1_06 10 17 18 AM 4708 137_B1_02 10 12 N3/ 10R5/8 Rim: 5YR7/4, Body:N3/ 7.5YR7/4 Rim:5YR5 /6, Body:N2. 5/ 5YR6/4 Rim:10R6 /6, Body:N3/ Rim:5YR7 /4, Body:N3/ Rim:5YR6 /4, Body:N3/ Rim:2.5Y R5/4, Body:N2. 5 Rim:5YR6 /4, Body:N3/ 7.5YR3/0 Rim:7.5Y R6/4, Body:N3/ Rim:10R6 /6, Body:N3/ N3/ Rim: 10R5/8, Body: 5YR6/6 Firing Redu Redu Und Form Krt Krt Krt 5YR6/4 Und CRB 5YR7/4 ND CRB Oxi Und CRB CRB N2.5/ Und Redu CRB CRB 10R6/8 7.5YR7/4 Redu CRB 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR5/8 Redu CRB 2.5YR6/6 2.5YR5/6 10R4/8 10R6/6 N2.5/ Core 2.5N/ 2.5YR3/1 Int.Mar2 5YR7/ 2.5YR4/8 2.5YR5/6 10R4/6 N3/ 5YR5/6 CRB 5YR5/6 CRC 2.5YR5/6 10R6/6 5YR6/4 2.5YR2.5/0 7.5YR7/4 Und Redu 10R6/8 2.5YR6/6 10R5/8 CRC CRC CRC 7.5YR6/6 436 N3/ 5YR6/6 7.5YR7/4 Redu Und CRC CRC 437 Plate XI Pottery Descriptions No. 1 4 5 6 7 8 Sherd No. Brd Fig.283:3 Brd. Fig.283:4 Brd. Fig.304:22 253A2_01_16 166A_99_01 138_99_08 84A_99_41 180A_95_2 9 2 3 Diam. Ext. Colour Int. Colour Ext. Mar Core Int.Mar Firing Form RR RR RR 20 17 18 21 30 10R5/6 10R6/6 10R5/5 N/3 2.5YR5/6 10R5/6 10R6/6 10R4/6 7.5YR4/4 2.5YR5/6 253A_01_22 14 2.5Y5/6 10 11 52_99_07 253A_01_03 16 18. 7 12 13 14 15 16 173_99_16 105A_97_02 AM 4595 105_01_01 176_02_04 27 32 7.75 18 12.1 17 18 19 20 21 139_99_02 105_98_19 137_B4_01 166A_96_2 173_99_22 Rim:7.5Y R6/4,Bod y: N2.5/ 10R5/2 Rim:7.5Y R6/4,Bod y:N2.5 10R5/8 2.5YR 5/6 2.5YR5/4 10R5/8 Rim:5YR 5/4, Body:N3/ 10R5/8 5YR6/8 20 15 14 30 24 10 R 5/6 2.5YR3/0 7.5YR5/4 10R6/6 7.5YR7/4 10YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 2.5N/ 7.5R6/4 7.5YR6/0 Oxi Oxi Und Und Und Hlm Hlm Hlm Hlm Hlm Oxi Hlm N3/ Und Oxi Hlm Hlm N3/ Und Oxi Oxi Und Oxi Hlm Hlm Jr1 Jr1 Jr1 7.5YR5/4 N/3 7.5YR7/4 10YR6/4 10R5/2 2.5Y5/6 7.5YR5/4 10R5/6 5YR 6/4 10R5/6 10R5/8 5YR5/6 10YR7/6 10YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 2.5Y5/2 7.5YR6/0 10YR7/3 5YR5/4 10R5/8 5YR6/8 5YR7/3 2.5YR5/0 5YR6/8 5YR7/3 Oxi Redu 10 R 5/8 .5YR5/6 10YR6/4 2.5YR2.5 /0 10YR4/1 7.5YR8/4 10YR6/4 5YR6/6 Und Und 438 Jr1 Jr1 Jr1 Jr1 Jr1 Plate XI 1 2 439 3 Plate XII Pottery Descriptions No. 1 Sherd No. 137_B3_04 Diam. 30 2 176_02_01 35 3 173_99_13 25 4 137_B4_02 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 137_99_18 137_B1_07 139B_97_2 105_01_57 84A_99_04 176_02_05 12 10 13 10 12 11 12 137_B3_10 137_99_02 35 45 13 14 105_98_14 253A2_01_11 20 10 15 105_01_46 13 16 17 18 133_97_2 176_99_4 105_98_20 20 17 17 19 20 52C_96_02 99C_99_33 10 13 21 22 174A/B_96_1 147_99_17 25 22 23 24 25 147_99_06 126_99_TB5 147_99_41 18 35 26 Ext. Colour 10R5/6 Rim: 5YR 6/6 Body: N3 Rim: 10R6/6 Body:10R 5/6 Rim: 2.5YR6/4, Body: 2.5YR2.5/ 0 10R5/8 7.5YR6/4 2.5YR5/0 10R5/4 10R5/6 13 Rim:5YR5 /6, Body:N3/ 5YR4/1 Lip:7.5YR 7/1; Body: N3/ 10YR7/3 Rim:7.5Y R7/4, Body:N2. 