611

 CYPRO-CILICIAN PAINTED POTTERY OF TARSUS-GÖZLÜKULE:
UNDERSTANDING LOCAL CERAMIC PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY DURING THE IRON AGE

Understanding Local Ceramic Production Technology During the Iron Age
This thesis aims to understand the development of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule. It discusses how this pottery type developed and what the changes and continuities in its production are during the Iron Age. Cypro-Cilician painted pottery appeared in the beginning of the Iron Age in Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant. Thus, to understand how Cypro-Cilician painted pottery developed, three regions in the Eastern Mediterranean were investigated in a larger context. All three regions had an impact on the formation of this pottery type through the intercultural relations in the Eastern Mediterranean. In this study twenty-one samples were selected from the Tarsus-Gözlükule corpus to be analyzed macroscopically and petrographically in diachronical study to understand the development of this pottery. The results of these analyses indicate that there was one main local source that had been used through the Iron Age. While there were also changes in the production techniques, it is observed that the quality of local pottery improves over time especially during the Late Iron Age. After all, with conducted analyses and evaluation of the Eastern Mediterranean context, this thesis discusses changes and developments of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery with the impacts of intercultural relations during the Iron Age.

Bu tez, Tarsus-Gözlükule’de bulunan Kıbrıs-Kilikya boyalı seramiğinin Demir Çağı boyunca görülen gelişimini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır ve bu seramik çeşidinin Demir Çağı’nda nasıl geliştiği, üretiminde değişen ve devam eden özellikleri tartışmaktadır. Kıbrıs-Kilikya seramiği, Demir Çağı’nın başlarında Kilikya, Kıbrıs ve Levant bölgelerinde ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu seramiğin gelişiminde Doğu Akdeniz’deki kültürler arası ilişkilerin etkisi sayesinde bu üç bölgenin de önemli etkisi vardır. Bu nedenle Kıbrıs-Kilikya seramiğinin nasıl geliştiğini anlamak için bu üç bölge daha geniş bağlamlarda incelenmektedir. Bu gelişmeyi Tarsus-Gözlükule’de takip etmek amacıyla, yirmi bir adet örnek üzerinde hem makroskopik hem de petrografik incelemeler yapılmıştır. İncelemeler sonrasında birden fazla yerel kil yapısı bulunmuş fakat içlerinden bir tanesinin Demir Çağı boyunca yoğunlukla kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Yerel üretimin yanında, ithal Kıbrıs-Kilikya seramikleri de bulunmuştur. İthal mallar yerel mallara göre daha ince ve iyi kalitede üretilmiştir. Makroskopik incelemelerde yerel ve ithal malzemenin birbirinden kolayca ayrıldığı gözlemlenmiştir. İlk ve Orta Demir Çağı’nda yerel mallar daha kaba iken Geç Demir Çağı’nda yerel seramik üretiminde iyileşmeler gözlemlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, bu tez, yapılan analizler ve bağlam incelemeleri sonucunda Kıbrıs-Kilikya boyalı seramiğinin Demir Çağı boyunca kültürler arası etkileşimlerin etkisiyle gerçekleşen değişimini ve gelişimini tartışmaktadır
v i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Elif Ünlü, for her support and encouragement not only through the writing of this thesis but also through my entire studies; for giving me chance to explore my interest in archaeology and pottery. I would like to express my genuine gratitude to Prof. Aslı Özyar, for her guidance, stimulating comments and her inspiring courses. I am also grateful to Prof. Gunnar Lehmann for being part of my committee and for his valuable comments and contributions for my thesis.
I am also deeply thankful to Dr. Türkan Pilavcı for her academic and personal support and her guidance has been invaluable for me.
Last but not least, my special thanks to Evangelia Kiriatzi and Fitch Laboratory British School at Athens, for giving me opportunity to learn and conduct petrographic analysis used in this thesis. I am also thankful for the kindness and guidance of all the Fitch team during my stay at the BSA. Financial support of the thesis has been provided by Boğaziçi University Research Projects Nr. 13161 and Boğaziçi University Foundation M.J. Mellink Fund.
I am deeply thankful for my dear friends who always there for me with their endless support and encouragement. Finally, I am forever grateful to my family, especially to my grandparents for their endless support and belief in me.
v ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: CYPRO-CILICIAN POTTERY IN EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN 6
2.1 Political context of Tarsus-Gözlükule ................................................................ 6
2.2 Archaeological context of iron age in Tarsus-Gözlükule ................................. 16
2.3 Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule ....................................... 28
2.4 Cilicia ............................................................................................................... 32
2.5 Cyprus .............................................................................................................. 41
2.6 Levant ............................................................................................................... 49
2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 60
CHAPTER 3: PETROGRAPHIC DISCUSSION ...................................................... 62
3.1 Macroscopic analysis ....................................................................................... 62
3.2 Petrography results ........................................................................................... 69
3.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 75
3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 80
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX A: POTTERY LISTS ............................................................................ 86
APPENDIX B: FIGURES ....................................................................................... 111
APPENDIX C: CATALOGUE ................................................................................ 132
APPENDIX D: PETROGRAPHY RESULTS ........................................................ 151
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 165
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Cypro-Cilician Painted Pottery Types in the Early Iron Age in Tarsus-Gözlükule ............................................................................................................ 19
Table 2. Cypro-Cilician Painted Pottery Types in the Middle Iron Age in Tarsus-Gözlükule ............................................................................................................ 24
Table 3. Cypro-Cilician Painted Pottery of Late Iron Age in Tarsus-Gözlükule....... 27
Table 4. Iron Age Chronology of the Cilician Sites................................................... 32
Table 5. Iron Age Chronology of Cyprus .................................................................. 43
Table 6. Iron Age Chronology of Levant ................................................................... 50
Table 7. List of the Selected Samples ........................................................................ 70
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Early iron age plan of Tarsus-Gözlükule (after Goldman) ......................... 17
Figure 2. Middle iron age plan of Tarsus-Gözlükule (after Goldman) ...................... 21
Figure 3. Late iron age settlement plan (after Goldman) ........................................... 25
Figure 4. Map of Cilicia with the sites mentioned in the text .................................... 35
Figure 5. Map of iron age sites of Cyprus .................................................................. 47
Figure 6. Map of Levant with the sites mentioned in the text.................................... 56
x
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure B 1................................................................................................................. 111
Figure B 2................................................................................................................. 112
Figure B 3................................................................................................................. 113
Figure B 4................................................................................................................. 114
Figure B 5................................................................................................................. 115
Figure B 6................................................................................................................. 116
Figure B 7................................................................................................................. 117
Figure B 8................................................................................................................. 118
Figure B 9................................................................................................................. 119
Figure B 10............................................................................................................... 120
Figure B 11............................................................................................................... 121
Figure B 12............................................................................................................... 122
Figure B 13............................................................................................................... 123
Figure B 14............................................................................................................... 124
Figure B 15............................................................................................................... 125
Figure B 16............................................................................................................... 126
Figure B 17............................................................................................................... 127
Figure B 18............................................................................................................... 128
Figure B 19............................................................................................................... 129
Figure B 20............................................................................................................... 130
Figure B 21............................................................................................................... 131
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis evaluates a type of Iron Age pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule, namely Cypro-Cilician painted pottery. The aim of this thesis is to understand diachronically how Cypro-Cilician painted pottery developed in the Iron Age. To reach this aim, macroscopic and petrographic analyses will be used to investigate the changes and continuities in the ceramic production technology of Tarsus-Gözlükule.
Cilicia is bordered with the Taurus Mountains on the north, Amanus Mountains on the east, and on the south, there is the Mediterranean Sea. Cilicia is an alluvial plain in the southern part of Anatolia, which is formed with the deposits carried by Pyramus, Saros, and Tarsus rivers. Thus, Cilicia is one of the most fertile plains in the region. Thanks to these fertile lands several cities flourished in Cilicia throughout history and Tarsus-Gözlükule is one of them. Because the mountain ranges form a geological obstacle for transport between neighboring regions, passes through them gain significance. There are several important routes connecting Central Anatolia and South Anatolia in Cilicia. One is the road through the Taurus Mountains leading from Tarsus to Central Anatolia known as the Cilician Gates. This route is the one point in the Taurus range providing passage so, it is quite important.
As mentioned above Tarsus-Gözlükule is the first city after the Cilician Gates and located in the west part of the Cilician plain and to the west of Tarsus River (ancient Cydnus or Berdan river).1 It has a strategical importance due to its location because it controls Cilician Gates. Although it is not on the shoreline, it is quite close
1 Özyar, “Tarsus-Gözlükule 2001 Yılı Enterdisipliner Araştırmaları,” 273.
2
to the sea and used to have access to the sea through Tarsus River2. Considering its access to both land and maritime routes, Tarsus-Gözlükule is part of the interregional trade networks. With its continuous stratigraphy it is one of the most important archaeological sites in Cilicia. The site was first excavated by Hetty Goldman in 1930s and 40s. These excavations revealed that the site has continuous occupation from Neolithic period to modern times. Goldman team published the final results of the excavations in three volumes as Neolithic to Bronze Age, Iron Age and Hellenistic-Roman periods.3 Currently, the site is excavated by Boğaziçi University under the directorship of Prof. Dr. Aslı Özyar.
Tarsus-Gözlükule is a pivotal site in Cilicia for 11 periods, but especially with its extensive uninterrupted Iron Age occupation. There is a remarkable amount of local and imported Cypro-Cilician painted pottery recovered by Goldman excavations. Cypro-Cilician pottery appeared around 1100 B.C. at Tarsus-Gözlükule. Around the same time, this specific type of pottery is also seen in Cyprus and Levant. This pottery type is named differently in all regions; Cypro-Cilician in Cilicia, Cypro-Geometric in Cyprus, and Cypro-Phoenician in Levant. In this study the term Cypro-Cilician will be used.4 Cyprus has extensive number of Cypro-Cilician pottery in its assemblage and exported an important number of Cypro-Cilician pottery to the Eastern Mediterranean, especially the coastal settlements. Thus, as it is also seen in the terminology, this pottery assemblage is especially connected with Cyprus.
The characteristic aspect of this pottery is the geometric decorations specifically compass drawn concentric circles. Cypro-Cilician pottery is
2 Öner, “Tarsus Ovasının Jeomorfolojik Gelişimi,” 86-87.
3 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, Tarsus I, The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, Tarsus II, From the Neolithic Through the Bronze Age. Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, Tarsus III, The Iron Age.
4 In the Cyprus and Levant sections, the terms will be used according to the region.
3
predominantly used as tableware but there are also examples of serving vessels. This assemblage is generally categorized into four types: Buff Painted, White Painted, Black on Red (BoR henceforth), and Bichrome. In this study, Buff and White Painted pottery will be evaluated together because in Tarsus-Gözlükule the number of the true White Painted pottery is very small (mainly exports). Also, most of the so-called White Painted pottery is actually not painted but slipped and the color of the exterior surface and biscuit varies from light cream to light buff. So, it has lighter color than Buff Painted.
Cypro-Cilician painted pottery will be evaluated in two main chapters in this study. In the first one, Chapter 2 aims to contextualize the Cypro-Cilician pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule within the Eastern Mediterranean koine. Firstly, the political and architectural contexts of Tarsus-Gözlükule will be considered and political and economic situation during the Iron Age in the region will be discussed. Then, political contexts of Cyprus and Levant will be evaluated. Next, ceramic assemblages of Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant will be evaluated. In short, this chapter will assess how Cypro-Cilician assemblages developed in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Chapter 3 focuses on the macroscopic and microscopic analyses conducted on the selected samples from Tarsus-Gözlükule. First, macroscopic observations will be assessed, and based on these macroscopic differences in local and imported pottery will be explored. In the second part, petrographic results will be evaluated. 5
Methodology
The aim of this study is to understand and diachronically follow the development of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery at Tarsus-Gözlükule through the Iron Age Period.
5 Detailed explanations of these fabric groups are listed in the appendix.
4
Considering the results of macroscopic and microscopic analysis, continuities and changes in pottery production at Tarsus-Gözlükule during the 1st millennium BC will be evaluated. To reach this aim, twenty-one samples of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery are taken from Goldman Study Collection (henceforth GSC) of Tarsus-Gözlükule.6 Because there is no Iron Age stratum currently excavated by the Boğazici University excavations, all the samples were taken from the GSC Iron Age pottery. Before sampling, a complete catalogue of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery was made. Most of the samples for this study were chosen from unpublished material, with some exceptions (especially imported pottery samples).
Sampling strategy is done based on the context information on the sherds. Only the ones from secure contexts are selected. Most of the sherds selected contain unit and context information. Information on the sherds were checked against the excavation notes and field diaries of the Goldman team.
While selecting, samples were picked from both open and closed forms. During sampling care was given to represent all periods of the Iron Age evenly. Also, most of the samples were selected from diagnostic sherds to be able to incorporate the form of the vessels into the study. Among the chosen twenty-one samples, seven of them Early Iron Age, ten of them Middle Iron Age, and four of them Late Iron Age. Also, attention was paid to sample from all categories: Samples of Buff Painted, Bichrome, and Black on Red pottery from all Iron Age periods were taken to see the development of these different subtypes through the Iron Age. Moreover, samples of pottery collected from the Middle Iron Age kiln area as well as samples from Kitchen ware from all Iron Age periods were selected to identify local
6 Goldman Study Collection is a ceramic and small finds collection which were excavated from the mound of Tarsus-Gözlükule by Hetty Goldman in 1930s and 1940s and currently stored and archived in the material archives of the B.U. Tarsus-Gözlükule Excavations Research Center.
5
fabrics for comparison. These pieces are the control group for the ceramic petrology and are helpful to understand the local production techniques. It is assumed that Kitchen wares are not imported and hence would represent local production. From the assemblage some imported pottery was also chosen which distinguished themselves through the color of the fabric and the quality of the surface treatment. The ones differentiated macroscopically from the local pottery were marked as possibly imported.
Before petrographic analysis, sherds were analyzed macroscopically. Samples were catalogued, photographed, and drawn before they were cut for thin section analysis. Thin sections were prepared in the Petrography Laboratory of Geology Faculty at Istanbul Technical University. Petrographic analysis was conducted at the Fitch Laboratory at British School at Athens7. Thin sections were evaluated both with PPL and XPL (Zeiss Axioskop 40 Pol) with x5 and x10 magnitude. Photographs of the thin sections were taken with Leica MC 170 HD camera both with PPL and XPL with x5 and x2.5 magnitudes. During the ceramic petrology, samples were divided into identified fabric groups according to their fabric characteristics. These are then evaluated to understand the changes and continuities in pottery production and technology of Tarsus- Gözlükule during the Iron Age Period.
7 I would like to thank the Fitch Laboratory at BSA for giving me the opportunity to conduct my petrographic analysis there and their kindness and guidance during my petrographic studies.
6
CHAPTER 2
CYPRO-CILICIAN POTTERY IN EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN
Cypro-Cilician painted pottery is part of Eastern Mediterranean koine in the Iron Age. So, understanding its development will provide us information about the interaction networks of the region. In this chapter, this class of pottery from Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant will be evaluated by looking into how it appeared and developed in these regions and what the specific aspects of this ware are. Cypro-Cilician pottery is named differently in each region. Even though in this study it is proposed that they are part of the same tradition, region specific terminology will be used when evaluating corresponding regions to avoid confusion. In order to understand interregional relations and general framework, political backgrounds of these three regions during the Iron Age will be discussed. While evaluating this specific ware Tarsus-Gözlükule will be the focal point of this study and investigated in greater detail. Cypro-Cilician pottery from Tarsus-Gözlükule will be evaluated within their architectural context in each phase of the Iron Age. This will give us an opportunity to see the development of local Cypro-Cilician pottery diachronically and to understand the impact of the imports on the local assemblage.
2.1 Political Context of Tarsus-Gözlükule
To contextualize development of Cypro-Cilician pottery, political situation of Cilicia should be considered in order to understand the region and its interregional relations.
7
2.1.1 Late Bronze Age
Before focusing on the Iron Age, it is necessary to consider the previous political situation in the region which will provide a better understanding for the beginning of the Iron Age. In this period archival materials provide information about the region. There are also rock cut inscriptions, Sirkeli and Hemite which contain both visual and textual information about the period and the region.8 Kizzuwatna is identified as the plain of Cilicia9. The word Kizzuwatna is a Hittite-Luwian word *kez-watni and Yakubovich translates it as ‘country on the side of the mountains’.10 The name of Kizzuwatna is first attested during the reign of Telipinu in the treaty between Isputahsu.11 The northern and eastern borders of Kizzuwatna are determined by the Taurus Mountains in the North, Amanus Mountains and the Gulf of Iskenderun in the South.12 Kizzuwatna provides access between Central Anatolia and Syria so, its possession was crucial for Syrian expeditions of the Hittites.13 Because of its location, land of Kizzuwatna became a contested territory. At Tarsus-Gözlükule, a bulla with an inscription of Great King Isputahsu is found and dated to the 17th century B.C.14 The title of Great King and the treaty made with Telipinu shows that Kizzuwatna is an independent land during the reign of Telipinu15. There are several treaties between the Hittite kings and the Kizzuwatnian rulers.16 After the treaty with Telipinu, there is no textual evidence about the relations between the Hittites and Kizzuwatna for almost two centuries. In this period Kizzuwatna is under the impact
8 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, 39.
9 Novak and Rutishauser, “Kizzuwatna,” 141.
10 Yakubovich, Sociolinguistics of the Luwian Language, 341.
11 Goetze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, 75.
12 Novak and Rutishauser, “Kizzuwatna,” 134.
13 Beal, “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunassura Treaty,” 425.
14 Goetze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem, 73.
15 Beal, “Kizzuwatna and the Date,” 427.
16 Beal, “Kizzuwatna and the Date,” 427-432.
8
of the Hurrians.17 During the reign of Piliya Kizzuwatna became tributary of the Mitanni kingdom.18 Sunassura was also a tributary king of the Mitannians but then he voluntarily annexed Kizzuwatna to the Hittites.19 Sunassura made a treaty with a Hittite king but it is not certain with which Hittite king. Suppiluliuma I placed his son as priest of Kizzuwatna which is probably like a ruler to the region instead of a regular priest and this situation shows that Kizzuwatna was not an independent land anymore.20 A land-deed tablet from Tarsus shows that the land of Cilicia belongs to the Hittite kings who could dispose of land from the region.21 Considering rock inscriptions in the geography, there is one in Sirkeli which depicts Muwatalli with long robe and pointed shoes. He holds a kalmus in his left hand.22 There is an inscription behind his head which says:
“Muwatalli, Great King, the Hero, son of Mursili, Great King, the Hero.”23
Considering the textual and visual evidence, Cilicia is not an independent region, but under the control of the Hittites during the Late Bronze Age.
2.1.2 Iron Age
After the collapse of the Hittite Empire at the end of the Late Bronze Age some time during the 12th century B. C., there was turmoil in Anatolia. Lack of a centralized power resulted in regional kingdoms. After destruction of the Hittites, there was a
17 Goetze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem, 75.
For detailed information about the Hurrians see Goetze, The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire.
18 Beal, “Kizzuwatna and the Date,” 444.
19 Beal, “Kizzuwatna and the Date,” 445.
20 Beal, “Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Šunaššura Treaty,” 435.
21 Goetze, “Cuneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus,” 3.
22 Novak and Kozal, “Facing Muwatalli Some Thoughts on Visibility and the Function of the Rock Reliefs at Sirkeli Höyük, Cilicia,” 375. Ehringhaus, “Ein Neues Hethitisches Felsrelief am Sirkeli Höyük in der Çukurova,” 118-119. Güterbock, “Zum Felsrelief des Muwatalli am Sirkeli Höyük,” 104. Ehringhaus, “Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften. Die Felsreliefs der Hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei,” 95-99. Ussishkin, "Hollows, 'Cup-Marks', and Hittite Stone Monuments, 86.
23 Novak and Kozal, “Facing Muwatalli,” 375.
9
transitional period in which settlements were re-occupied or abandoned and Aegeanizing style Late Helladic IIIC pottery appeared at sites like Kilise Tepe, Soli, and Tarsus-Gözlükule.24 Also, collapse of centralized administration and record keeping caused a dearth of information for us especially for the Early Iron Age. At the beginning of the Iron Age for almost 200 years there is no textual evidence about Cilicia. Moreover, for the Middle and Late Iron Ages, we mostly hear about Cilicia from the neighboring regions like Assyrians and there are only a few local inscriptions.
There are several names used for Cilicia. It is called Que/Huwe/Khuwe in the Assyrian sources.25 Also, Hiyawa is used as one of the toponyms for Cilicia.26 The word “dnnym” or Danuna is used in the Phoenician and Egyptian sources for Cilicia.27 The name “dnnym” could be corroborated in the records of Ramesses III at 1190 B.C. as Qode which collapsed because of the attacks of the Sea People.28 Before the records of Ramesses III, a letter from the Amarna archives written by Abi-milki of Tyre to Amenophis IV is shown for the earliest attestation of Danuna.29 Goetze argues that Hatay could be the country of Danuna for geographic reasons. However, it is not certain which city or population was referred to (KUR da-nu-na) in the Amarna letter and there are different suggestions like Danuna in Canaan or Denyen.30 However, several sources like the inscription of Karatepe-Arslantas indicate that Danuna is used for the Adana and the Cilician region.31 Hilakku is
24 Gates, “From Late Bronze to Iron Age on Syria’s Northwest Frontier,” 98-100.
25 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, 40.
26 Gander, “Ahhiyawa-Hiyawa-Que: Gibt Es Evidenz Für Die Anwesenheit .von Griechen in Kilikien am Übergang Von Der Bronze-Zur Eisenzeit?,” 282-284. Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 40. Tekoğlu and Lemaire, “La Bilingue Royale Louvito-Phénicienne de Çineköy,” 982.
27 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 40.
28 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 40.
29 Goetze, “Cilicians,” 50.
30 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 39; Goetze, “Cilicians,” 50.
31 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 39-40.
10
another name attested for Cilicia but while Que stands for the plain, Hilakku refers to Rough Cilicia.32
One of the earliest Iron Age textual sources about Cilicia comes from the Amuq region. Two stelae (Arsuz 1 and 2) are discovered in Arsuz which is part of the land of Walastin in the Iron Age, dated to the late 10th century B.C.33 These stelae have the representation of the Storm-God with the Anatolian Hieroglyphic inscription. They are commissioned by Suppiluliuma to signify his victory over the land of Hiyawa. He says he defeated the city of Adananuwa for the first time and the land/city of Hiyawa, something his ancestors never succeeded in doing.34
Assyrian sources provide information about the political situation of Cilicia especially after the 9th century B.C. when Assyrian contacts intensified with Cilicia. Shalmeneser III is the first Assyrian king who records Assyrian relations with Cilicia. Both Que and Hilakku are mentioned as part of a hostile, Syrian alliance.35 Shalmaneser III led campaigns to Cilicia, and he attacked some cities like the land of Lamena and Tarzi.36 From the annals of Shalmeneser III, we learn that a king named Kate reigned during the mid-9th century B.C in Que.37
Kulamuwa stele informs us about the relations of Que with Assyrians and Sam’alians during the 9th century.38 It is a funerary stele of Kulamuwa found in Zincirli. In this stele, genealogy and the deeds of Kulamuwa are inscribed. There he says: “The king of the Danunians is more powerful than me. But I engaged against him the king of Assyria.”39 Thus, the words of Kulamuwa give us a glimpse of the
32 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 40.
33 Dinçol et al, “Two New Inscribed Storm-God Stelae from Arsuz,” 59.
34 Dinçol et al, “Two New Inscribed,” 65.
35 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 41.
36 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 41
37 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 41.
38 O’Connor, “The Rhetoric of the Kilamuwa Inscription,” 15.
39 O’Connor, “The Rhetoric of the Kilamuwa Inscription,” 19.
11
shifting alliances in the region and the position of Cilician kings within these political networks. Expeditions of Shalmeneser III proves that Assyrians had an interest in these lands.
During the reign of Tiglath-Pilaser in the 8th century B.C., there is no recorded battle or expedition in Cilicia by the Assyrians. However, the tributary list the names of the kings of Que, Urikki and Warikas are seen.40 There is local bilingual inscription on the base of the Çine cult statue which is dated to the second half of the 8th century B.C. found in Çineköy near the modern city of Adana.41 The statue is the representation of the God Tarhunza with his two bulls carrying his chariot. Inscription is carved between the feet of the bulls and at the back of the chariot, which is written by Warikas, the king of Hiyawa, descendants of the house of Muksas/Mopsos.42 This inscription is important in the sense that it indicates possible Greek presence in the Cilicia. In several inscriptions, kings of Que/Danuna emphasize that they are from the house of Mopsos. According to Greek sources, Mopsos, son of Rhaikos was a seer who founded the temple of Apollo and also several cities in the Anatolia.43 According to the legend he founded the city of Mopsouhestia (Misis) and Mopsoukrene in Cilicia in the 12th century B.C.44 It is suggested that the origin of the toponym of Hiyawa came from the Late Bronze Age Ahhiyawa which refers to the Mycenaeans in the Hittite textual sources.45 Thus, 13th century B.C. Late Bronze Age Aegean polity’s toponym (Ahhiyawa) is now used for the 9th century B.C. Cilician kingdom in the Iron Age (Hiyawa).46 This could be as a
40 Tekoğlu and Lemaire, “La Bilingue Royale Louvito-Phenicienne de Çineköy,” 1003. Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
41 Lafranchi, “The Luwian- Phoenician Bilinguals of Çineköy and Karatepe,” 179.
42 Tekoğlu and Lemaire, “La Bilingue Royale,” 968.
43 Barnett, “Mopsos,” 142.
44 Özyar, “The Writing on the Wall,” 133.
45 Bryce, “The Land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited,” 70.
46 For detail see Hawkins, “Cilicia, The Amuq, and Aleppo.”
12
result of people migrating to Cilicia around 12th century B.C.47 Aforementioned name Warikas could be the father of the Warikas who promoted Azatiwatas.48 Warikas says that Assyria is father and mother to him and now Hiyawa and Assyria become one house.49 Çineköy inscription indicates that Hiyawa is under the control of the Assyrians during that time. Common interests had led to this agreement, but it depends on good acts of the son.50 The name of Warikas is mentioned in several Assyrian sources during the reigns of different kings like Tiglat-Pileser III and Sargon II.51
From the same period, there is trilingual Incirli stele found in Maraş. On one side of the stele Awarikku is represented holding a flower like in the example of Kulamuwa stele from Zincirli but this is not a funerary stele.52 It is inscribed on three sides with Anatolian Hieroglyphic, Neo-Assyrian, and Phoenician and it is dated to the 8th century B.C.53 The stele is inscribed by Awarikku, the king of Danunites after the rebellion of the western cities against the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III circa 740 B.C.54 The stele is erected as boundary marker which is understood from the first lines stating; “This frontier region is the gift of Tiglath-Pileser, Puwal, King of Assyria, to the king and dynasty of the Danunites.”55
During the reign of Sargon II, it is known that Que and Hilakku are under direct control of the Assyrians.56 As Assyrian sources indicate, there were conflicts
47 Hawkins, “Cilicia, The Amuq, and Aleppo,” 166.
48 Because of the time period between two inscriptions, it does not seem possible that these two Warikas are the same person. Simon, “Awarikus und Warikas: Zwei Könige von Hiyawa,” 100.
49 Lafranchi, “The Luwian- Phoenician,” 187.
50 Lafranchi, “A Happy Son of The King of Assyria: Warikas and the Çineköy Bilingual,” 147.
51 Simon, “Awarikus und Warikas: Zwei Könige von Hiyawa,” 95-96.
52 Dodd, “Squeezing Blood from Stone: Archaeological Context of Incirli Inscription,” 215.
53 Dodd, “Squeezing Blood,” 214.
Hierogliphic Luwian is too weathered to identify the signs and it is not possible to transcribe and translate it. Thus, Kaufman translated the Phoenician.
54 Kaufman, “The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual,” 9.
55 Kaufman, “The Phoenician Inscription,” 15.
56 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
13
between Midas, the king of Tabal and Urikki, the king of Que further providing clues about the different alliances in the region.57 Fortresses in between the territories changed hands and then in 715 B.C Sargon II conquered two fortresses from the hands of Midas which are Harrua and Usnasis.58 It seems that Sargon II came to the aid of Que in order to protect the boundaries of this land.59 While Que was under control of the Assyrians, Urikki attempted to send messengers to the Urartians (who were hostile to the Assyrians).60 However, because of Phrygian intervention to the transmission of messengers, Sargon II learned about the situation and sent Urikki to exile.61
Hasanbeyli inscription sheds light on the second half of the 8th century. It is found at Hasanbeyli which is 13 km south of Zincirli. The inscription is probably a kind of boundary marker, but it has as secondary use in the later Byzantine Period.62 It has both Phoenician and Greek inscriptions on it, but it is hard to read the Phoenician due to weathering. The inscription is not complete, but it mentions the king of Adana, Urikki whose lands and the lands of Ashur become one kingdom and he makes peace with Aleppo.63 Hasanbeyli inscription also indicates that the land of Adana is under control of the Assyrians during the rule of Urikki, who becomes one of the vassals of Sargon II. As Lemaire states that the integration of the lands of Adana is not a result of a revolt but because Urikki asked the Assyrians for help.64
57 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
58 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
59 Lemaire, “L’inscription Phenicienne de Hasan-Beyli Reconsideree,” 18.
60 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
61 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
62 Lemaire, “L’inscription Phenicienne,” 10.
63 Lemaire, “L’inscription Phenicienne,” 11.
64 Lemaire, “L’inscription Phenicienne,” 19.
14
By the end of the 8th century, a revolt broke in Hilakku by Kirua, king of Illubru and Tarsus joined the revolt against the Assyrians.65 There is also Greek presence in this rebellion.66 Sennacherib led an expedition to Illubru and Tarsus to put an end to the revolt.67 He reorganized and resettled those cities after capturing them.68 It is implied in the Assyrian sources that Sennacherib made a huge investment for the rebuilding of Tarsus.69 In the 7th century B.C., Hilakku is not under control of the Assyrians, but Que is still vassal of the Assyrians during the reign of Assurbanipal.70
Karatepe inscription is an important local textual source about the region. Karatepe is a hilltop citadel which is a stronghold dependent and loyal to the king of Adana. It is known that along the Pyramos river, there are other fortresses like Harrua and Ushnanis in order to sustain the security of the land.71 A bilingual inscription is carved on the basalt orthostats in the North and South Gates of the fortress and dated to the 7th century B.C. 72 While one side of the gate bears Anatolian Hieroglyphic, the other side has a Phoenician inscription which are complete and duplicate texts.73 Inscription is commissioned by the local ruler Azatiwatas. He states that he has been promoted by Warikas/Urikki, the king of Adanawa, and he is from the house of Muksas/Mopsos,74 showing the possible Aegean relations which will be evaluated later in this thesis. From Karatepe
65 King, “Sennacherib and the Ionians,” 329.
66 King, “Sennacherib and the Ionians,” 327-335.
67 Dalley, “Sennacherib and Tarsus,” 74.
68 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 43.
69 Dalley, “Sennacherib and Tarsus,” 74.
70 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 43.
71 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 42.
72 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 45.
73 Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 45.
74 Hawkins, “Muksas,” 413. Barnett, “Mopsos,” 140-143. Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic, 51-56. Özyar, “The Writing on the Wall,” 132-133.
15
inscriptions, we learn about local administration, political situation, and the relations of the urban centers and rural places of the region.
Another inscription dated to the second half of the 7th century is Cebelireis inscription. It is found in Rough Cilicia, 15 km south of Alanya.75 The text is Phoenician, but the origin of the personal names is Luwian.76 The inscription is about the fields that are exchanged between different rulers. King Awarikku/Warikas possessed some of the lands that were given to Kula by Mitas but the king Awarikku/ Warikas gives them back. 77 Thus, Cebelireis inscription informs us about the land transactions between Warikas and Mitas. Its location indicates that these lands could be in Rough Cilicia. Also, this inscription gives us the last known king of Hiyawa. Since 8th century B.C. the same name(s) are mentioned continuously like Warikas, Awarikus.78 There is no consensus whether or not these two names are the same or different. These two names are taken as the derivatives of one name in inscriptions like Cebelireis by Yakubovich.79 On the other hand, Simon states that philologically Awarikus and Warikas are different.80 So, the name on the Cebelireis inscription should be Warikus that came from Greek name Wroykos.81 This name of Greek origin brings us to the issue of the house of Mopsos. Thus, considering all of these, a strong western connection of the region during the earlier part of the Iron Age seems possible. Along with the philological evidence, there is also material evidence that proves the Greek presence in the region.82 Thus, these migrations could be the link to
75 Lemaire, “Une Inscription Phenicienne Decouverte recemment et Le Mariage de Ruth La Moabite,” 124.
76 Röllig, “Zur Phönizischen Inschrift von Cebelireis Dağı,” 52.
77 Lemaire, “Une Inscription Phenicienne,” 125.
78 Novak, “Azatiwada, Awariku From the “House of Mopsos” and Assyria,” 407-413.
79 Yakubovich, “Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age,” 36.
80 Simon, “Awarikus and Warikas,” 100.
81 Simon, “Awarikus and Warikas,” 100.
82 Yakubovich, “Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age,” 40-41.
16
the continuing Aegean relations of Cilicia. There are also Greek colonies founded in Cilicia, like Rhodian Soloi in the Iron Age.83 There is also important amount of Rhodian pottery at Tarsus-Gözlükule but there is no proof of colonial activities in the city.84
Textual evidence from regional and neighboring sources gives us information on the political situation of Cilicia for the Iron Age. Important to underline is that using Phoenician along with the Luwian or by itself indicates that the Cilician political elites are very much promoting their connection with the Phoenicians probably because they are part of a larger interregional maritime network in the Eastern Mediterranean. Almost all of the presented textual material shows that Cilicia is a very well connected with the neighboring regions. Moreover, Assyrian sources show their interest in Cilicia and being a superpower of the time their effect on the region would also be profound. All these relations cause dynamic entanglements in the region and their effects are reflected on the material culture.
2.2 Archaeological Context of Iron Age in Tarsus-Gözlükule
To understand the development of the Iron Age pottery on the site, it is important to comprehend the chronology and the architectural phases of Tarsus-Gözlükule. There are two trenches on the mound and Iron Age levels are uncovered in Section B. Section A does not have residential areas during the Iron Age, but Middle Iron Age pottery kilns are found in this trench.
83 Bing, “A Forgotten Colony of Lindos,” 103.
84 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 111.
17
The beginning of the Iron Age occupation on the site is dated to 1100 B.C.85 The Early Iron Age level contained, four architectural units; J, T, U, and W86 which can be seen in the Figure 1. While the excavators uncovered mixed materials of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age in some places, there are also secure contexts like floor levels to identify the changes and continuities from the earlier Late Bronze IIb period. The remains of the structures are scanty, but they give us a clue for the earlier periods of the Iron Age.
Figure 1. Early Iron Age Plan of Tarsus-Gözlükule (after Goldman)
85 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 92.
86 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 3.
18
The Iron Age settlement at Tarsus-Gözlükule continues to exist with no apparent destruction layer between them. Material culture of the site is also not entirely different from the earlier Late Bronze Age level. For example, the latest level of the Late Bronze Age is called Phantom Level which had large quantities of locally produced Late Helladic IIIC pottery and monochrome pottery of central Anatolian affiliation.87 The impacts of the Hittite pottery continued to be seen on the plain wares like jar and bowl types in the Early Iron Age.88 Certain production techniques continued at the site because traditions do not change easily. 89 Potters use the same production techniques as part of their long-standing traditions so, they do not change the way of producing pottery easily and suddenly. However, potters change their technique of pottery production in time as new innovations are made or new techniques and styles are introduced into the existing repertoire.
Within the lowest level of Unit P dated to the earliest levels of Early Iron Age monochrome pottery of Central Anatolian affiliation which continues from the previous Late Bronze IIb period and imported Cypro-Cilician are found together consisting of Buff Painted bowls and cups decorated with concentric circles, White Painted vases, and BoR standard bowls.90 Number of local Cypro-Cilician pottery increase in the next phase.91
In this level, the most interesting structure is the so-called “apsidal house” in Unit U.92 The apsidal form of the house seems quite idiosyncratic because this form has not seen before in the area. Apsidal structure is generally seen in the Aegean and Western Anatolia, so construction of a building with a different plan could indicate
87 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 3.
88 Yalçın, “Re-Evaluation of the Late,” 202.
89 Yalçın, “Re-Evaluation of the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age Transitional Period,” 199.
90 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 95.
91 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 95.
92 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 95.
19
the presence of new people in Tarsus-Gözlükule.93 Unit U has both imported and local Cypro-Cilician pottery. There were Buff vases, jars, a pitcher, BoR bowls and cups and White Painted bowls, a cup and a crater and local Bichrome vases.94 Table 1 shows the distribution of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery types. (The list of the Early Iron Age pottery from the secure contexts is given in the Appendix A, Table A1.)
Table 1: Cypro-Cilician painted pottery types in the Early Iron Age at Tarsus-Gözlükule
Other architectural units from this level also show the full range of Cypro-Cilician pottery along with continuation of earlier traditions and imported pottery from the neighboring regions. Unit T has Buff Painted bowls, cups, jars, and an open crater, BoR and White Painted bowls and cups; also, local Bichrome closed vases.95 Unit J is built on top of the Early Iron Age pit after it was filled in. In the first-floor level, monochrome wares are found whose shapes are similar to the Late Helladic IIIC shapes rather than Early Iron Age types.96 Along with them, there are local Buff Painted bowls, cups with concentric circle decoration, and also few BoR bowls and
93 Yalçın, “Re-Evaluation of the Late,” 200.
94 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 95.
95 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 95-96.
96 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 97.
128
36
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Number of sherds
Buff Painted
Black-on-Red
Bichrome
20
cups.97 There are also imported Cypriot and Greek vessels in small quantity in the Early Iron Age,98 indicating that Tarsus-Gözlükule still has some, though not intensive relations with regions farther out. While Cypriot imports are found in the early levels of the Early Iron Age, Greek imports started to be seen in the later levels.99
Considering small finds, equestrian figurines depicted with pointed and cylindrical helmets100 are found in large quantities at Tarsus-Gözlükule are and they point to already well-established connections with Cyprus that goes beyond shared pottery traditions. The arched type of fibula was introduced during the Late Bronze II period and continued to be used in the Early Iron Age.101 The arched fibulae mostly parallel with Cyprus.102
In the Middle Iron Age dated between 850-700 B.C., there are several architectural units denoted K, J, P, O, H, and N103 that are shown in the Figure 2. During this period the settlement becomes denser.104 Several rooms and courtyards are found which are built around the streets.105 The Apsidal house from the previous period was no longer used.106 It is destroyed, and other structures are built over it.107
Unit P has a substantial amount of Cypro-Cilician pottery.108 This unit has also several imported Rhodian ceramics and Cycladic cups.109 In this area, an
97 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 96.
98 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 93-108.
99 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 108.
100 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 335.
101 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus II, 370.
102 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule III 370. Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule II, 278. Muscarella, “Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion,” 42,68. For detailed information see Giesen, Zyprische Fibeln Typologie und Chronologie. Pedde, Vorderasiatische Fibeln: von der Levante bis Iran.
103 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 112.
104 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 5.
105 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 5-8.
106 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 5-8.
107 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 6-7.
108 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 112.
109 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 113.
21
Assyrian cylinder seal and Assyrianizing stamp cylinder seal are also found.110 Early Iron Age room Jw is divided into two as Jw and Jsw in this level. In the room Jw, there are Rhodian ceramics, Greek Black Glaze jugs and sherds of all types of Cypro-Cilician pottery are found.111 In Unit K, one Assyrian alabastron, fragments of Greek Black Glaze and Cypriote type of pottery are found.112
Figure 2. Middle Iron Age plan of Tarsus-Gözlükule (after Goldman)
The largest amount of Greek pottery comes from area under H and only a small amount of Cilician pottery is found in this area. Hanfmann suggests that area under H
110 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 356.
111 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule 113.
112 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 113.
22
could be a shop or row of shops because the distribution of the pottery types differs from the usual pottery assemblage that is found in the houses.113 Units O and N have Protocorinthian pottery. Boardman argues that because this pottery type is dated as late as 650 B.C. these units could be post destruction units.114
On the other hand, on the southern slope in Section A five pottery kilns are excavated.115 These kilns are abandoned and destructed which is assumed during the invasion of Sennacherib so the kilns are dated to the Middle Iron Age.116 The kilns are found on the south side of the Late Bronze Age Hittite terrace wall.117 They were constructed in front of the stone wall in a burned clay and pebble layer.118 The location provides the south winds to the potters and the terrace protects them from the northern wind. Also it is close to the water source considering the river flows on the south side of the mound.119 These kilns have long and narrow fire chambers that supports a clay pottery platform.120 The back sides of the kilns are cut from the slope and their sides are first covered with clay then strengthened with stones.121 Kilns are in two tier forms which are divided with a narrow brick wall.122 In the upper tier there are fire-chambers and some have side chambers and in the lower tier, channels of flue holes are found which led the fire to reach the upper tier.123 The chambers have an arched shape opening.124 Some of the chambers were reconstructed indicating that
113 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 114.
114 Boardman, Tarsus, Al Mina, and Greek Chronology, 9-10.
115 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 14- 17.
116 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 117-118.
117 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule Tarsus 1936,” 271.
118 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule,” 272.
119 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 14.
120 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 15.
121 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus 1937,” 40.
122 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule,” 40.
123 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule,” 40.
124 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule,” 40. Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule,” 272.
23
these kiln must be used for a while so they needed re-flooring.125 The kilns contain several types of ceramics,126 but the number of the Cypro-Cilician wares is remarkable.127 Around and in the kilns, wasters and unbaked BoR and White and Buff Painted pottery and Kitchen wares are found which is evidence of local production of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery at the site.128 The production of the Cypro-Cilician pottery is almost as much as the Kitchen wares which shows that Cypro-Cilician pottery has an important place in the ceramic repertoire of Tarsus-Gözlükule. Table 2 shows the number of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery at Tarsus-Gözlükule during the Middle Iron Age. (The list of the Middle Iron Age pottery from the secure contexts is given in the Appendix A, Table A2.) Along with Tarsus-Gözlükule, kilns are found in Kilise Tepe and Kinet Höyük. Kilns in Kilise Tepe have narrow, rectangular stone lined chambers that dated to the Middle Iron Age and petrographic analysis indicate that only White Painted pottery produced at the site.129 Kinet Höyük has also long, narrow kilns dated to Middle Iron Age that produced local Buff, BoR, and Bichrome pottery.130
During this period, the number of imported Cypriote pottery increased which can be explained as growing relations with Cyprus. Along with the Cypriote wares, Greek imports started to increase as well and became more prominent in the assemblage. Considering all the imported and imitated vessels, it is clear that maritime connections have an impact on the ceramic assemblage of the site.
125 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 117-118.
126 See the table Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 119- 120.
127 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 119- 120
128 Goldman, “Excavations at Gözlü Kule,” 271. Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 118.
129 Bouthilier et al., “Further Work at Kilise Tepe, 2007- 2011,” 156. Hansen and Postgate, “The Bronze to Iron Age Transition at Kilise Tepe,” 113.
130 Hodos, Knappett, and Kilikoglou, “Middle and Late Iron Age Painted Ceramics from Kinet Höyük,” 67.
24
Table 2: Cypro-Cilician painted pottery types in the Middle Iron Age at Tarsus-Gözlükule
Small finds also support the increasing relations with the greater Eastern Mediterranean. During this period, several figurines that have connections with other regions are unearthed from the site. The most prominent ones are the equines and equestrians. These figurines have a close resemblance with those from Cyprus. These figurines are not part of luxury items, but rather they are part of cultic activities. So, it is possible that these figurines are manufactured locally, indicating that there is a close relation with Cyprus and Cilicia that also encompasses shared cult traditions. Along with the figurines, many seals are also found in this period. I had already mentioned the Assyrian seals but along with them, there are a large amount of Egyptianizing seals,131 which are mostly scarabs with hieroglyphic writing on it.132 These were worn mostly as charms.133 They are also found in Cyprus and Levant. It could be argued that these Egyptianizing seals are also part of koine in the Eastern Mediterranean. North Syrian and southern Levantine seals are also found at
131 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 347-349.
132 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 349. Hölbl, “Aegyptiaca from Al Mina and Tarsus ım Verbande des Nordsyrisch-Südostanatolischen Raumes,” 107-119, 145.
133 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 349.
239
98
70
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Number of sherds
Buff Painted
Black-on-Red
Bichrome
25
Tarsus.134 So, these small finds and the imported pottery indicates that the inhabitants of Tarsus are connected to a wider interaction networks during the Middle Iron Age.
The last phase of Iron Age is separated into Assyrian and Sixth Century Period by Hanfmann. There is no destruction layer between the Assyrian and the Sixth century periods. Hanfmann, divides these two periods because of the rebuilding of the settlement. However, there is no significant change between two periods. Their building plan are almost the same but some of the streets’ orientation changed.135
Figure 3. Late Iron Age settlement plan (after Goldman)
134 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 351.
135 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 11.
26
There is also no significant change in the pottery assemblage except few changes like increasing imported Greek pottery. So, here, they will be treated as a single period: Late Iron Age. Before the Late Iron Age levels, there is leveling in the central part of Section B, which is called destruction level and after it there is a destruction by fire.136 Assyrian tablets dated to 7th century B.C. are found in the subsequent floors of
the destruction level which coincides with Sennacherib’s reign. So, Middle Iron Age ends with the destruction of the site by Sennacherib around 696 BC.137 Fortification walls are built after the destruction layer indicating the need for defense. This is the first fortification wall found in the Iron Age settlement of Tarsus-Gözlükule but as Goldman argues this does not mean that there was no fortification wall before the Late Iron Age, but it could mean that the sizes of the settlement shrunk.138 In the last period of the Iron Age, several units (I, K, X, Z, Y and V) are built after the destruction as seen in the Figure 3. Some Cypro-Cilician pottery is found in Unit K along with Rhodian sherds.139 Some rooms like Jw and Kb do not have domestic materials therefore are interpreted as shops.140 In Unit H, there are Greek imported sherds which indicate the continuity of trade relations with the west despite Assyrian control.141 On the eastern side there are possible residential structures (Xa, Xc, and Xd) with a courtyard (Xe).142 Numeric distribution of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery found from these Late Iron Age units is shown in Table 3. (The list of the Late Iron Age pottery from the secure contexts is given in the Appendix A, Table A3.)
136 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 8.
137 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 132.
138 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 8.
139 From excavation diary, notebook 1936 D.H.C. I-II
140 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 9.
141 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 113.
142 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 9-10.
27
Table 3: Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Late Iron Age at Tarsus-Gözlükule
In these units Greek and Cypriot imported pottery were found along with Cypro-Cilician and monochrome pottery.143 The last phase of the Iron Age is dated to the sixth century.144 Unit Z is built on top of the previous Unit X with almost the same plan.145 Zc-Zd are other residential units and possible workshops Zb and Zf.146
In Unit Z, mostly Greek related pottery is found especially Rhodian and Corinthian ceramics.147 In this period, the number of the Greek wares are at its highest and the number of imitations of the Greek wares increase probably because of increased trade and colonization activities of the Greeks in the region.148 Production of Cypro-Cilician pottery continued in this period as well. Although Tarsus-Gözlükule is not directly a Greek colony, the presence of the colonies and the trade activities of the Greeks in the region had a significant impact on the site.149
143 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 133.
144 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 11.
145 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, Plan IV.
146 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus, 13.
147 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 143.
148 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 141-143.
149 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 143.
86
19
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Number of sherds
Buff Painted
Black-on-Red
Bichrome
28
Small finds show continuity in the Late Iron Age. Arched and angular type of fibulae are also found in this period.150 The horse and rider figurines continued to be found in this period, but with different style of helmets. Most common helmet is pointed ones which is identified as a Phrygian cap that has a tail at the back of the helmet in some of the examples.151 Another Phrygian cap is the ones with the ridges on the sides as tusks which is found both at Tarsus and Cyprus.152 Continuation is also seen in the seals. Both Egyptian scarabs and Assyrian seals are found153.
2.3 Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule
Iron Age pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule was studied by George M. A. Hanfmann in the Iron Age volume of the Tarsus-Gözlükule publication.154 He excavated with Hetty Goldman at Tarsus-Gözlükule in 1947- 48. Hanfmann’s study is the main source for this thesis because he evaluated Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule and defined the local and imported aspects of the Iron Age pottery repertoire of Tarsus-Gözlükule. His categorization is followed in this study. He uses both the terminologies “Cypro-Cilician painted pottery” and “Cilician painted wares”. While the latter one is used for many years by the scholars, recently Cypro-Cilician painted pottery is preferred in the scholarship. The reason to call it Cypro-Cilician is because Hanfmann argues Cypriot impacts on the local Cilician pottery. That’s why he identified this specific pottery as Cypro-Cilician painted pottery.
In the beginning of the Iron Age, ceramic assemblage of Tarsus-Gözlükule started to gain new character with the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery. This new type
150 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 372.
151 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 335.
152 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 335.
153 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 352-354.
154 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III.
29
of pottery is identified with the geometric decorative aspects especially with the compass drawn concentric circles. Lines, concentric circles, and their combinations are applied as decorations mostly on the tableware but there are also some serving vessels. There are four types of Cypro-Cilician pottery that is defined by Hanfman, Buff Painted, White Slipped, BoR, and Bichrome. Aforementioned, in this study Buff Painted and White Slipped pottery will be evaluated together because of their similar surface and biscuit color.
All three types of Cypro-Cilician pottery are attested at very early levels of Early Iron Age dated around 1100 B.C.155 Buff Painted pottery has light cream to buff color, and it is decorated with brown or black lines or concentric circles. This is the most frequent Cypro-Cilician pottery type found in Tarsus-Gözlükule. BoR pottery has red exterior surface and decorated with black lines or concentric circles. Dating of BoR pottery is important because the origin is proposed to be either Cyprus or Levant, but Cilicia has also the earliest samples of BoR pottery. This could show that there is a parallel development of Cypro-Cilician pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. Bichrome pottery is similar to the Buff Painted, but decoration is applied in two colors: generally black and red. Hanfmann remarks that this pottery type is not attested at Tarsus-Gözlükule as much as in Al Mina or Amuq.156
It is important to understand how this new pottery type developed at the site. Cypro-Cilician pottery is part of a large koine in the eastern Mediterranean. This koine was composed of different elements from different regions and become a shared culture in the region. The immediate presence of the Cypro-Cilician painted wares at the very early occupation layers of Early Iron Age settlement at Tarsus-
155 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 95-98.
156 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 51.
Bichrome pottery is found in large amounts in the pottery assemblages of the Phoenician sites. So,
Phoenician impact could be the reason for the high number of Bichrome pottery at Amuq and al Mina.
30
Gözlükule warrants a discussion on the impact of the Late Bronze IIb pottery, and especially Late Helladic IIIC pottery, in their development. Within the Cypro-Cilician painted tradition standard cups and bowls are the favored shapes which are known from the earlier Late Helladic IIIC assemblage.157 When Late Helladic IIIC pottery and Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule are compared, it is seen that deep bowls, cups with vertical handles, loop handled amphorae, hydriae and kraters are the Late Helladic IIIC types that continued through the Iron Age.158 Hence, the Late Helladic IIIC types are instrumental in the development of the Cypro-Cilician pottery. Late Helladic IIIC pottery is found in both Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant at the end of the Late Bronze Age. So, Late Helladic IIIC pottery creates a common ground for all three geographies and this shared pottery tradition leads to a new one in the Iron Age. However, it did not affect each region’s Iron Age pottery traditions in same amount. It is seen that the Late Helladic IIIC tradition is stronger in Cyprus.
Regarding all three periods of the Iron Age, it is obvious that the site had connections with several regions like Cyprus, Amuq, and Levant. NAA analysis conducted on Late Helladic IIIC pottery from Tarsus-Gözlükule shows that there are imported pottery from Cyprus especially from four places Kouklia, Enkomi, Sinda, Hala Sultan Teke during the LB IIb Period but Kouklia is prominent.159
It seems that most of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery shapes continued from the Late Helladic IIIC tradition, but there is also there are some impact from Late Bronze II local Monochrome pottery. Cypro-Cilician painted pottery overlaps both with Late Helladic IIIC and Late Bronze Age Monochrome pottery in the Early
157 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III, 100.
158 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 99-100.
159 Mommsen, Mountjoy, and Özyar, “Provenance Determination of Mycenaean IIIC Vessels,” 911. Özyar, Mommsen, and Mountjoy, “Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-style IIIC Pottery,” 19.
31
Iron Age levels and coexistence of these two different traditions together in the beginning of the Iron Age could be bridge that links them.160 When the decoration of the Late Helladic IIIC pottery is compared with the Early Iron Age pottery similar decorative motives stand out. Along with the spirals, banded or cross stroke painted handles are used in both Late Helladic IIIC and Early Iron Age levels. Wavy line is another decoration type that continues through from Late Helladic IIIC period into the Iron Age. One can suggests that concentric circles are a development of the spirals. Hanfmann proposes that Cyprus has an impact on the appearance of Cypro-Cilician pottery because all the shapes could be found in Cypriot assemblages.161 However, Tarsus-Gözlükule has also similar Late Helladic IIIC pottery in its assemblage so, although Cyprus has some impact on it, there could also be a parallel development of Cypro-Cilician pottery in both regions.
Along with Late Helladic IIIC, Cypro-Cilician pottery is also influenced by long standing local pottery shapes as well, like the pilgrim flask and trefoil jugs which show Late Bronze Age continuation in the Iron Age assemblage.162
There is both locally produced and imported Cypro-Cilician pottery at Tarsus-Gözlükule. When we consider the ceramic assemblage here, the number of the imported pottery in the Early Iron Age is not that much and the ones imported are generally Cypriot.163 The number of Cypro-Cilician pottery imported from Cyprus increased in the Middle Iron Age but decreased in the Late Iron Age and eventually were limited to small juglets.164 This decrease in the Cypriot goods is probably because of the increasing Greek activities in the Mediterranean.
160 Ünlü, “Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Painted Pottery from the Northeast Mediterranean Settlements,” 521.
161 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 100, 110.
162 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 110.
163 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 93-94.
164 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 141.
32
Cypro-Cilician pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule can give us valuable evidence for evaluating the development of Cypro-Cilician pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and the relations of the site during the Iron Age. Along with the Cypro-Cilician pottery, there are other shared elements among the coastal Eastern Mediterranean settlement like scarabs and figurines. It is obvious that in the Iron Age, the Eastern Mediterranean coastal settlements were connected through intensifying interregional relations which led the formation of the Cypro-Cilician pottery koine.
2.4 Cilicia
In this part, ceramic assemblages of key excavated Cilician sites; Kilise Tepe, Sirkeli Höyük, Kinet Höyük, and Karatepe-Arslantaş will be evaluated. Also, Osmaniye region, Porsuk Höyük and Tatarlı Höyük will be incorporated in order to see the relations of those neighboring regions with Cilicia. These sites are shown in the map in Figure 4. Chronological frameworks of these sites are different and given in Table 4.
Table 4: Iron Age chronology of the Cilician sites
Tarsus
Kilisetepe
Sirkeli
Kinet
Porsuk
Early Iron Age
1150-850
1150-800
1190-950
1150-900
1050-950
Middle Iron Age
850-700
800-650
950-609
900-650
950-700
Late Iron Age
700-520
609-330
650-330
2.4.1 Kilise Tepe
Kilise Tepe is located on the left bank of the Göksu river and 45 km inland from the Mediterranean.165 There are two Iron Age phases in Kilise Tepe, IIe dated to 1150 –
165 Hansen and Postgate, “The Bronze to Iron,” 111.
33
800 and IIf dated to 800- 650 B.C.166 There is a destruction layer between IId and IIe167 dated no earlier than 1150 B.C, which is proposed to correspond to the demise of the Hittite Empire. 168 Cypro-Cilician painted pottery appears in level IIe,169 but becomes frequent as of level IIf.170 In the Phase IIf-h, a narrow, rectangular stone lined kiln dated between 750- 650 B.C. where thousands of pottery was found.171 Among these sherds, locally produced Cypro-Cilician painted pottery (White Painted pottery) was also found.172
Knappett and Kilikoglou conducted petrographic analysis on the Iron Age pottery samples and the results show that there is a standardization in the pottery manufacturing at the site.173 Most of the samples belong to the local fabric of White Painted Ware. Bouthilier suggests that the locally produced White Painted pottery and mostly imported BoR pottery are linked to tableware.174 While White Painted pottery is mostly locally made, fabric characteristics of BoR and Bichrome pottery indicate that these are imported probably from Cyprus.175 However, there could be more than one source of imported pottery. While Cyprus is a strong candidate, there are also kiln areas in Tarsus and Kinet Höyük which could also be the possible sources.176 In the former excavations all the BoR pottery was defined as imported pottery because of their red fabric. However, the recent excavations revealed that there are some BoR pieces with buff fabric which could have been produced at a site
166 Bouthilier et al., “Further Work at Kilise Tepe, 2007- 2011,” 98.
167 Postgate, “The Excavations and their Results,” 36.
168 Hansen and Postgate, “The Bronze to Iron” 112.
169 Bouthilier et al., “Further Work at Kilise,” 156.
170 Postgate, “The Excavations,” 34.
171 Hansen and Postgate, “The Bronze to Iron,” 112.
172 Hansen and Postgate, “The Bronze to Iron,” 113.
173 Knappett and Kilikoglou, “Pottery Fabrics and Technology,” 261.
174 Bouthilier et al., “Further Work at Kilise,” 156.
175 Knappett and Kilikoglou, “Pottery Fabrics,” 271.
176 Hansen and Postgate, “Pottery from Level II,” 346- 347.
34
in Cilicia; like Tarsus-Gözlükule or Kinet Höyük.177 Petrographic analysis of BoR pottery from Tarsus-Gözlükule shows that there was locally manufactured BoR pottery with buff fabric at Tarsus-Gözlükule (see chapter 3). Moreover, some of the Bichrome pottery from Kilise Tepe resemble the ones from Tarsus.178
2.4.2 Sirkeli Höyük
Sirkeli Höyük is located 40 km east of Adana on the left bank of the Ceyhan River. It is on the trade routes leading from Syria to the central Anatolian Plateau.179 The site uses Levantine terminology in their chronology and date the beginning of the Iron Age to the mid-12th century B.C.180 At the end of the Late Bronze Age, there is no destruction observed at the site.181 However, there is a destruction layer dated to the Middle Iron Age period.182 Iron Age ceramics assemblage consists mainly of Red Slipped pottery related to the Levant area, but also White (Buff) Painted, Bichrome, and BoR pottery is found.183 In the Early Iron Age, Buff Painted bowls are the most common Cypro-Cilician painted pottery.184 In the Middle Iron Age Cypro-Cilician and imported Cypriot pottery is prominent in the assemblage.185 This shows intense relations with Cyprus. Cypro-Cilician pottery disappeared after the second half of the 8th century B.C. because it was replaced with Assyrian pottery at the site.186 Thus, it
177 Bouthilier et al., “Further Work at Kilise,” 155.
178 Hansen and Postgate, “Pottery from Level II,” 347.
179 Kozal and Novak, “A Bronze and Iron Age Urban Settlement in Plain Cilicia,” 229.
180 Novak et al., “A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia,” 183.
181 Novak, “A Bronze and Iron Age,” 235.
182 Novak and Kozal, “Sirkeli Höyük 2009 yılı Çalışmaları,” 43.
183 Novak and Kocal, “Sirkeli Höyük 2012 yılı Çalışmaları,” 433.
184 Kulemann-Ossen and Mönninghoff, “Hybridity of Styles Iron Age Pottery from Sirkeli Höyük,” 114.
185 Novak and Kozal, “Sirkeli Höyük 2009,” 44.
186 Novak and Kozal, “Sirkeli Höyük 2013 yılı Çalışmaları,” 7.
35
is suggested that Cypro-Cilician pottery is mostly used during the Middle Iron Age period.187
Figure 4. Map of Cilicia with the sites mentioned in the text.
2.4.3 Kinet Höyük
Kinet Höyük is located at the Gulf of Iskenderun, on the northern bank of the Orontes River.188 Kinet Höyük was a port city which was used intensely during the 9th and 8th centuries B.C where it acted as a trading point to Greek, Phoenician, and Cypriot merchants.189
The Late Bronze Age ends in destruction and the ensuing190 Iron Age period is dated between 1150 B.C and 300 B.C.191 In Kinet Höyük, Middle Iron Age kilns
187 Ahrens et al., “Sirkeli Höyük in Smooth Cilicia,” 63.
188 Hodos, Knappett, and Kilikoglou, “Middle and Late Iron,” 62.
189 Hodos, Knappett, and Kilikoglou, “Middle and Late Iron,” 64.
190 Gates, “Potters and Consumers in Cilicia and Amuq,” 70.
191 Gates et al., “A comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia,” 178.
36
are attested like in Tarsus and Kilise Tepe.192 These were structures with long and narrow chambers with clay platforms under them.193
Cypro-Cilician pottery appears at the site at end of the 11th century B.C.194 and reaches its highest level during the Middle Iron Age (9th -8th century B.C.).195 All types of Cypro-Cilician pottery; Buff Painted, BoR, and Bichrome were found at the site.196 While Cypriot imports and local Cypro-Cilician pottery were more common within the assemblage during Period 11 (Early Iron Age),197 their number decreases in later periods with the impact of Greek imports.198 There is also the impact of the Assyrians that took the area under their control.199 Small amount of Phoenician pottery was also found at Kinet Höyük.200 Later NAA analysis applied on the samples from Kinet Höyük and shows that there are four identified groups which are Kinet Höyük group 1-4 (KH1-KH4). KH1’s aspects show similarities with the vicinities of Kinet Höyük so, it represents locally produced group.201 KH1 samples generally belong to Late Bronze and Early Iron Age monochrome and painted pottery which are also parallel with the results of the petrographic analysis.202 Thus, this group indicates that there is local pottery production at the site. Imported groups are also identified with the NAA analysis; imported Iron Age pottery is attested in group KH2 which is typologically similar with the sites in Cyprus, Cilicia, and Levant and this group is identified as regional group. Samples from KH2 group are
192 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron,” 67.
193 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron,” 68.
194 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron,” 66.
195 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron,” 66.
196 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron,” 70-71.
197 Lehmann, “The Late Bronze- Iron Age Transition and the Problem of the Sea Peoples Phenomenon in Cilicia,” 240.
198 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron Age,” 66.
199 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron Age,” 66.
200 Lehmann, “North Syria and Cilicia,” 156.
201 Grave et al., “Using Neutron Activation Analysis to Identify Scales of Interaction at Kinet Höyük,” 1990.
202 Grave et al., “Using Neutron Activation Analysis,” 1989.
37
generally Buff, Red, White slipped Monochrome and Bichrome, and BoR wares.203 There is also group KH3 which shows farther connections and produced in Aegean (Ionia and East Greek centers).204 Along with the NAA, imported materials are attested also petrographically, like some BoR samples have similarities with Cypriot pottery.205 According to NAA analysis most of the samples are actually imported. However, presence of the kilns and petrographically identified local pottery show that the local production should not be underestimated. At the site, there is an Assyrian occupation during the second half of the 8th century B.C.206 With the Assyrian presence, the number of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery decreased and the number of Assyrian pottery increased.207 In the 7th century B.C. Cypro-Cilician painted pottery was replaced with the East Greek pottery which dominates the assemblage in the Late Iron Age period.208 So, while the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery is dominant in the beginning of the Iron Age, it started to decrease with the Assyrian occupation and gradually almost disappeared at the end of the Iron Age.
2.4.4 Karatepe- Aslantaş
Although Cypro-Cilician painted pottery assemblage is small in number, Karatepe- Aslantaş will be included here as it reflects a different geographical position. Karatepe is a fortress 100 km northeast of Adana province. It is on the west side of the Ceyhan (Pyramos) River and situated on an old trade route through the Taurus Range.209
203 Grave et al., “Using Neutron Activation Analysis,” 1979.
204 Grave et al., “Using Neutron Activation Analysis,” 1990.
205 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron Age,” 79.
206 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron Age,” 65.
207 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron Age,” 65.
208 Hodos et al., “Middle and Late Iron Age,” 66.
209 Çambel, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol II: Karatepe-Aslantaş, 1.
38
The reliefs at the gate of Karatepe-Aslantaş gives us important clues about the Eastern Mediterranean koine. Considering the representations and their cultural aspects Özyar argues that some of the visuals have Cypriot connections. Conical helmet with up-turned cheek-pieces depicted in the mortuary feast relief, Bes figure, and man depicted on a chariot with up-raised shield and palm tree that possibly indicates Apollo are found in the visual world of Cyprus.210 So, the visual program at Karatepe-Aslantaş proves that the relations between Cyprus and Cilicia are not only limited with the trade relations. The orthostats are also important in terms of visual evidence of Cypro-Cilician pottery. Some of the reliefs has representations of Cypro-Cilician pottery that emphasizes the consumption aspect of this pottery type. Özyar argues that the bottles represented on the banquet scene are BoR juglets.211 The material evidence from this site supports this view as all types of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery (Buff Painted, BoR, and Bichrome) were found here.
Darga separates Cypro-Cilician painted pottery into two as I and II according to the quality of the ware. She argues that group I (White Painted I and BoR I) has better quality, and some are imported pieces while group II is described as coarser and mostly local Cypro-Cilician pottery.212 Sherds resembling Cypro-Geometric III- IV were also found.213 There are some possible Cypriot pottery like yellowish-greenish whitish slipped pottery with concentric circles and one Buff Painted barrel jug but because the sherds do not exist, so the relations of these pottery with Cyprus cannot be determined exactly.214 There were some Cypro-Cilician pottery fragments with a gray core and these pieces could be imported from Tarsus-Gözlükule (see
210 Özyar, “Signs Beyond Boundaries: The Visual World of Azatiwaya,” 504-510.
211 Çambel and Özyar, “Karatepe–Aslantaş, Azatiwataya 1. Die Bildwerke,” 101.
212 Darga, “Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin Çanak Çömlek Buluntuları,” 384- 385.
213 Darga, “Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin,” 389.
214 Bossert, “Keramik,” 144-145.
39
chapter 3, macroscopic aspects of Cypro-Cilician pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule). Darga mentions a BoR sherd with a gray core as a possible import from Phoenicia because its slip technique is different from Cypriot and Cilician wares.215 Kilns has not been found yet in the citadel, but polishing stones and red paint residue were found.216 These findings indicate that there could be a pottery production at the site. Most of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Karatepe-Aslantaş was dated to the Middle Iron Age (850- 750 B.C.)217 as there were no ceramics later than 8th century B.C. at the site.218
Along with Karatepe-Aslantaş, there is Cypro-Cilician pottery in Osmaniye region which is found in a survey conducted by Öğüt and Tülek.219
2.4.5. Tatarlı Höyük
Tatarlı Höyük is another site in the eastern part of Cilician plain. Iron Age layers are dated to 850- 609 B.C. (Middle Iron Age) and 539-330 B.C. (Late Iron Age).220 There are few Buff Painted pottery221 and BoR pottery is found more frequently.222 Analyzed samples show similarities with the samples from Tarsus-Gözlükule.223
215 Darga, “Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin,” 394.
216 Darga, “Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin,” 396.
217 Darga, “Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin,” 398.
218 Darga, “Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin,” 399.
219 Tülek and Öğüt, “The Iron Age in East Plain Cilicia,” 57-76. Tülek and Öğüt, “Prehistoric Pottery of Osmaniye Province in East Cilicia,” 155-158.
220 Novak et al. “A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia,” 176.
221 Girginer et al., “Tatarlı Höyük (Ceyhan) Kazısı: İlk İki Dönem,” 460-461.
222 Tufan and Girginer, “Tatarlı Höyük’ten Bir Grup Black on Red (BoR) Seramiği ve Mikromorfolojik Özellikleri,” 439.
223 Tufan and Girginer, “Tatarlı Höyük’ten Bir Grup,” 439.
40
2.4.6 Porsuk Höyük
Porsuk is located in the northern foothills of the Taurus Mountains of the side of the Cilician gates overlooking the Central Anatolian Plateau. 224 The Iron Age ceramic assemblage of Porsuk shows that the site has both relations with Central Anatolia and Cilicia. Dupré argues that Cypro-Cilician pottery was found in Porsuk IV and III layers which are defined as Old Iron Age and New Iron Age respectively.225 However, Crespin discusses that Porsuk IV is not Early Iron Age but should be dated to late 9th or 8th century B.C.226 At the end of level IV, there is a destruction at the site and this was identified as destruction of Shalmaneser III in 837 B.C.227 The latest Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted pottery in Porsuk was dated in the transition from Middle to Late Iron Age.228 Some of the Cypro-Cilician pottery in Porsuk has gray core like local Tarsian pottery.229 Dupre argues that Cypro-Cilician pottery at the site is not imported from Cilicia but produced at the site locally.230 Although there could be moving artisans between the regions, the similarities could also be the result of trade interactions between the two regions. Thus, the migration theory needs further study, but it is clear that there were interactions between two regions during the Iron Age.
To summarize, it is observed that Cypro-Cilician painted pottery appeared in Cilicia in the Early Iron Age. Its early appearance shows that it is a local development in Cilicia. Almost all of the given sites had local production of Cypro-Cilician pottery. It seems that Buff Painted pottery is the most used Cypro-Cilician
224 Crespin, “Between Phrygia and Cilicia,” 61. 225 Dupré, “La Ceramique de L’Age du Bronze,” 19.
226 Crespin, “Between Phrygia,” 62.
227 Crespin, “Between Phrygia,” 62. 228 Dupré, “La Ceramique de L’Age du Bronze,” 88, 230, 81-153. 229 Dupré, “La Ceramique de L’Age du Bronze,” 57. 230 Dupré, “La Ceramique de L’Age du Bronze,” 69.
41
pottery type in Cilicia. During the Middle Iron Age, both production and import of Cypro-Cilician pottery increased and reached its highest level. However, with the impact of the Assyrians, the number of Cypro-Cilician pottery decreased. Amount of Assyrian pottery in Cilicia was less than the other areas to the east like Amuq and Syria where Assyrian impact was more direct.231 That’s probably why sites like Tarsus-Gözlükule and Kilise Tepe has less Assyrian pottery than Sirkeli and Kinet Höyük. During the Late Iron Age Greek pottery starts replacing imported Cypriot pottery which is another reason for the reduction in the number of Cypro-Cilician pottery. Kiln areas found in Tarsus-Gözlükule, Kinet Höyük, and Kilise Tepe show local production of Cypro-Cilician pottery at these settlements. Ceramic assemblages of Kinet Höyük, Kilise Tepe, and Tarsus-Gözlükule indicate that there was also regional trade of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery in addition to Cypriot and Phoenician imports.
2.5 Cyprus
2.5.1 Political Context
Here the Iron Age of Cyprus between the 11th-6th centuries which corresponds to Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Archaic II periods will be considered. Its chronology is given in Table 5. Textual sources do not inform us much about the political situation of the island. For the second millennium B.C. there are sources from the Hittites and Ugarit. During the first millennium B.C., external sources are mainly limited to the Assyrian royal inscriptions, but there are also written sources from the island itself. These were written in Greek, Phoenician and Eteocypriot.232 The earliest textual
231 Aslan, Kilikya Demir Çağı Seramiği, 83.
232 Iacovou, “Cyprus During the Iron Age,” 798.
42
attestation of Cyprus from the 18th – 17th century B.C come from Mari, Alalakh, and Babylon which referred to the island as Alashiya.233 The name of the island is also attested as Iadnana in the Assyrian sources and Kypros in the Greek sources.234 Iadnana or Yadnana was the toponym of Cyprus in the Iron Age. Szemerenyi argues that the name came from Luwian and its origin is the word ‘Ia-wani’ from the Luwian and translated as inhabitants of Ya, the island.235
The earliest texts were about the trade relations between Anatolia and Cyprus especially regarding copper trade.236 Textual material shows that Cyprus was claimed to be conquered by the Hittite king Tudhaliya in the 14th century B.C.237 One of the tablets from the reign of Suppiluliuma II speaks from the mouth of his father Tudhaliya and says:
“I seized the king of Alasiya with his wives, his children, …I enslaved the country of Alasiya and made it tributary on the spot.”238 (KUB XII 38 ı, 3-8)
In the beginning of the 12th century B.C. Cyprus also suffered from the attacks due to the upheavals in the region. The letter of the ruler of Cyprus to the ruler of Ugarit indicates the dire situation on the island.
“My father, the enemy’s ships came here, my cities were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots are in the Land of Hatti and Land of Lukka? Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us.”239 (RS 18.147)
During the Iron Age, there are two significant Assyrian inscriptions in Cyprus dated to the 7th century B.C. The first one is the royal stele of Sargon II, erected at
233 Knapp, “Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from Third to the First Millenia BC,” 5,32.
234 Iacovou, “Cyprus During the Iron Age,” 795.
235 Szemerenyi, “The Attic ‘Ruckerwandlung’ or Atomism and Structuralism in Action,” 157.
236 Steel, “Cyprus During the Late Bronze Age,” 576.
237 Güterbock, “The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered,” 74.
238 Güterbock, “The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered,” 77.
239 Astour, “New Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit,” 255.
43
Kition. The inscription talks about seven Cypriot kings who offered gifts and their allegiance to the Assyrian king, Sargon II, and received his recognition as the rulers of their kingdoms.240
Table 5: Iron Age chronology of Cyprus241
Karageorghis
Gjerstad
Smith
Goldman
Cypro-Geometric I 1100- 950/900
Cypro-Geometric I 1050- 950
Cypro-Geometric I/II 1100- 950/900
Early Iron Age 1100- 850
Cypro-Geometric II-III 950/900- 750
Cypro-Geometric II
950- 850
Cypro-Geometric III 850- 700
Cypro-Geometric III 925/900- 800
Middle Iron Age 850-700
Cypro-Archaic I
750- 600
Cypro-Archaic I
700- 600
Cypro-Archaic I
800/ 700- 650
Cypro-Archaic II
600- 480
Cypro-Archaic II 600- 475
Cypro-Archaic II 700/650- 475
Late Iron Age 700- 520
It said; “Seven kings of the land of Ia’ a district of Iadnana, which is situated at seven days’ journey at the midst of the sea.”242 Radner argues that the stele was erected after the Assyrian military expedition when Tyre asked for help against the Cypriot kings after 708-9 B.C.243 On the other hand, Lipinski suggests that the stele was erected there because Kition depended on the ruler of Tyre and Sidon in that time so, Sargon stele is erected to pay homage for his help crushing the rebellion on
240 Yon, Kition dans les Textes, 345-354.
241 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Smith, “Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age.” Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule Tarsus III. Karageorghis, “Ancient Art from Cyprus.”
242 Stylianou, “The Age of the Kingdoms,” 382-386.
243 Radner, “The Stele of Sargon II of Assyria at Kition,” 434.
44
Cyprus.244 In the annals of Sargon II which is carved on the walls of his palace in Dur Sharrukin245, he says;
“In order to conquer the Ionians (Yamaneans) who live in the midst of the sea, who since long in the past used to kill the inhabitants of the city Tyre and of the land of Que and to interrupt commercial traffic, I attacked them at the sea with ships from the land of Hatti and destroyed them all, big and small, with my weapon. ”246
Another inscription is known as the prism of Esarhaddon that identifies the names of the ten Cypriot kingdoms with their toponyms and they all belong to the land of Iadnana or Yadnana of the Middle Sea.247 These kingdoms were named because they contributed to building the royal palace at Nineveh.248 In one of the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, he claims that “the kings who are in the midst of the sea, in their entirety, from Yadnana, the land of Yaman, as far as Tarsisi, threw themselves at my feet.”249 Though the king of Tyre, Luli escaped to Cyprus from Sennacherib, which indicates that the island was probably not directly controlled by the Assyrians.250
Novak suggests that the existence of Cypro-Cilician koine correlated with Assyrians’ designation of Cyprus as Yadnana, “the one of Adana.”251 Connections with the Phoenicians were also strong and are attested in Amathos and Palaepaphos-Skales in the tenth century.252 In Palaepaphos-Skales there are Phoenician ceramics (mostly storage jars, jugs, and pilgrim flasks) in several tombs, which might indicate that this was a trading post.253 However, there is one site, Kition, that is differentiated
244 Lipinski, Itıneraria Phoenicia Studia Phoenicia 18, 53- 54.
245 Luraghi, “Traders, Pirates, Warriors,” 31.
246 Luraghi, “Traders, Pirates, Warriors,” 31. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II, 232-233.
247 Luckenbill. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 690.
248 Lipinski, Itıneraria Phoenicia, 63.
249 Borger, Die Inschriften Asharhaddons Königs von Assyrien. Muhly, “The Origin of the Name of Ionia,” 26.
250 Reyes, “Archaic Cyprus,” 57.
251 Novak, “A Bronze and Iron Age,” 236.
252 Bikai, “Cyprus and the Phoenicians,” 204.
253 Bikai, “Cyprus and the Phoenicians,” 204.
45
among the others because of its special relation with Phoenicia, specifically Tyre. (see Levant chapter)
Due to its geographical location, the island played a pivotal role for the interregional relations in the Eastern Mediterranean especially with Anatolia, Levant, and the Aegean. Interregional trade was controlled by centralized powers (Hittites, Egypt, Mycenaeans) in the 2nd millennium trade network.254 Cyprus became one of the major players as a source of copper.255 Cyprus was a leading player in the Late Bronze Age trade networks, in which it had a significant place for the expansion of the interregional relations to the west part of the Mediterranean.256 After the destruction of centralized powers at the end of the Late Bronze Age, long distance trade was probably sustained by smaller ships with more navigable and with mercenaries who were hired by the small states.257
In the Iron Age, Cyprus was still active in the interregional trade network in the Eastern Mediterranean. Considering significant Cypriot pottery in the Iron Age assemblages of coastal Eastern Mediterranean settlements, Cyprus continued to have an important role in the Eastern Mediterranean trade relations also during the Iron Age.
It is not certain who was carrying the goods (either Phoenicians or Cypriots), but Cypriot goods are found in Cilicia and Levant. Imported Cypriot pottery is found as early as the Early Iron Age at sites in Cilicia and Levant that shows the networks between these regions was continuing uninterruptedly. The number of Cypriot goods reached its highest number in the Middle Iron Age and gradually decreased at the end of the Iron Age with the increasing Greek activities in Mediterranean.
254 Sherratts, “From Luxuries to Commodities,” 369-371.
255 Sherratts, “From Luxuries to Commodities,” 371.
256 Sheratts, “From Luxuries to Commodities,” 372.
257 Sherratts, “From Luxuries to Commodities,” 373.
46
2.5.2 Cypro-Cilician Pottery in Cyprus
Cypro-Cilician pottery is not used as a term in Cyprus rather the same assemblage is called Cypro-Geometric pottery. This assemblage was studied by Einer Gjerstad in detail during the 1940s.258 Gjerstad evaluated the pottery assemblages of several sites like Kition, Amathous, etc. such important sites are shown in Figure 5. Gjerstad divided the Cypriote pottery into groups according to their typology; the White Painted Ware I-VII, Bichrome Ware I-VII, and Black-on Red (BoR) I-V.259 He dates the beginning of the Early Geometric period around 1050 B.C. The Early Iron Age ceramic traditions of the island are influenced by Late Helladic IIIC, Syro-Palestinian and also local styles.260 Dishes with three handles, bowls, cups with a vertical handle, cylindrical and globular jars are derivatives of Late Helladic IIIC forms showing strong continuation into the Cypro-Geometric period.261 Local aspects are the bowls with a round base and horizontal handles, conical bowls with two handles, barrel-shaped jugs, and globular jugs with collar-shaped rims.262 These shapes are also the most common Cypro-Geometric pottery shapes and seen in both Cilicia and Levant. Also, there are some shapes that were influenced both from local and Late Helladic IIIC traditions like flasks. Along with the local Cypriote and Aegean impact, Levantine influence can be seen on pottery such as bowl with hemispherical strainer in the bottom and the pilgrim flask.263 Thus, Iron Age forms on the island have developed through interactions over time. These interactions
258 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
259 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 48-76.
260 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 282.
261 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 283.
262 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 283- 284.
263 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 285.
47
began at the end of the Late Bronze Age with the Proto-White Painted pottery which is a combination of Late Helladic IIIC, Syro-Palestinian, and local traditions.264
Figure 5. Map of Iron Age sites of Cyprus.
Later in the Iron Age, Levantine metal vessels influenced pottery shapes in Cyprus.265 All these different influences from different cultures and regions merging with the local traditions resulted in a new assemblage and this new hybrid tradition is referred to as Cypro-Geometric pottery.
BoR pottery is also considered to be part of Cypro-Geometric assemblage. Although its origin is still debated, BoR pottery is locally manufactured and traded in Cyprus since the 10th century B.C.266 However, there are different dates proposed for the earliest attested local BoR pottery in Cyprus. Karageorghis dated the earliest BoR sherds to the late 9th or early 8th century B.C. at Kition, the Phoenician colony on the
264 Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, 120.
265 Karageorghis, “Ancient Art from Cyprus,” 92.
266 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of Iron Age, 246.
48
island.267 Gjerstad suggested that BoR pottery is found in small quantities in the Cypro-Geometric I and II periods as an imported ware from the east but produced locally in the Cypro-Geometric III period as of the 9th century. B.C.268 He discusses that this ware originated in Syro-Palestinian region associated with the Red Slip Ware and later adopted into the Cypriote pottery repertoire.269 There is no consensus on the origin of the BoR pottery, but it is argued that it is developed from Red Slip Ware (for detail see Levant chapter). Kleiman argues that the decoration of BoR pottery is influenced by Phoenician decorative styles.270 However, band decorations and concentric circles are already seen in the earlier period in Cyprus in White Painted Ware. Recently, Nicola Schreiber evaluated BoR pottery both from Cyprus and Levant in detail and she argues that Cyprus is the origin of BoR pottery.271 She reconsiders the imported BoR pottery in Gjerstad’s publication and suggests that these ceramics are typologically Cypriote and dates their appearance to the mid of the 10th century B.C.272 While the origin of BoR is assumed to be either Cyprus or Levant, it needs to be considered that Cilicia has also locally produced BoR pottery in the Early Iron Age. Also, all these regions have red slipped or painted pottery in their Bronze Age assemblages. Thus, rather than a single origin, the appearance of BoR pottery could be argued as result of the combination of previous traditions and the interregional relations.
Regardless of origin, over time Cyprus becomes a producer and exporter of BoR to other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean like Cilicia, Levant, and Egypt,
267 Smith says that Karageorghis uses higher chronology than his previous publications. This could be result of adopting Schreiber’s dating for BoR pottery.
Smith, “Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age,” 188-9.
268 Gjerstad, The Swedish Expedition to Cyprus, 436.
269 Gjerstad, The Swedish Expedition to Cyprus, 435-438.
270 Kleiman et al., “The Date and Origin of Black-on-Red Ware,” 551.
271 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of Iron Age, 273.
272 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of Iron Age, 272.
49
especially small and medium sized jugs and juglets containing precious liquids, probably containing perfumed oils.273 BoR pottery from Megiddo was analyzed petrographically and the results show that there are several BoR workshops in Cyprus; Palaepaphos/ Kouklia and Marion274 which exported their products to the Levant.
In Summary, Cypro-Geometric pottery appeared in the 11th century B.C. both in Cyprus and Cilicia. Due to their geographical locations, Cyprus and Cilicia always had close connections collaborated by both textual and archaeological evidence. Considering the shapes, Late Helladic IIIC forms continued to be used especially in Cyprus and Cilicia but along with these common forms, there are local influences on the Cypro-Cilician assemblage especially during the Early Iron Age. Thus, there is not one specific origin of Cypro-Cilician pottery, but there were several components of it. This assemblage was formed with the several cultural elements and became significant part of Eastern Mediterranean koine during the Iron Age.
2.6 Levant
2.6.1 Political Context
In the Levant, the term Cypro-Phoenician Ware is used for the Cypro-Cilician assemblage.275 In the Levantine chronology, beginning of the Iron Age is dated to 1200 B.C.,276 which corresponds to the final decades of Late Bronze Age (LB IIb) in Cilicia and Cyprus. Levantine chronology and its correspondence with Cyprus and Cilicia is given in the Table 6.
273 Iacovou, “Cyprus During the Iron Age,” 805. Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of Iron Age, 65.
274 Kleiman et al., “The Date and Origin,” 540.
275 The term Phoenician Bichrome is also used for the same group of pottery.
276 Gilboa, “The Southern Levant During the Iron Age I Period,” 698.
50
Table 6: Iron Age chronology of Levant
Cilicia277
Cyprus278
Levant279
Early Iron Age
1100-850 B.C.
Cypro-Geometric I-II280
1050- 850 B.C.
Iron Ia
1190- 1130 B.C.
Middle Iron Age
850-700 B.C.
Cypro-Geometric III
850-700 B.C.
Iron Age Ib
1130-850 B.C.
Late Iron Age
700-520 B.C.
Cypro-Archaic I-II
700-600 B.C.
Iron Age II
850-520 B.C.
During the beginning of the Iron Age, there was no power controlling this region after the destruction of the Hittites and political instability in Egypt. While the sites in Cilicia and Cyprus encountered destructions due to upheavals or migrations (the so-called “Sea People”) at the end of the Late Bronze Age, there was no destruction in the Levantine coast.281 Thus, there is a continuation in the material culture of the Iron Age I at sites like Tyre and Akko.282 Phoenicians called themselves Can’ani, so they were the successors of Canaanites.283 They both shared the same geographical, cultural, and linguistic roots, but after 1200 B.C. Canaanites were known as the Phoenicians.284
277 Özyar et al, “A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia,” 162.
278 Gjerstad, The Swedish Expedition of Cyprus. 427.
279 Novak et al, “A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia,” 183.
280 Iron Age chronology of Levant and Cilicia corresponds to Cypro-Geometric and Archaic periods in Cyprus, so I put both of them in one chart.
281 Killebrew, “Introduction to the Levant,” 661.
282 Killebrew, “Introduction,” 661.
283 Aubet, “The Phoenicians and the West,” 9.
284 Aubet, “The Phoenicians,” 12.
51
In the 10th century B.C., Egyptian king, Sheshonq invaded some cities in the southern Levant.285 Egyptian hegemony in the Levant was sustained through the Levantine elites with Egyptian support and Egyptian tax records are one important source of evidence for it.286 On the other hand, Assyrians started to expand to the Levant in early 9th century B.C. during the reigns of Assurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III.287 Their control over the region increased during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III.288 While the cities in northern Levant were incorporated into the Assyrian empire as provinces, some were made vassals, but the city-states in Phoenicia remained independent as long as they sent tributes to the Assyrian king in return for their independence.289 For example, Assyrians did not destroy the city of Tyre in order to benefit from its trade relations.290 Thus, using Phoenicians trade relations, Assyrians had access to the goods circulating in the Mediterranean, which they carried through the Orontes River into inland Assyrian cities.291
During Iron Age II, Phoenician activities increased in the Mediterranean. They started to establish first trading posts, then colonies. It is thought that the reason behind the expanding Phoenician colonization was to satisfy the Assyrian demand in the late 8th and 7th centuries B.C.292 Phoenician ships sailed to the Dodecanese and Crete via Cyprus even all the way to the southern coast of Sardinia by late 10th century B.C.293 Thus, Cyprus became a pivotal location to sustain maritime relations for the Phoenicians and its colonies further west and for that reason Phoenicians
285 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, 89.
286 Gilboa, “The Southern Levant During the Iron Age I Period,” 703.
287 Steiner, “Introduction to the Levant During the Iron Age II Period,” 766.
288 Steiner, “Introduction to the Levant,” 766.
289 Steiner, “Introduction to the Levant,” 766.
290 Aubet, “Phoenicia During the Iron Age II Period,” 799.
291 Peckham, “Phoenicia,” 208.
292 Boardman, “Aspects of Colonization,” 36.
293 Negbi, “Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands,” 611.
52
founded colonies in several places on the island. Phoenician imports are found in the tombs at Palaepaphos already in the 11th-10th century B.C. The situation indicates that Phoenicians set up a trading post there.294 Palaepaphos/ Kouklia could be taken as the first trading post of the Phoenicians.295 Tyre’s well-known colony, Kition was founded in the middle of the 9th century B.C.296 But there is no inscription indicating political or economic control of Phoenicians in Kition before 8th century B.C.297 However, there is archaeological evidence to support colonial activities of Phoenicians at Kition. One of the reasons to call Kition a Phoenician colony is the burial architecture. In the cemetery of Kition, there are tombs with gypsum sarcophagi identified as Phoenician and dated to the 8th century B.C.298 Along with the tombs, there are funerary inscriptions in Kition written in Phoenician dated to early 10th century B.C.299 And in the settlement of Kition, there are both Phoenician imports and imitations of Phoenician pottery.300 However, Phoenician control over Kition was probably not continuous, but mostly periodic.301 It is argued that with the involvement of the Assyrians, Tyre lost direct control of Kition after the late 8th century B.C.302
Two copper bowls inscribed in Phoenician, found in Limassol are significant.303 One mentions the king of Qarthadast as the servant of Hiram, the king of Tyre in the 8th century B.C. showing Kition’s dependence to the king of Tyre.304
294 Aubet, “Phoenicia During the Iron Age II Period,” 791.
295 Aubet, “Phoenicia During,” 798.
296 Aubet, “Phoenicia During,” 799.
297 Smith, “Cyprus, The Phoenicians, and Kition,” 265.
298 Hadjisavvas, “Necropolis of Kition,” 189.
299 Lipinski, Itıneraria Phoenicia, 43.
300 Caubet, Le sanctuaire sous la colline, Kition-Bamboula VI, 130-139.
301 Smith, “Cyprus, The Phoenicians,” 264.
302 Bikai, “Cyprus,” 209.
303 Lipinski, Itıneraria Phoenicia, 46. Sznycer, “Breves remarques sur l’insripticion phenicienne de Chypre,” 5, 47- 50.
304 Bikai, “Cyprus,” 208.
53
However, after 500 B.C. the rulers of Kition call themselves kings of Kition.305 Later in the 4th century B.C. there is a minister or ambassador of Tyre in Kition, which is interpreted as Kition’s independence from the Phoenician kingdom.306
Unlike southern Levant, northern Levant (Syria) was affected from the destructions and political crisis in the 12th century B.C. Centers like Alalakh and Ugarit were destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Despite these destructions, there is a certain degree of continuity in settlement patterns and material culture.307 After the collapse of the Hittite Empire, local kingdoms appeared in the region. Arsuz stelae mentioned the land of Walastin that are dated to the 10th century B.C.308 Formerly, the name of the land was read as WaDas(a)tini or Padasatini and attested as a term for Amuq region.309 However, with the new evidence from Tell Tayinat, re-reading of the name is rendered as Walastin.310 With this new reading, the capital of this kingdom is located at Tell Tayinat.311 So, with the Arsuz stelea the borders of Walastin was extended further to northwest.312 By 11th and 10th centuries B.C. there were Luwian, Aramean, and Assyrian coalitions in the region313 and by the end of the 9th century B.C the role of the Arameans increased, and the interactions between the Assyrians and Arameans caused political instability in the region.314 In the 8th century B.C., Tiglath- Pileser III conquered the North Syrian kingdom of Unqi, annexed the northern part and created a new Assyrian province.315 Assyrians exercised more
305 Demetriou, “Phoenicians in Cyprus and Their Hellenisation the Case of Kition,” 136.
306 Bikai, “Cyprus,” 209.
307 Mazzoni, “Syria and the periodization of the Iron Age Syria,” 31.
308 Dinçol et al, “Two New Inscribed Storm-God Stelae from Arsuz,” 59.
309 Weeden, “After the Hittites: The Kingdoms of Karkamish and Palistin in Northern Syria, 11.
310 Weeden, “The Land of Walastin at Tell Tayinat”, 65.
311 Weeden, “The Land of Walistin”, 65.
312 Dinçol et al, “Two New Inscribed,” 61.
313 Mazzoni, “The Aramean States During the Iron Age II-III Periods,” 775.
314 Mazzoni, “Syria and the periodization,” 48.
315 Markoe, Phoenicians, 42.
54
direct control on the northern Levant compared to the south. However, in the port cities like, Al Mina, material culture shows that Phoenician, Greek, and Cypriot traders lived side by side indicating a diverse population.316After the 7th century B.C. Greek activities increased which can be seen in the material culture like Phoenician pottery being replaced with the Greek pottery.317
Along with Cyprus and Syria, Phoenicians also had relations with Cilicia. Rich iron sources in the Taurus attracted Phoenician interests to Cilicia.318 There are Phoenician texts like Cebelireis, Phoenician and Hieroglyphic Luwian bilingual inscriptions like Karatepe-Arslantaş and Çineköy in the region. (see Political context chapter of Cilicia). Also, in Tarsus there are seal impressions with Phoenician legends with the name of Luwian or Greek stewards.319
2.6.2 Cypro-Phoenician Pottery in Levant
Cypro-Cilician pottery is not used as a term in Levant rather the same assemblage is called Cypro-Phoenician or Phoenician Bichrome pottery. Cypro-Phoenician will be used in this section. In the course of the earlier part of the Iron Age, Late Helladic IIIC pottery is replaced with the Cypro-Phoenician pottery which has some Cypriot influence in terms of forms.320 Considering the situation in Cilicia and Cyprus at the beginning of the Iron Age (see above), a similar pattern is seen here as well. Along with Cypriot and Late Helladic IIIC influence, Cypro-Phoenician pottery derives from the earlier local Canaanite pottery.321
316 Aubet, “The Phoenicians and the West,” 63.
317 Bonatz, “Some Considerations on the Material culture of Coastal Syria in the Iron Age,” 149.
318 Lipinski, Itineraria Phoenicia, 139.
319 Lipinski, Itineraria Phoenicia, 139. Goetze, “Cuneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus,” 1- 16.
320 Gilboa, “The Southern Levant During the Iron Age I Period,” 712.
321 Gilboa, “The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery,” 5.
55
In the Iron Age Levant, Cypriote White Painted pottery plays a significant role in the ceramic assemblage.322 First appearance of White Painted pottery is found in the Strata XIII in Tyre which is dated to 1070/50 B.C.323 Bikai interprets White Painted pottery as imports in the beginning of the Iron Age and does not mention local production or imitations of it.324 Therefore, around 1070/50 B.C. or in the beginning of the Iron Age, it is known that there is local White Painted pottery in both Cilicia and Cyprus, but not in the Levant. During the Early Iron Age, Bichrome and BoR pottery also appeared.325 (see Cyprus chapter for BoR pottery)
Bichrome pottery is found very frequently and specifically called as Phoenician Bichrome in the Levant. This specific type is traded to the other parts of Eastern Mediterranean by the Levantine merchants. In general, Bichrome pottery shares the same decoration motifs and forms with White Painted and BoR pottery.
Tel Dor provide important information about the trade of the Bichrome pottery between Cyprus and Levant. Results of petrographic analysis on the Bichrome pottery (small juglets) found in Cyprus show that they were imported from Dor in the beginning of the Early Iron Age.326 Production of Bichrome ware in Dor ends at the end of the Middle Iron Age (Iron IIa).327 On the other hand, imported White Painted pottery from Cyprus started to be found in Tel Dor in the Iron Ib period (Early Iron Age/Cypro-Geometric I) and later imported BoR pottery especially open shapes increased here.328 Optical mineralogy conducted on the Phoenician Bichrome pottery from Tel Dor indicates that these vessels are produced
322 Bikai, “The Pottery of Tyre,” 57.
323 Bikai, “The Pottery of Tyre,” 66.
324 Bikai, “The Pottery of Tyre,” 57.
325 Bikai, “The Pottery of Tyre,” 57.
326 Gilboa, Barak, and Sharon, “Dor, The Carmel Coast and Early Iron Age Mediterranean Exchanges,” 94.
327 Gilboa, Barak, and Sharon, “Dor, The Carmel Coast,” 94.
328 Gilboa, Barak, and Sharon, “Dor, The Carmel Coast,” 93-94.
56
especially in two regions Tyre-Sidon and Carmel coast.329 These two regions have also abundant Cypriot pottery.330 Hence, it is proposed that the development of Bichrome pottery in the region is shared and intertwined between the Cypriot and Phoenician centers.331
Figure 6. Map of Levant with the sites mentioned in the text.
329 Gilboa and Goren, “Early Iron Age Phoenician Networks,” 86.
330 Gilboa and Goren, “Early Iron Age,” 88.
331 Gilboa and Goren, “Early Iron Age,” 90.
57
Al Bass has some urns and storage jars that are similar to Phoenician pottery morphologically but produced in Cyprus and there is also some pottery that looks like Cypriot but is produced in Al Bass.332 Imported Cypriot pottery at Al Bass shows close connections with the Amathus region.333 So, Al Bass pottery assemblage shows that both Cypriot and Levantine pottery influence and imitate each other.
Considering ceramic assemblage of the Northern Levant settlements, they have differences from the southern part. The exception is Al Mina because of the intensity of Greek pottery there. Scholars argue that it was either a Greek colony, or at least a trade post.334 Small amount of BoR pottery is also found at Al Mina.335 There are also some vessels that show close similarities with Tarsus and could be imported from there.336 Cypro-Phoenician pottery came mostly from the levels VIII and VII.337 Level VIII pottery changed from the previous level VII and it contained many Cypriot types which are either imports or local imitations.338 On the other hand, levels between III and VIII had mostly Syrian and Phoenician pottery and among them majority had Phoenician origin.339 Lehmann suggests that the pottery of Al Mina resembles Tyrian pottery in shape and decoration.340 Greek pottery from 8th century B.C. indicate that possibly some Greeks lived at Al Mina who were probably from the Euboean regions.341 Excavators claims that Tell Afis had imported White Painted pottery from Tarsus dated to 7th century B.C. and considering the connection
332 Aubet and Nunez, “Cypriote Imports from the Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre,” 86.
333 Calvo, “Tyre-Al Bass. Potters and Cemeteries,” 289.
334 Boardman, “Al Mina and History,” 169.
335 Du Plat, “The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina,” 75.
336 Du Plat, “The Cypriot and Syrian,” 67- 68.
337 Du Plat, “The Cypriot and Syrian,” 67. Wooley, “Excavation History of Al Mina,”17.
338 Wooley, “Excavations at Al Mina,” 16.
339 Lehmann, “Al Mina and the East,” 21.
340 Lehmann, “Al Mina and the East,” 24.
341 Boardman, “Tarsus, Al Mina and Greek Chronology,” 12.
58
between Tarsus and Tell Afis, Cypro-Phoenician pottery is also traded via the land route. 342 In Tell Tayinat, most of the Cypro-Phoenician pottery (less than 200 in total) is dated between 850-750 B.C.343 Almost all of the Cypro-Phoenician pottery are identified as imported and very few are possibly local differentiated by their surface treatments.344 Osborne and Karacic conducted provenance analyses on the Middle Iron Age (850- 600 B.C.) Cypro-Phoenician pottery (only White Painted and Bichrome) from Tell Tayinat, Tell Judeidah, and Chatal Höyük.345 The results indicate that there are two groups; one is imported group which exists in all three sites, and it is produced in Cyprus.346 The second group is local which only exists at Tell Tayinat. Similar to Cilicia, Cypriote imports decreased after the Middle Iron Age here as well.347 Chatal Höyük is another site in the Northern Levant. Among the Cypro-Phoenician types, Bichrome pottery is the most attested type in Chatal Höyük. Painted Monochrome348 and Bichrome pottery are found in the phase O assemblage of the site.349 At Chatal Höyük, three types of Bichrome pottery are identified by Pucci; local Bichrome pottery, which is an imitation of Southern Levant Bichrome pottery with no surface treatment (there is no slip or burnishing but only paint), imported Cypriot Bichrome (III- IV) and fine burnished Bichrome pottery.350 Most of the imported pottery are from Cyprus which are mostly Bichrome bowls and BoR juglets.351 Although Northern Levant has Cypro-Phoenician pottery, it is seen that
342 Oggiano, “The Pottery of Iron Age II form Tell Afis,” 187.
343 Osborne, Spatial Analysis and Political Authority in the Iron Age Kingdom of Patina, 112.
344 Osborne, Spatial Analysis, 119.
345 Karacic and Osborne, “Eastern Mediterranean Economic Exchange,” 2.
346 Karacic and Osborne, “Eastern Mediterranean Economic Exchange,” 11.
347 Swift, Amuq K to O pottery, 152.
348 I think this corresponds to Buff Painted in Cypro-Cilician painted pottery types.
349 Pucci, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch III, 191.
350 Pucci, Excavations in the Plain, 191.
351 Pucci, Excavations in the Plain, 191.The results of provenance analysis conducted by Karacic and Osborne indicate that there is no local painted pottery in the site. Karacic and Osborne, Eastern Mediterranean Economic Exchange.
59
local production is only attested in few sites like Tell Tayinat. Also, Cypro-Phoenician pottery does not play important role as much as in the southern part. This situation could be the result of the Assyrian impact.
The Levantine region plays an important role in the discussions regarding the origins of BoR which became popular and widely distributed in the 10th century B.C in the Eastern Mediterranean.352 There are several possible sources of Red Slip Ware, like Syria and Phoenicia. However, there are also suggestions that the ware could have developed from Late Bronze Age traditions. Gjerstad proposed that the origin of BoR pottery is Syria because of Red Slipped pottery of Late Bronze Age and he argued that BoR was not associated with Phoenicia.353 In a similar vein, Pucci and Soldi argue continuation of this surface treatment and they propose that it was never abandoned in Cilicia and Amuq and it continued to be used in Iron Age.354 Considering Red Slip Ware in Tarsus, Hanfman argues that it is mostly founded in Middle Iron Age and Assyrian period and he argues that Red Slip technique of BoR pottery derives from the Late Bronze Age Red Slip pottery tradition.355
On the other hand, Gates discusses that Red Slip of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age are different. Red Slip appeared in Amuq and Cilicia in transition from Early to Middle Iron Age that do not have any connections with the Late Bronze Age Hittite pottery.356 Therefore, although the Hittites had a whole repertoire of Burnished Red Slip pottery, they were not related with the Iron Age examples.357 Du Plat argues that Red Slip originated from Levantine coast and they stopped to import Red Slip in
352 Schreiber, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of Iron Age, 83.
353 Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 438.
354 Pucci and Soldi, “Going Red in the Iron Age II,” 355.
355 Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, 61.
356 Gates, “Potters and Consumers in Cilicia and the Amuq,” 74.
357 Gates, “Potters and Consumers,” 73.
60
Northern Levant after the Assyrian conquest.358 Lehmann argues that Red Slip is developed independently in each region which is the reason of the differences of the shapes and surface treatments.359 So, there are still no consensus on the origin of BoR pottery and whether it is developed from Late Bronze or Iron Age Red Slip pottery tradition. However, somehow all regions have connections with Red Slip pottery tradition and because there are continuous interregional relations and these relations affect the pottery traditions, it is difficult to determine the origin of BoR pottery.
In summary, Phoenicians played a crucial role in shaping Cypro-Phoenician assemblage in the Eastern Mediterranean. Their intense maritime activities with Cilicia and Cyprus provide continuous relations and establish the basis of the Eastern Mediterranean koine. Although Cyprus is always in contact with Cilicia, it seems that Phoenicians were more active in the Mediterranean and had intensive relations with both Cyprus and with Cilicia through trade activities. It is seen that Bichrome pottery is preferred more than White Painted and BoR pottery in Levant. While White Painted is mostly found as import, BoR and Bichrome pottery are mostly locally produced. So, through the interactions between Cyprus, Cilicia, and the Levant a koine reflecting similar tastes in table ware has developed in the Eastern Mediterranean.
2.7 Conclusion
Cypro-Cilician pottery appeared in the 11th century B.C. in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cypro-Cilician pottery developed from a combination of local and Late Helladic IIIC pottery. It started to develop in the Early Iron Age but increased to
358 Du Plat, “The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina,” 85.
359 Lehmann, “Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300,” 13.
61
its highest levels in the Middle Iron Age, and in this period both local and imported Cypro-Cilician pottery are found in most of the sites in the Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, in this period several kilns are found that shed light on the local production of Cypro-Cilician pottery especially in Cilicia. In the Late Iron Age, the number of Cypro-Cilician pottery decreased with the impact of first Assyrian territorial expansion and then especially with increasing Greek mercantile activity in the region.
As mentioned above, Cypro-Cilician pottery appeared around the same time in all three regions. Textual and material evidence show that Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant have connections with each other. At the end of the Bronze Age, these three regions have Late Helladic IIIC pottery in their assemblages. This shared pottery tradition provides a common background for the development of Cypro-Cilician pottery. The origin of BoR pottery still remains a challenge. It is possible that it developed from the Red Slip tradition of southern Levant but seems to have developed and spread to the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean from Cyprus. However, reassessment of Gjerstad’s dating indicates that in Cyprus as well BoR is attested early. One also needs to keep in mind that at Tarsus as well there is possible early examples of local BoR production. The discussion above shows that Cypro-Cilician pottery arose due to close relations of these regions in the Eastern Mediterranean, each adding something to the formation of Cypro-Cilician assemblage and hence, facilitating the establishment of a koine in the Iron Age.
62
CHAPTER 3
PETROGRAPHIC DISCUSSION
This chapter focuses on the petrographic analysis. Petrographic studies are significant in terms of understanding pottery production and technology. Also, it provides information about provenance and trade relations through investigating the minerals and tempers in the clay and pottery samples. Thus, petrographic analysis conducted on the Iron Age ceramic samples of Tarsus-Gözlükule will give us information about the clay structure of Cypro-Cilician pottery. In the first part, macroscopic analysis of the selected samples will be evaluated, which includes macroscopic aspects, changes and continuities of decoration, surface treatment, and overall shape. Then, the results of petrographic analysis will be presented. After both macroscopic and microscopic analysis, development of the Cypro-Cilician pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule will be discussed.
3.1 Macroscopic Analysis
Samples were examined macroscopically before they were cut for thin section analysis. Hanfmann’s categorization of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery was taken into account here.360 So, they are categorized as Buff Painted, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red pottery. General characteristics of the selected samples are listed in the Table 7 and their drawings are presented in Appendix B and the detail descriptions of the samples are listed in Appendix B.
360 Hanfmann’s Cilician White Painted and Buff Painted categories are combined here under Buff Painted because the local White Painted pottery is actually White slipped, and its color is generally whitish or light cream.
63
3.1.1. Buff Painted Pottery
Seven pieces of Buff Painted pottery are examined in this study. Five of them (#1, 3, 9, 17, 18) are rims and two of them are body fragments (#6 and #16). Buff Painted Pottery is defined by its light cream to buff color in general. It is decorated with brown or black paint.
#1 is a rim and a wall of a standard cup from the Early Iron Age. Its rim is straight, and the wall makes a slight curve. It has light buff clay without a gray core. There are one dark brown band on the exterior of the rim and two bands are on the interior. It is wet-smoothed and self-slipped. It has a medium fabric. This sample looks local because it has medium coarse fabric with a gritty surface and inclusions are seen on the exterior. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B1.
#3 is a rim and upper part of a standard bowl from the Early Iron Age. It has a thickened wide rim. Clay is buff with a gray core. There is dark brown paint on the rim and a band just below the rim. On the exterior, there are one large dark brown band and a series of thin bands. It is self-slipped and smoothed on the outside. It has a medium to fine fabric. Inclusions are visible on the surface. It looks local because of the gray core, fabric, and the quality of the surface treatment. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B3.
#9 is possibly a rim of a standard cup from the Middle Iron Age. It has a ledge rim. It has buff clay with a gray core. There is a thick brown band on the rim and on the exterior and in between there are several bands. Outside is self-slipped and smoothed. Some parts have faint paint which has not preserved well. There is no interior surface treatment. It has a medium fabric. Inclusions are seen on the exterior. This sample looks local because of the gray core, medium fabric, and the quality of its surface treatment. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B9.
64
#20 is a rim of a standard cup dated to the Late Iron Age. Its rim is slightly everted. Clay is buff with a slightly gray core. Exterior has an orangish buff color. There are two brown bands on the upper part of the wall. There is a thick red paint on the handle and a curving brown line above the handle. Its fabric is medium to fine. It is buff slipped and smoothed. This sample looks local because it has gray core, medium fabric, and smoothed exterior. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B20.
#18 is a bottle or flask neck from the Late Iron Age. It has a flaring rim. Its clay and surface are buff and there is no gray core. There is a brown band on the rim and wavy line on the lower part. Exterior is buff slipped and smoothed but inside is not treated. It has a medium fabric. This sample looks local because it has medium fabric, and its exterior is smoothed and gritty. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B18.
#6 and #16 are body pieces. #6 looks like a fragment from a juglet but there is no rim to identify its form. It is from the Early Iron Age and has a pinkish buff clay with no gray core and a buff surface. There are brown concentric circles and bands on the exterior. The exterior is self-slipped and burnished but there is no treatment on the interior. This sample is fine ware, there is no gray core and visible inclusions on the surface. Also, it is burnished, and its surface treatment is well applied. Thus, macroscopically this sample looks imported. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B6.
#16 is a Middle Iron Age sample and formed by two body fragments. They have whitish clay and there is no gray core. There are dark brown bands and concentric circles on the exterior. Interior is white and exterior is buff slipped and burnished. This sample has also very fine fabric. Its clay color is different from the
65
majority of the samples. This sample looks imported because of its clay color, well applied slip, absence of gray core and the quality of its fabric. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B16.
3.1.2. Black on Red Pottery
There are seven pieces of Black on Red pottery among the samples. Five of them are rims (# 2, 4, 13, 14, 19) and two of them (#8 and #7) are body sherds.
#2 is a standard bowl with a simple rim from the transitional period from the Early Iron Age to the Middle Iron Age. It has reddish buff clay with a gray core. There is one brown band on the interior and one on the exterior. It is red slipped and burnished. It has a medium to fine clay. This sample looks local because of the gray core, medium fabric, and its exterior surface treatment. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B2.
#4 is also a standard bowl with a simple rim from the Early Iron Age. Its clay is buff with a gray core. There are two dark brown bands on the outside. It is red slipped and smoothed. It has a medium to fine clay. It is identified as local because of the gray core, its fabric, and the surface treatment. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B4.
#13 is a Middle Iron Age standard bowl with a simple slightly incurving rim. The clay is buff and there is no gray core. There are two black bands on the exterior. There is one black band on the rim and one right below the rim. It is orangish red slipped and lightly burnished. It has a medium fabric. It looks local because of the quality of the ware and the surface treatment. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B13.
66
#14 is a Middle Iron Age bowl with a slightly inverted, simple rim. The fabric is buff and there is no gray core. There are several black bands on the interior but only one thick band just below the rim on the exterior. It is red slipped and burnished. Exterior is highly worn out, but the interior slip is better preserved. It has a fine fabric. Also, the slip is burnished to a lustrous red. It looks imported because it has a fine fabric and burnished surface. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B14.
#19 is a Late Iron Age standard bowl. It has a slightly incurving, simple rim. The fabric is buff with a slight gray core. There are reddish brown bands on the inside and a wide reddish- brown band on the outside. Exterior is red slipped and burnished. It has a medium to fine fabric. The surface treatment of the sample looks similar to the imported pottery, but its fabric looks local. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B19.
#7 and #8 are body sherds. #8 is an Early Iron Age sample. It has buff and fine fabric and there is a slight gray core. Exterior is red slipped, decorated with black bands, and burnished. It looks imported because of its fabric and also more reddish and lustrous slip. This sample is catalogued in Appendix B, Figure B8. #7 is from the Middle Iron Age. It has a light red fabric and there is no gray core. It is self-slipped, burnished and decorated with brown concentric circles. It has a fine fabric. Because of its different clay color and fine fabric, it is identified as an import. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B7.
3.1.3. Bichrome Pottery
There are four samples of Bichrome Pottery which are all diagnostic (#10, 11, 12).
67
#10 is a neck of a crater from the Middle Iron Age. It has a ledge rim with a straight wall. It has a pinkish buff clay and is white slipped. There is a slight gray core. There are brown bands on the rim and below the rim on the interior and a red band on the exterior between two brown bands. On the lower part there are brown concentric circles. While the exterior is slightly smoothed, inside is not. It has a medium fabric. It looks local because of its gritty surface, visible inclusions on the surface, medium fabric, and gray core. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B10.
#11 is a rim of a standard bowl from the Middle Iron Age. Its clay is buff with a slightly gray core. There are two bands on the interior part of the rim which are brown and light red. The surface is self-slipped and smoothed. It has a medium to fine fabric. This sample looks local because of the quality of its fabric and slip, the surface treatment, and the gray core. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B11.
#12 is a rim and a flaring neck of a jar from the Middle Iron Age. The rim is everted and thickened outside. Its fabric is pinkish buff and there is no gray core. There are brown bands both on the exterior and interior. Also, there is a wide red band on the neck. It is buff slipped and lightly burnished. It has a medium to fine fabric. It looks local because of its fabric and surface treatment. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B12.
3.1.4. Plain/Kitchen Ware
Four Kitchen Ware samples are evaluated: #5, 15, 20, and 21. All Kitchen Ware samples are assumed as local. (see Methodology in Chapter 1 p.5)
68
#5 is an Early Iron Age cooking pot with a thickened rim and a vertical handle. The fabric is pinkish buff and there is no gray core. Wheel marks can be seen on the exterior surface. Exterior is self-slipped and smoothed. Inside is not treated. It has a coarse fabric. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B5.
#21 is a Late Iron Age cooking pot with a constricted neck and bulging shoulder. It has a simple rim with vertical handles. Its clay is red and there is no gray core. Interior has no surface treatment, but the exterior is self-slipped and roughly burnished. It has a coarse fabric. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B21.
#15 and #20 are handles attached to the shoulder but there is no rim, so their forms are not certain. #16 is from the Middle Iron Age and has brown clay without a gray core. Interior has a light brown color, and the exterior is reddish brown. While the outside surface has self-slipped and lightly smoothed, there is no interior surface treatment. Its fabric is coarse. This sample is catalogued in Appendix B, Figure B15. #20 is a Middle Iron Age sample. It has brown clay with a dark gray core. It is self-slipped and roughly smoothed on the outside but there is no treatment inside. It has a coarse fabric. This sample is shown in Appendix B, Figure B20.
3.1.5 Summary of macroscopic observation
Some macroscopic aspects like fabric and surface treatment can give us an idea about whether the sample is locally made or imported. Most of the local samples have medium fabric. Some of them have a gray core. Hanfmann argues that gray core is found in the local Tarsian pottery361. Also, their surface treatment is not well applied, they are generally smoothed, the surface is gritty, and inclusions are seen on the surface. Some of the samples have a very fine fabric. These samples do not resemble
361 Goldman, Excavations of Gözlü Kule, 24.
69
the previous group so identified as imported. Few samples have slightly a gray core, but generally none. While all the local pottery has buff clay color, some of the imported samples notably have different fabric colors like whitish and red (the latter is especially for BoR). The surface treatment of the presumably imported pottery is well applied. With regard to BoR pottery the color of the red slip on the local pottery is generally brownish red, not lustrous, and in some examples gritty. On the other hand, the slip of imported BoR pottery is finer, more reddish, and lustrously burnished.
3.2 Petrography Results
Twenty-one selected thin section samples of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery from Tarsus-Gözlükule are examined under microscope to understand the mineralogical characteristics of the clays. As a result of petrographic analysis, one main fabric group (called Fabric 1) can be determined among the selected twenty-one samples. While eleven samples belong to this Fabric 1, one sample is categorized as a subgroup of the same fabric. There are seven loners. Samples #8, #12, #15, #17, #20, and #21 are singletons, but are considered to be local fabrics and samples #6 and #14 are deemed to be imported pieces. Also, two samples, #8 and #16 have very fine clay with no identifiable inclusions, so they could not be categorized under a fabric group. The result of the petrographic analysis is given in detail Appendix C.
3.2.1. Fabric 1
A great majority of the samples are from Fabric 1; namely samples #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #9, #10, #11, #13, #18, and #19. It is a calcareous fabric. The characteristic
70
Table 7: List of the selected samples
362 This sample is from transitional context from the Early Iron Age to the Middle Iron Age
Sample #
Type
Form
Fabric
Clay
Gray Core
Surface Treatment
Early Iron Age
1
Buff
Standard cup
Fabric 1
Local
Light Buff
No
Self-slipped
Wet smoothed
2362
BoR
Standard bowl
Fabric 1
Local
Reddish Buff
Yes
Slipped
Smoothed
3
Buff
Standard bowl
Fabric 1
Local
Buff
Yes
Self-slipped
Smoothed
4
BoR
Standard bowl
Subgroup1
Local
Buff
Yes
Slipped
Smoothed
5
Kitchen ware
Body sherd
Fabric 1
Local
Buff to pinkish
No
Self-slipped
Smoothed
6
Buff
Body sherd
Fabric 8
Imported
Pinkish buff
No
Self-slipped
Burnished
7
BoR
Body sherd
Fabric 2
Imported
Light Red
No
Self-slipped
Burnished Middle Iron Age
8
BoR
Body sherd
not identified
Imported
Buff
Slightly seen
Slipped
Burnished
9
Buff
Standard cup
Fabric 1
Local
Buff
Yes
Self-slipped
Smoothed
10
Bichrome
Krater
Fabric 1
Local
Pinkish buff
Slightly seen
Slipped
Burnished
11
Bichrome
Standard bowl
Fabric 1
Local
Buff
Slightly seen
Self-slipped
Smoothed
12
Bichrome
Jug
Fabric 3
Local
Pinkish buff
No
Self-slipped
lightly burnished
13
BoR
Standard bowl
Fabric 1
Local
Buff
No
Slipped
lightly burnished
14
BoR
Bowl
Fabric 9
Imported
Buff
No
Slipped
Burnished
15
Kitchen ware
Body sherd
Fabric 4
Local
Brown
No
Self-slipped
roughly smoothed
16
Buff
Body sherd
not identified
Imported
Whitish
No
Self-slipped
Burnished
17
Kitchen ware
Body sherd
Fabric 6
Local
brown
Yes
Self-slipped
Smoothed Late Iron Age
18
Buff
Flask
Fabric 1
Local
Buff
No
Slipped
Smoothed
19
BoR
Standard bowl
Fabric 1
Local
Buff
Thin
Slipped
Burnished
20
Buff
Standard cup
Fabric 5
Local
Buff
Slightly seen
Slipped
roughly smoothed
21
Kitchen ware
Jug
Fabric 7
Local
Red
No
Self-slipped
roughly burnished
71
aspect of the Fabric 1 is dominant carbonates and quartz. It also contains feldspar, calcite, serpentinite, mica-schist, and very few basalts. These inclusions are common for almost all the samples, but the ratio changes. There is one subgroup of Fabric 1, which shares common characteristic inclusions of the Fabric 1, but with some differences. Samples #1, #3, #5, (Early Iron Age), sample #2 (Transitional period from the Early to Middle Iron Age) #9, #10, #11, #13, (Middle Iron Age) #18, and #19 (Late Iron Age) form the main group of Fabric 1. Samples #1, #3, #9, and #18 are Buff Painted (Figures B1, B3, B9 and B18), #2, #13, and #19 are BoR (Figures B2, B13, and B19), samples #10 and #11 are Bichrome (Figures B10 and B11) and sample #5 is a Kitchen Ware (Figure B5). Thus, all types of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery are represented in Fabric 1. Samples #9 and #13 were found in the oven area which shows that these ceramics were produced locally in Tarsus-Gözlükule during the Middle Iron Age. Also, the presence of a cooking pot further reinforces the local aspect of the fabric because they are expected to be produced locally. The main minerals are quartz, carbonate, calcite, feldspar, and serpentinite. Generally, the inclusion sizes are medium to coarse with samples #1, #18, and #19 are better levigated than the rest.
3.2.2. Subgroup 1
Sample #4 is an Early Iron Age BoR bowl (Figure B4). Along with the characteristic minerals of Fabric 1, this subgroup is identified as having more mica than the main group. It also contains a few possible clay pellets as temper indicating use of a different recipe.
Singletons:
72
3.2.3. Fabric 2
This is a fine, red fabric that has one sample #7. (Figure B7). It is from Early Iron Age. This fabric does not contain a lot of inclusions but there are still some identifiable grains, which are carbonate, quartz, and microfossils. Also, when investigated macroscopically this piece does not conform to the local ceramic profile. Its clay is very fine without gray core and fire to a red color unlike in Fabric 1. Moreover, this sample is slipped and burnished while most of Fabric 1 samples are slipped and smoothed. Therefore, it is concluded that this is imported.
3.2.4. Fabric 3
Fabric 3 is represented by sample #12. It is a Middle Iron Age Bichrome jug (Figure B12). It has dominant carbonate and quartz along with feldspar and mica-schists but does not include any calcite. There are also decomposed carbonates which are limestone that disappeared during the firing process because of the heat. This sample is macroscopically similar to local pottery characteristics. Petrographically, it resembles Fabric 1 with having the same dominant minerals as carbonates and quartz. However, the ratio of other minerals like feldspar, mica-schist, and serpentinite is less than the Fabric 1. Thus, in spite of the differences in the ratio of inclusions, it could be argued that the clay of this sample is obtained locally.
3.2.5. Fabric 4
Fabric 4 contains one specimen, #15 (Figure B15). It comes from the oven area and hence dated to the Middle Iron Age. This sample has dominant carbonates and calcite, but it also contains a lot of microfossils. It has different types of microfossils and it is possible that they are added as temper. There are some opaque minerals with
73
high angularity indicating they were added as temper as well. Also, there are decomposed carbonates. This sample is from a Kitchen Ware and shells and limestones were probably used as temper to help against thermal shock. Because this is a Kitchen Ware and is found in the oven area, it is probably local, but its petrographic aspects distinguish it from Fabric 1. It is possible a different clay source from the region was used Shell Tempered Cooking Ware has been in use since the Late Bronze Age. So, this sample might show continuity of this tradition into the Iron Age.363
3.2.6. Fabric 5
Fabric 5 is represented by Sample #20, which is a Late Iron Age Buff Painted standard cup (Figure B17). It has a micaceous fabric. Its characteristic aspects are frequent mica-schist along with carbonates. Quartz, and other rock fragments exist, but are represented in lesser amounts than attested in local fabrics. There are few clay pellets that are ceramic pieces added later to the clay. Macroscopically, it is similar to the local pottery hence, the clay of this fabric may have come from the region.
3.2.7. Fabric 6
Another group is formed by sample #20, which is a Middle Iron Age Kitchen Ware (Figure B20). Quartz is the dominant mineral and there are frequent feldspar and carbonates. The difference from Fabric 1 is that sample #20 includes more feldspar. Angularity of some minerals like feldspar and quartz implies that might have been added as temper. Furthermore, there are some microfossils in it that also could have
363 Ünlü, “Tarsus-Gözlükule Höyüğü Geç Tunç IIB Katmanında Rastlanan Seramik Devamlılıkları,” 6. Özyar, Ünlü and Pilavcı, “Recent Fieldwork at Tarsus-Gözlükule: The Late Bronze Age Levels,” 67.
74
been added as temper. So, sample #20 may indicate that there could be some experimentation with the main recipe within Fabric 1.
3.2.8. Fabric 7
Fabric 7 is represented by a Late Iron Age sample #21 (Figure B21). It contains dominant calcite and quartz along with some carbonates. Although it contains similar minerals with Fabric 1, the fabric is red because of the hematite in the clay. It has more voids than the other samples, especially the density of planar voids is remarkable. These voids could be formed with the disappearance of the organic material during the firing process. This sample is a Late Iron Age Kitchen Ware and hence, it may have been tempered with organic material to prevent the thermal shock and increase plasticity.
3.2.9. Fabric 8
Fabric 8 is represented by sample #6. It is a Buff Painted juglet dated to Early Iron Age (Figure B6). It has medium to fine silty clay. It contains dominant quartz and serpentinite along with few carbonates, silica, and olivine as inclusions. Both petrographically and macroscopically it does not conform to local pottery characteristics.
3.2.10. Fabric 9
Fabric 9 contains Sample #14 which is a Middle Iron Age BoR bowl (Figure B14). Characteristic features of its clay are dominant carbonates along with few quartz and serpentinite. This sample as well does not conform to local pottery characteristics both petrographically and macroscopically.
75
Samples #8 and #16 (Figures B8 and B16): These are not included in any fabric group because these two samples have very fine clay and therefore, they do not have many inclusions to identify them. Although petrographically they cannot be classified, macroscopic observations indicate that these two samples come from imported vessels.
3.3 Discussion
Results of the petrography show that there is a well-established local production technology in Tarsus-Gözlükule during the Iron Age. Single main clay source is used for most of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery and some cooking pots, which contains dominantly igneous rocks like quartz, feldspar etc. and carbonates. We also see some variations on this fabric probably due to experimentation on the part of the potters to adjust the recipe for different needs.
To contextualize the petrographic results, the geological aspects of the region should be considered. Regarding the location of Cilicia there are several geological formations in the region. Taurus Mountains are one of the most important geological formations in Cilicia which are also the sources of several rocks and minerals. Tarsus is at the foothills of the Taurus Mountains and on the west part of the Cilicia plain which is formed by the alluvial deposits of the Berdan River which brings much geological debris from the Bolkar Mountains so, the river played a major role for the presence of igneous and metamorphic rocks in the area. 364 Tarsus is on the alluvial plain which is formed in the Quaternary and there are neo-autochthonous formations.365 These formations are travertines, caliches, and alluvial deposits366
364 Öner, “Tarsus Ovasının Jeomorfolojik Gelişimi ve Gözlükule Höyüğü,” 83.
365 Öner, “Tarsus Ovasının,” 88.
366 Bolat, “İçel İli,” 15. Şen, “Adana Bölgesinin,” 9-10.
76
which are the sources for the sedimentary rocks like limestone, quartz, micas, and microfossils.367 Bolkar Mountains have ophiolite sources especially on the high places368 which are the sources of igneous rocks. Especially Aladağ and Bozkır Nappes are the possible sources for the ultramafic and mafic rocks.369 Tarsus-Gözlükule is on the alluvial plain and by the Berdan River, so sedimentary rocks are already found in the region and igneous and metamorphic rocks are possibly carried down by the river. Ethnographic studies show that clay sources used for pottery production are generally located close to the settlement, therefore mineralogical characteristics of the clay source is expected to be similar with the region’s geological formations.370
Ceramic petrology shows that most of the samples belong to Fabric 1 and its subgroups. Fabric 1 is continued to be used until the end of Iron Age which shows long continuity in the local production traditions. Subgroup of this fabric indicate that there are slight differences applied to the main recipe. Considering the minerals in the local fabrics, there are igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic minerals, all of which could have provided by the Berdan river.
There is a former study on Iron Age pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule by Prof. Norton who conducted petrographic and X-Ray analyses on the samples. He took samples from the modern potter’s clay from Tarsus and some Cypro-Cilician pottery and Kitchen ware samples from Tarsus-Gözlükule. In this study most of the Cypro-Cilician pottery was identified as Tarsian’ but there was one Cypriote sample.371 His study shows similar results with the recent analysis. He identifies inclusions of
367 Bolat, “İçel İli,” 15. Şen, “Adana Bölgesinin,” 10.
368 Öner, “Tarsus Ovasının,” 83.
369 Bolat, “İçel İli,” 11. Şen, “Adana Bölgesinin,” 4.
370 Arnold, Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, 35-50.
371 Goldman, Excavations of Tarsus, 401.
77
Tarsian pottery mainly as quartz, calcite, and feldspar.372 Conducted XRF analysis shows that additionally there are albite, hematite, and limonite in the clay.373 So, these results are consistent with the identified characteristics of Cypro-Cilician pottery in this study.
This diachronic study also sheds light to the continuities and changes in the repertoire of pottery consumed at Tarsus-Gözlükule. During the Early Iron Age, most of the samples belong to local Fabric 1. Three imported samples are identified all belonging to different fabric groups. It is clear that Early Iron Age local pottery was made using similar techniques. All local BoR samples are slipped while the Buff Painted samples are all self-slipped. All local samples are smoothed. Early Iron Age samples are also important in order to understand the appearance of the Cypro-Cilician pottery at Tarsus-Gözlükule. The earliest levels of the Early Iron Age are attested approximately around +15.50 m. and both local and imported Cypro-Cilician pottery started to be found in these earliest levels. It is also significant that in the Early Iron Age and the layers between them, there are locally produced BoR pottery (samples #2 and #4). These samples are both found in the Unit J, +14.60 and + 15.10 m respectively, and especially sample #4 is found in one of the lower phases of the Iron Age. Thus, the presence of these samples is important in terms of the origin debate of BoR pottery. (see Chapter 2) Cilicia has locally produced BoR pottery in the early levels of the Iron Age, as well as Cyprus and Levant. Thus, this specific type of pottery may have appeared around the same time in the Eastern Mediterranean and developed with the interaction from these three different regions.
372 Goldman, Excavations of Tarsus, 402.
373 Goldman, Excavations of Tarsus, 403.
78
While there is only one local fabric in the Early Iron Age, it is observed that the diversity of the local fabrics increased in the Middle Iron Age. There are three different local fabrics and three imported fabric groups (one is not identifiable petrographically) among the samples. Samples of Fabric 1 (#9, 10, 11, and 13) are similar to the Early Iron Age samples in terms of their fabric and the quality of the surface treatment. However, while all the Early Iron Age samples were smoothed, in the Middle Iron Age burnished surfaces are encountered more frequently among the local samples.
There are certain changes observed within Fabric 1 during the Late Iron Age. Firstly, the clay starts to be better levigated. Surface treatment also changes where even locally produced samples from the Late Iron Age are slipped with a good quality slip while the earlier samples are mostly self-slipped. Both burnishing and smoothing are encountered, but in this period they both have better quality. Also, in this period the walls of the pottery became thinner.374 This could be interpreted as an attempt to improve the appearance of the ceramics during the Late Iron Age. Also, the gray core disappears in Late Iron Age samples. Gray core can be seen in almost all of the local Early Iron Age samples and some of the local Middle Iron Age pottery. This indicates that the kiln conditions and firing techniques have improved over time resulting in better fired ceramics. These changes result in finer and better quality Cypro-Cilician painted pottery during the Late Iron Age than the earlier examples. This could be as a result of increasing imports of fine pottery from the Aegean creating demand for finer tableware on the site.
374 Goldman, Excavations of Tarsus, 135, 146.
79
In the production of the local Cypro-Cilician pottery, one specific clay is dominantly used since the beginning of the Iron Age. But the presence of other local fabrics (like Fabrics 3 and 5) shows that there are other clay sources that are used in the local production of the Cypro-Cilician pottery. While one fabric type predominates among the Cypro-Cilician pottery samples, the differences between the fabrics of the Kitchen Wares draw attention. Among the samples there are four Kitchen Wares, and all have different fabrics. Tarsian potters did not use one specific recipe in the production of Kitchen ware, but they changed the recipe according to the vessel type.
Regarding imported pottery along with ceramic petrology, macroscopic aspects also help us in their identification. These imported ceramics give us information about the regional and interregional relations of Tarsus-Gözlükule. Fabric 2 (#7) has different characteristics from local fabrics with its fine red fabric which has mostly quartz and carbonates. Macroscopic aspects of sample #7 also indicate that it is imported with its burnished surface and very fine appearance. Also, samples #6, #8, #14, and #16 have different fabric characteristics both macroscopically and petrographically. These fabrics are not similar with the identified local fabric characteristics. Thus, it could be argued that these ceramics were probably imported from elsewhere. Samples #6, #7, #8, and #16 petrographically identified as from Paphos.375 On the other hand, samples #12, #17, #15, #20, and #21 resemble local fabric petrographically, but still with fundamental differences. Therefore, it could be argued that these ceramics were made in the region. They could be a result of regional trade of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery
375 Paula Waiman-Barak personal communication. I would like to thank Paula Waiman-Barak for sharing information with me.
80
within Cilicia. However, in order to understand these results better more petrographic analyses are needed from the region.
3.4 Conclusion
Petrographic studies are useful to understand pottery production and technology. In this diachronic study, we can observe how Cypro-Cilician pottery developed in Tarsus-Gözlükule and what the changes and continuities are during the Iron Age. Petrographic analysis indicates that there is one main local fabric (Fabric 1) used in the production of Cypro-Cilician pottery. This is a calcareous fabric with quartz and carbonate inclusions. The paste of Fabric 1 conforms well with the geographic characteristics of the region. Fabric 1 continues to be used until the end of the Iron Age, but with improvements in the production technology in the Late Iron Age. While the Early Iron Age samples mostly have medium fabric with gray core, are self-slipped and smoothed. In the Late Iron Age, they are better levigated resulting in a finer fabric and are better slipped and burnished. Also, they do not have a gray core indicating better firing conditions. Except the Fabric 1, there are other local fabrics (Fabric 3, 4, 5, and 6) which are used in the production of both Kitchen Wares and Cypro-Cilician pottery. These different local fabrics show the presence of different clay sources, paste recipes, and production techniques at the site.
Along with local fabric, imported samples are also identified. These samples indicate both intra- and interregional relations. It would be useful for future study to include XRF and NAA analysis to enhance and fine tune these results.
In conclusion, Tarsian potters continued to use the same local source for pottery production during the Iron Age. It can be observed that in time they improved their production technique and surface treatments to produce finer pottery. This
81
might have been the result of increasing imports of very fine tableware from the Aegean. Also, all through the Iron Age imported Cypro-Cilician pottery is present among the Tarsian repertoire confirming the remarkable and continuing relations of the settlement with the neighboring regions. These observations validate that there is a koine of this ceramic class in the region. These findings also conform well to the historical accounts from the region during the first millennium B.C. that prove the interregional relations with the development of Cypro-Cilician pottery in the region. This is also supported by other aspects of the material culture like common equestrian figurines, fibulae and scarabs as well (see Chapter 2).
82
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
This thesis aimed to understand the development of Cypro-Cilician pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule. It evaluated how this pottery type developed and what the changes and continuities were in its production during the Iron Age. As it is indicated by the terminology of this pottery type, Cyprus and Levant could not be separated from Cilicia in the context of this pottery type. Thus, to understand how Cypro-Cilician pottery developed, three regions in the Eastern Mediterranean; Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant were investigated. Therefore, this thesis discusses Cypro-Cilician pottery as part of an Eastern Mediterranean koine and its development through the intercultural relations in the region during the Iron Age.
Political situation of the region is also significant in order to understand the background of the interregional relations and the motivations of them. At the end of the Late Bronze Age there was turmoil in the Eastern Mediterranean. After the collapse of the centralized kingdoms in the area like the Hittites, several regional kingdoms appeared. However, during this period, the established interregional networks broke down facilitating new connections to be forged in the region. Presence of imported Cypriot pottery in the early phases of the Iron Age indicates that these new relations continued between Cyprus and Cilicia. After the collapsed of the central powers at the end of the Late Bronze Age, trade was not controlled by the centralized states anymore and the Phoenicians and Greeks took over the control of the maritime trade in the Mediterranean. Along with these two leading players in the Eastern Mediterranean trade, with its significant number of imported pottery Cyprus may also has a role in the interregional trade. In the Middle Iron Age, the Assyrian
83
power started to increase. While the Assyrian impact was more on the northern Levant, Amuq and in the eastern Cilicia, it was less in the western Cilicia and the southern Levant. Cyprus may have become a tributary. During the Middle Iron Age interregional relations increased especially with the maritime trade. Thus, these two players provided the flow of goods in the Mediterranean and especially the role of the Phoenicians seem to have played an important role in the development of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery.
Cypro-Cilician pottery is developed with the impacts of the local and Late Helladic IIIC pottery traditions. Thus, in all three geographies, Cilicia, Cyprus and Levant, Cypro-Cilician pottery has both similarities through the Late Helladic IIIC and differences with the impact of the local traditions. Thus, rather than discussing an origin place, the development of Cypro-Cilician pottery is assessed as a hybrid process with the results of the parallel developments.
Cypro-Cilician painted pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule appeared in the beginning of the Iron Age like in other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. Even in the early parts of the Early Iron Age, imported and local Cypro-Cilician pottery were found together at the site. In the Middle Iron Age, the number of imported Cypro-Cilician pottery increased. Also, the kilns dated to this period were important sources for the local pottery production. In the Late Iron Age, although the kiln areas were destroyed, there was a significant number of local Cypro-Cilician pottery at the site. In this period, with the increase of the Greek activity in the Eastern Mediterranean, the number of Cypriot imports decreased and imported Greek pottery predominated the imported pottery. There was also some Assyrian pottery in the assemblage, but Assyrian cultural impacts was not as strong at Tarsus-Gözlükule as compared with the more easterly settlements in Cilicia like Sirkeli and Kinet Höyük.
84
Most of the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery is tableware. Although BoR juglets could be traded for what they contained, this pottery type has generally open shapes which could not be exported as containers but for their own value. “This pottery type has meaning for those consumers and perception, meaning, and symbolic function of them derived from social interrelationship of the users of these vessels.”376 Copious amount of Cypro-Cilician painted pottery in the settlements through the Iron Age indicate that people in the Eastern Mediterranean settlements shared similar food consumption habits and tableware display styles through the Iron Age period. So, the consumption patterns of this specific pottery should also be considered in terms of its role in the forming of Eastern Mediterranean koine, and it could be investigated in detail in the future.
To understand the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery, twenty-one selected samples were analyzed both from macroscopic and petrographic aspects. When the samples were analyzed macroscopically, the local and imported pottery could be differentiated easily. Local pottery could be identified with its gray core, the quality of the surface treatment and its fabric. The surface treatment of the local pottery was generally self-slipped and when it was slipped it was not well applied. Its fabric was generally medium and sometimes has visible inclusions on the surface. On the other hand, imported pieces could be identified with their better applied surface treatments which is generally slipped, and they had fine fabrics. The result of the petrographic analysis indicates that there was one main local fabric that dominates the selected samples which had been used in all periods of the Iron Age. Also, there were other local fabrics in the assemblage which shows that there were several clay sources or use of different recipes in the area. Along with the local, two imported fabrics were
376 Gilboa, Waiman-Barak, and Sharon, “Dor, The Carmel Coast,” 100.
85
also identified. With these analyses, this study shows that there was a continuous local pottery production tradition in Tarsus-Gözlükule during the Iron Age. This continuous tradition produced better quality pottery in the last part of the Iron Age. So, Tarsian potters developed their production techniques and manufactured better quality Cypro-Cilician pottery by responding to changing supply and demand conditions in the region.
Although there are several studies about the Cypro-Cilician painted pottery, this phenomenon is still not fully understood, and it needs further investigations. While scholarship is focusing on Cyprus and the possible Cypriot origin of Cypro-Cilician pottery, Cilicia and Phoenicia are as important as Cyprus in the forming of this pottery type. This thesis shows that this pottery type was formed through the interactions of Cilicia, Cyprus, and Levant in the Iron Age. Thus, new studies could focus on creating shared terminology which indicates the importance of all the regions and highlighting the Eastern Mediterranean koine rather than using region specific terminology for this pottery type.
86
APPENDIX A
POTTERY LISTS
Table A1: Early Iron Age Pottery List
Depot #
Exc. #
Location
Trench
Depth
Picture
Pub #
Page/fig
Period/Cat. IA-007-05 TS38.39 PWC Unstratified IA-007-02 37 165/56 Buff Painted
IA-007-31
TS36.215
Int 47
IA-007-09
64
167/114
Buff Painted IA-007-32 cleanıng 1520 wall 173 Unstratified IA-007-09 36 164/56 Buff Painted
IA-007-33
TS38.620
Unıt T
B179
15,56
IA-007-09
62
165/57
Buff Painted IA-008-04 TS38.216 Unıt T B180 15.47-74 IA-008-02 48 165/75a Buff Painted
IA-008-05
TS37.272
A658
IA-008-02
47
65/57
Buff Painted IA-008-14 TS37.274 Unıt U 117 15,25 IA-008-07 41 165/57,114 Buff Painted
IA-010-32
TS38.201
nW
B183
16,75
IA-010-09
72
167/115
Buff Painted IA-015-30 TS37.409 SW corner B260 15,70 IA-015-10 76 168/115 Buff Painted
IA-015-84
TS38.207 (also TS37.20)
B144A
15,25
IA-015-29
67
167/58
Buff Painted IA-016-08 TS38.200 nW B183 16,75 IA-016-02 78 168/57 Buff Painted
IA-023-02
TS36.41
36t?
15.30 and below
IA-023-01
74
167/57
Buff Painted IA-041-11 TS38.213 nW Int at 16.75 IA-041-02 56 166/114 Buff Painted
IA-041-26
TS38.383
above black floor
B174
to "Wall Floor"?/15.00
IA-041-03
57
166/114
Buff Painted IA-041-34 TS38.214 nW B183 16.75 IA-041-04 52 166/114 Buff Painted
IA-041-52
TS38.616
IA pit
B200
17.20 tumble
IA-041-06
51
166/57
Buff Painted IA-041-56 TS36.45 36c 14,80 IA-041-07 60 166/57 Buff Painted
IA-042-08
TS36.225
Drain sect
15.50-.60
IA-042-01
35a
164/56
Buff Painted IA-042-42 TS38.390 La, S. End B206 15.70 (15.60?) IA-042-05 34 164/75a Buff Painted
IA-042-52
TS38.40
Jo
B112
below 15.50
IA-042-06
38
165/56
Buff Painted IA-054-77 TS38.318 surface IA-054-63 39a 165/56 Buff Painted
IA-002-12
TS36.259
36t/No 21
15,00
IA-002-05
75
167/115
Buff Painted IA-002-13 TS36.259 15,00 IA-002-05 75 167/115 Buff Painted
IA-004-01
Jsw
B126
15,40
IA-004-01
Buff Painted IA-005-20 NE corner O and s of lintel stone B180 15.47-74 IA-005-05 Buff Painted
87
IA-005-22
JW
B121
15,26
IA-005-07
Buff Painted IA-005-29 T B178 15,50 IA-005-08 Buff Painted
IA-005-33
NE corner O and s of lintel stone
B180
15.47-74
IA-005-08
Buff Painted IA-005-35 Jw B119 15,17 IA-005-08 Buff Painted
IA-005-43
nW
B183
16,75
IA-005-09
Buff Painted IA-005-49 Jo B109 below 15.35 IA-005-11 Buff Painted
IA-007-17
TS36.191
N Mp E1/2
15,35
IA-007-05
Buff Painted IA-007-19 "T" B180 15,60 IA-007-06 Buff Painted
IA-007-36
nw
B183
16,75
IA-007-09
Buff Painted IA-007-70 TS37.287b JW B127 15,44 IA-007-17 Buff Painted
IA-008-21
N1L3 above 16
129
16,00
IA-008-11
Buff Painted IA-008-24 wall U 121 15,30 IA-008-12 Buff Painted
IA-008-26
N of T
B26
Int38.26, 15.50
IA-008-12
Buff Painted IA-009-05 B900 17,20 IA-009-01 Buff Painted
IA-009-10
Lower fill
B200
17,20
IA-009-02
Buff Painted IA-009-13 Jsw B126 15,40 IA-009-03 Buff Painted
IA-009-18
Jw
B119
15,17
IA-009-03
Buff Painted IA-009-21 Jo B108 15,20 IA-009-04 Buff Painted
IA-009-40
T
B180
15,60
IA-009-11
Buff Painted IA-009-43 TS36.S.83c/TS36.68 B174 15,30 IA-009-11 Buff Painted
IA-009-119
JSW
15,10
IA-009-13
Buff Painted IA-009-73 Jw 15,20 IA-009-18 Buff Painted
IA-009-117
Jo
B111
15,30
IA-009-25
Buff Painted IA-009-120 NE corner O and s of lintel stone B180 15.47-.74 IA-009-22 Buff Painted
IA-010-61
Jsw
B124
15,10
IA-010-19
Buff Painted IA-010-62 nW B183 16,75 IA-010-19 Buff Painted
IA-010-66
II A
B226
17,70
IA-010-20
Buff Painted IA-010-68 NE corner O and s of lintel stone B180 15.47-74 IA-010-20 Buff Painted
IA-010-72
Jo
B111
15,30
IA-010-21
Buff Painted IA-010-82 36?/no 15.70? IA-010-24 Buff Painted
IA-011-37
Ju
B131
15,80
IA-011-11
Buff Painted
88
IA-015-32 NE corner O and s of lintel stone B180 15.47-74 IA-015-11 Buff Painted
IA-015-71
nJ
B190
15,20
IA-015-22
Buff Painted IA-024-01 Jw B119 15,17 IA-024-01 Buff Painted
IA-034-104
Jo
B113
15,60
IA-034-10
Buff Painted IA-034-19 Unıt U 124 15,50 IA-034-01 Buff Painted
IA-034-59
SW corner
B260
15,70
IA-034-06
Buff Painted IA-034-74 B245 15,47 IA-034-07 Buff Painted
IA-034-101
T
B180
15,60
IA-034-10
Buff Painted IA-034-112 lower fill B200 to floor 17.20 IA-034-10 Buff Painted
IA-036-04
241
15,30
IA-036-01
Buff Painted IA-036-08 nH B183 16,75 IA-036-02 Buff Painted
IA-036-09
Jsw
B126
15,40
IA-036-02
Buff Painted IA-036-22 N. end B262 16,60 IA-036-03 Buff Painted
IA-036-45
15,10
IA-036-07
Buff Painted IA-036-46 Jw B131 15,80 IA-036-07 Buff Painted
IA-036-47
nJ
B190
15,20
IA-036-07
Buff Painted IA-036-50 Jw B121 15.25-15.28 IA-036-07 Buff Painted
IA-036-68
Jo
B111
15,30
IA-036-09
Buff Painted IA-039-10 131 16,00 IA-039-01 buff painted?
IA-039-21
Unıt T
B179
15,56
IA-039-02
Buff painted IA-039-22 nJ B190 15,20 IA-039-02 Buff Painted
IA-039-27
Unıt T
B179
15,56
IA-039-03
Buff Painted IA-039-41 Jsw B130? 15.47-.74 IA-039-04 Buff Painted
IA-040-07
Jsw
B126
15,40
IA-040-02
Buff Painted IA-041-36 TS38.126 T B180 15.45-.74 IA-041-05 Buff Painted
IA-041-40
JHSW
B129
15,50
IA-041-05
Buff Painted IA-041-44 T B180 15.47-.74 IA-041-06 Buff Painted
IA-041-55
Jo
B111
15,30
IA-041-07
Buff Painted IA-041-60 Jo B107 15,20 IA-041-07 Buff Painted
IA-042-70
Jw
B120
15,20
IA-042-08
Buff Painted IA-042-37 Room A&SW Wing/JFD 13.00-13.40 IA-042-04 Buff Painted
IA-020-46
Jo
B111
15,30
IA-020-14
Buff Painted ?
89
IA-024-12 above black floor B174 15,30 IA-024-02 Buff Painted ?
IA-054-21
TS38.316
IA pit
B200
tumble 17.20
IA-054-17
116
171/58
1/Buff Ptd&Incised IA-007-30 TS38.72 Unıt T B180 15.74-47 IA-007-09 166 177/60 Imp, Related to White Ptd
IA-011-25
Unıt U
124
15,50
IA-011-07
Buff Painted IA-015-50 TS36.42 36r IA-015-17 94 169/115 White Painted
IA-023-03
TS37.393
EW street
B60-68
13.50-15.50
IA-023-01
96
169/115
White Painted IA-009-60 TS38.358 Roadway (?)B134 Sand above16.25 IA-009-16 159b 176/60 White Painted
IA-007-21
IA-007-07
92
169/59
White Painted IA-009-16 TS38.179 N of J B173 15,00 IA-009-03 82 168/58 White Painted
IA-018-01
TS38.136
Jw
B124
above 15.10
IA-018-01
151
175/60,115
Imp. White Ptd&other IA-042-07 TS38.364 IA pit B200 17,20 IA-042-01 156 176/60 Imp. White Ptd&other
IA-007-08
TS38.366
T and K
B179
15,56
IA-007-03
155
176/60,114
Imp. White Ptd&other IA-007-25 TS38.330 N of T B26 Int 38.26, 15.50 IA-007-08 157 176/60 Imp. White Ptd&other
IA-007-59
TS36.212
IWC
Int 50
IA-007-15
159a
176/60
Imp. White Ptd&other IA-007-72 TS37.263 i9 Unstratified IA-007-17 160a 177/60 Imp. White Ptd&other
IA-057-01
TS37.276
i9
unstratified
IA-057-01
162
177/60
Imp. White Ptd&other IA-020-78 TS36.360 36s unstratified IA-020-25 161 177/60 Imp. White Ptd&other
IA-024-02
Big house room a
16.86-17.04
IA-024-01
White Painted IA-034-10 IA pit B200 17,20 IA-034-01 White Painted
IA-034-132
22/E side
15.55-15.70
IA-034-12
White Painted IA-036-60 Jo B107 15.20+ IA-036-09 White Painted
IA-036-61
Jo
B107
15.20+
IA-036-09
White Painted R301-D3-17 Unıt U 124 15,50 R301-D3-09 probablyCilician White White Painted
R301-D5-02
Unıt U
121
15.30-.45
R301-D5-03
probablyCilician White
White Painted R301-D3-17 Unıt U 124 15,50 R301-D3-09 probablyCilician White White Painted
IA-004-02
Jsw 15.40
B126
IA-004-01
Buff Painted IA-004-26 TS38.218 Jw B116 14.60 plus IA-004-05 transıtıonal from EIA to MIA Buff Painted
90
IA-009-14
jo eıa
B112
15.60
IA-009-03
Buff Painted IA-009-06 jo eıa B122 15.60 IA-009-01 Buff Painted
IA-009-17
jo eıa
B112
15.60
IA-009-03
Buff Painted IA-005-34 Jo eıa B112 15.60 IA-005-08 Buff Painted
IA-005-38
Jo eıa
B109
IA-005-09
Buff Painted IA-009-89 Jw B116 14.60 plus IA-009-20 Buff Painted
IA-010-29
Jw
B116
14.60 plus
IA-010-09
Buff Painted IA-039-12 south edge E. Side B145? ıt says early ıron IA-039-01 Buff Painted
IA-039-11
jw
B116
14.60
IA-039-01
Buff Painted IA-020-79 Jo B112 15.60 IA-020-25 Buff Painted
IA-005-44
Jw
B116
14,60
IA-005-09
Buff Painted IA-020-30 Jo (eıa) B109 IA-020-12 White Painted
IA-034-118
Jw
B118/B16
15.80/Int B38.16
IA-034-10
imp. Buff painted IA-016-01 TS37.419 Black Floor B174 15,00 IA-016-01 100 170/58,114 Black-on-Red
IA-016-03
TS38.495
T4 ıntrusıon
B333
Int E Wall line of big house
IA-016-01
99
169/58,114
Black-on-Red IA-016-16 N of T, NE corner of Jo B26 Int 36.25/15.50 IA-016-04 102 170/58 Black-on-Red
IA-016-67
other piece in pict# IA-016-09
Unstratified
IA-016-14
103
170/58
Black-on-Red IA-016-56 Jo B22/B107 Int 38.22/15.20 IA-016-15 97 169/58 Black-on-Red
IA-007-47
Jsw
B126
15,40
IA-007-12
Black-on-Red IA-010-02 cleanın stone wall B245 15,47 IA-010-01 Black-on-Red
IA-010-04
Unıt U
124
15,50
IA-010-02
Black-on-Red IA-010-07 JW B127 15,44 IA-010-04 Black-on-Red
IA-010-08
JW
B127
15,44
IA-010-04
Black-on-Red IA-010-28 nW B183 16,75 IA-010-09 Black-on-Red
IA-011-11
Ia pıt
B200
17,20
IA-011-04
Black-on-Red IA-015-03 JSw?? 15,10 IA-015-01 Black-on-Red ?
IA-016-30
nJ
B190
15,20
IA-016-07
Black-on-Red IA-016-35 TS38.9? JwSw B129 15,50 IA-016-09 Black-on-Red
IA-016-45
N of T
B26
Int 38.26/15.50
IA-016-11
Black-on-Red IA-016-57 N of T B26 Int 38.26/15.50 IA-016-17 Black-on-Red
91
IA-034-29
T
B180
15,60
IA-034-02
Black-on-Red IA-034-30 T B180 15,60 IA-034-02 Black-on-Red
IA-034-34
Unıt U
124
15,50
IA-034-02
Black-on-Red IA-034-87 N1 126 15,25 IA-034-09 Black-on-Red
IA-036-39
nW
B183
16,75
IA-036-06
Black-on-Red IA-039-09 TS37.3?? BB area 113 16,40 IA-039-01 Black-on-Red ?
IA-039-29
north of ıntrusıon
B183
16,75
IA-039-03
Black-on-Red IA-041-43 JHSW B129 15,50 IA-041-05 Black-on-Red
IA-041-53
Jo
B112
15,60
IA-041-06
Black-on-Red IA-042-14 TS38.269 Jf B105 to 14.10 IA-042-02 Black-on-Red
R301-D5-01
Unıt T
B179
15,56
R301-D5-02
probably Black-on-Red
Black-on-Red IA-054-67 TS35.32 unstratified IA-054-50 169 177/61 ımp Black-on-Red
IA-054-68
TS35.32
TIIA
unstratified
IA-054-50
169
177/61
Imp Black-on-Red R301-D5-01 Unıt T B179 15,56 R301-D5-02 Probably Black-on-Red Black-on-Red
IA-009-54
Jo eıa
B112
15.60
IA-009-15
Black-on-Red IA-009-52 jo eıa B112 15.60 IA-009-14 Black-on-Red
IA-016-47
TS37.366
T (eıa)
B178
IA-016-12
Black-on-Red IA-010-39 Jw B116 14.60 plus IA-010-12 Black-on-Red
IA-025-09
Jw
B116
14.60 plus
IA-025-01
black-on-Red R301-D6-10 TS38.494 N of J B190 15,20 R301-D6-07 118 171/115 Bichrome
IA-007-15
TS38.621b
Section A
B537A
Unstratified
IA-007-05
120b
172/59
Bichrome IA-020-87 15.00-15.35 IA-020-06 121 172/59 Bichrome
IA-040-21
TS38.621c
Section A
DL
IA-040-04
120c
172/59
Bichrome IA-006-35 TS39.159 Jo B111 15,30 IA-006-14 123 172/59 Bichrome
IA-006-36
Jo
B111
15,30
IA-006-14
123
172/59
Bichrome IA-057-25 TS37.277 Ob Int at 15.00 IA-057-04 125 173/59 Bichrome
IA-019-101
TS35.39
TIIA
Unstratified
IA-019-19
128
173/59
Bichrome IA-042-20 TS38.367 N of T B26 15.50/Int 38.26 IA-042-02 130 173/75a Bichrome
IA-007-90
TS38.185
B180
15.47-74
IA-007-25
140
174/60,116
Bichrome IA-007-91 TS36.277 B180 15.47-74 IA-007-25 140 174/60,116 Bichrome
92
R301-D6-08
TS38.317
ıntrusıon
B20
Int 38.20
R301-D6-03
138
174/59,116
Bichrome IA-006-08 SW corner of unit1 under wall 18.00 floor IA-006-04 Bichrome
IA-019-11
IA pit
B200
17,20
IA-019-03
Bichrome IA-019-12 IA pit B200 17,20 IA-019-03 Bichrome
IA-019-15
IA pit
B200
17,20
IA-019-03
Bichrome IA-019-31 B180 15,47 IA-019-05 Bichrome
IA-019-36
nJ
B190
15,20
IA-019-06
Bichrome IA-019-38 TS38.38 B180 15.47-74 IA-019-06 Bichrome
IA-019-50
TS36.38(6)??
B180
15.47-74
IA-019-10
Bichrome IA-019-59 TS38.36? Jw B119 15,17 IA-019-12 Bichrome
IA-019-79
TS38.40(5)??
H
241
15,30
IA-019-15
Bichrome IA-019-84 Sw corner (probably K) B160 15.47-74 IA-019-15 Bichrome
IA-019-88
Jw
B119
15,17
IA-019-15
Bichrome IA-019-96 TS38.29 Jo B111 15,30 IA-019-17 Bichrome
IA-019-97
TS36.258
Granary B
15,75
IA-019-17
Bichrome IA-009-118 Unıt J B176 15,25 IA-009-22 Bichrome
IA-020-74
south edge
B147?
15,40
IA-020-23
Bichrome IA-040-12 Jw B117 15,00 IA-040-03 bichrome
IA-020-88
(TS36.182)
IA-020-04
607 or 132
210or173/73
Bichrome IA-040-32 Jsw eıa B130 13,50 IA-040-07 Bichrome
IA-009-99
Ne corner to unıt j
B176
15,25
IA-009-22
Bichrome IA-009-108 Jsw 15.40 B126 IA-009-23 Bichrome
IA-009-90
Jw area
B114
IA-009-21
Bichrome IA-009-57 jw eıa oven B120 DL IA-009-15 Bichrome
93
Table A2: Middle Iron Age Pottery List
Depot #
Exc. #
Location
Trench
Depth
Picture
Pub #
Page/fig
Period/Cat. IA-006-04 TS37.371 Red floor 47 15+ IA-006-02 352 191/65 Buff Painted
IA-007-06
E of P
Int 47/14.75-14.90
IA-007-02
358
192/66
Buff Painted IA-007-24 TS37.137 Oven 5 IA-007-07 404 194/67 Buff Painted
IA-007-79
TS38.152
Destruction
B170c
Destruction
IA-007-20
344
191/65,121
Buff Painted IA-007-80 TS38.152 destruction B170c Destruction IA-007-20 344 191/65,121 Buff Painted
IA-007-85
TS37.109
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-007-23
362
192/66
Buff Painted IA-007-86 JFD DL IA-007-23 343 191/65 Buff Painted
IA-008-01
TS35.27
7 m terrace fill/35s/TSA
unstratified
IA-008-01
363
192/66
Buff Painted IA-008-06 TS37.129 Oven 5 IA-008-03 359 192/66,121 Buff Painted
IA-008-08
TS36.97
Oven 5
A300
IA-008-04
368
193/-
Buff Painted IA-008-09 TS36.98 Oven 5 A301(?) IA-008-04 366 92/66,121 Buff Painted
IA-008-19
TS37.126
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-008-10
367
192/66
Buff Painted IA-008-20 DL IA-008-11 333 190/64 Buff Painted
IA-008-25
TS37.125
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-008-12
365
192/121
Buff Painted IA-008-28 38,328 Street fill B51-59 12.90-15.00 IA-008-13 318 189/64 Buff Painted
IA-010-33
TS37.249
Ovens
IA-010-09
427
196/122
Buff Painted IA-011-02 TS38.328 Street fill B51-59 12.90-15.00 IA-011-01 318 189/64 Buff Painted
IA-011-03
TS36.96
Ovens 5
A298
IA-011-01
316
189/-
Buff Painted IA-011-05 TS37.110 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-011-02 361 192/66 Buff Painted
IA-011-10
TS37.124
Oven 5/W of W pit
A311
IA-011-03
364
192/-
Buff Painted IA-015-14 TS37.139 N. Oven 5 A314 IA-015-04 419 195/122 Buff Painted
IA-015-15
TS37.140
Oven 5b, lrg pit
A309
IA-015-05
428
196/-
Buff Painted IA-015-20 TS36.48 36t Int 47 IA-015-07 426 195/67 Buff Painted
IA-015-28
TS36.255
JFD
DL
IA-015-10
425
195/67
Buff Painted IA-015-36 Oven 5 A304 IA-015-12 360 192/66 Buff Painted
IA-015-41
TS36.103
Oven 4
A295
IA-015-12
418
195/122
Buff Painted IA-015-45 TS37.142 TA/Oven 5 IA-015-13 411 195/122 Buff Painted
IA-015-49
TS38.204
Destruction
B170
DL
IA-015-16
400
194/67
Buff Painted IA-015-56 TS38.339 Destruction B170B DL IA-015-20 423 195/67 Buff Painted
IA-