5 Lip: 5YR5/4; Body: 2.5N/ 7.5YR4/0 2.5YR5/6 Lip: 7.5YR5/4 Body: 7.5YR5/0 N3/ Lip: 7.5YR7/4, Body: N2.5/ 2.5YR3/0 2.5YR 6/4 10R5/8 2.5YR5/6 10YR6/8 Int. Colour 10R4/6,3 /6 5YR 5/6 Ext. Mar 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR6/4 7.5YR4/0 7.5YR7/ 7.5YR7/4 2.5YR5/8 2.5YR5/8 2.5YR6/6 10R5/6 7.5YR7/6 2.5YR5/6 N3/ 5YR7/4 10R5/6 Core 7.5YR7/4 Int.Mar Firing Oxi Form Jr2 5YR 5/6 Oxi Jr2 5YR6/4 Oxi Jr2 25YR6/4 Und Jr2 7.5YR5/0 Und Oxi Oxi Oxi Und Jr2 Jr3 Jr3 Jr3 Jr3 Jr4 10YR7/3 10YR7/3 2.5YR4/0 7.5YR6/6 10YR5/1 2.5YR5/6 5YR5/1 10YR4/1 5YR7/4 5YR6/4 Und Und Jr4 Jr4 10YR7/3 5YR6/6 10R6/6 N2.5 7.5YR2/0 5YR6/6 7.5YR7/6 Und Jr4 Jr4 10R4/8 N3/ 10YR6/4 Und Jr4 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR5/6 10YR5/4 2.5YR5/6 2.5YR5/6 N4/ 7.5YR5/0 10YR5/4 Redu Und Redu Jr4 Jr4 Jr4 Und Jr4 Jr4 7.5YR7/6 Und Oxi Jr5 Jr5 5YR6/4 10YR5/4 Und Und Jr5 Jr5 Jr5 2.5YR4/4 5Y3/1 10R6/6 N2.5/ 10YR6/2 7.5YR7/6 5YR5/4 5YR4/1 2.5YR6/4 2.5YR6/4 10R5/8 5YR6/4 2.5YR5/6 10YR5/4 10YR6/8 7.5YR2/0 N2.5/ 5YR6/4 440 441 Plate XIII Pottery Descriptions No. 1 3 Sherd No. Brd Fig.306:1 Brd Fig. 306:2 AM10438 4 5 176_99_6 AM 10439 6 Brd Fig.282:4 AM 4711 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 84A_99_01 105_01_04 176_02_11 253A2_01_2 0 253A2_01_1 4 177_98_1_1 _3 176_01_05 Diam. Ext. Colour Int. Colour Ext. Mar Core Int.Mar Firing Oxi Form Jr6 Jr6 19. 8 24 24. 2 N3/ 2.5YR5/4 5YR2.5/6 Rim:5YR7/4, N2.5 5YR2.5/6 10R6/8 Jr6 N2.5/ 2.5Y6/1 Jr6 Jr6 Jr6 20 10R5/6 10R5/6 5YR5.6 26 30 25 30 N3/ 10YR4/1 7.5YR5/4 10R5/6 2.5YR6/6 5YR7/6 7.5YR4/1 10R5/8 N4/ 7.5YR4/0 N3/ 18 10R4/8 25 20 5YR5.6 Und PT1 5YR7/6 7.5YR8/4 7.5YR5/3 10YR6/4 Und Und Red Oxi PT1 PT1 PT1 PT1 10R4/8 7.5YR6/4 Oxi PT1 10R5/6 10R5/8 10YR6/4 Oxi PT1 10YR4/2 10YR5/2 2.5Y3/0 Redu PT1 442 N3/ 443 Plate XIV Pottery Descriptions No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sherd No. AM 4685 105A_97_06 AM 4789 11 12 13 14 253B_01_02 253B_01_15 Brd Fig.363:11 176_01_10 173_99_18 84A_99_10 Brd Fig.363:12 52_99_08 120_99_24 137_99_48 176_01_06 15 16 17 18 19 137_99_33 105_01_07 176_01_17 177_99_01 177_99_02 7 8 9 10 Diam Ext. Colour Int. Colour 25 10R5/8 10R5/8 30 10R 4/6 10R 4/6 19 Rim:7.5Y 10R5/8 R6/4, Body: 2.5N/ 30 10R4/4 10R4/6 27 10R4/6 10R5/6 20 22 20 2.5Y2/0 10R5/8 10R4/6 2.5YR6/8 10R5/9 10R5/6 4.7 8 8 3 10R5/6 10R5/6 10R5/6 2.5YR2.5 /1 10R5/8 10R4/3 7.5YR7/6 10R5/6 10R4/6 7.5YR5/2 2.5YR5/8 7.4 6 ND 10R5/8 10R4/4 7.5YR7/6 Ext. Mar 7.5YR7/6 2.5Y 7/3 N5 Core N4/ N3 5Y7/2 Int.Mar 7.5YR7/6 2.5Y 7/3 5YR7/4 Firing Und Und Form PT2 PT2 Ld 10YR6/4 5Y6/3 10YR6/1 5Y4/1 10YR6/4 5Y6/3 Und Und Ld Ld Ld 2.5YR3/0 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 2.5Y6/8 2.5Y4/1 N2.5/ 2.5YR3/0 7.5YR6/4 7.5YR6/4 Und Und Und Ld Ld Ld Ld Oxi Und Redu Redu Bs Bs Bs Bs Oxi Oxi Oxi Bs Bs And And And 10YR6/4 5YR6/6 444 10YR5/6 10YR6/1 10YR5/2 2.5YR2.5/1 7.5YR6/4 10YR6/2 5YR2.5/1 10YR6/4 5YR6/6 445

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture

Migration theory and the distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS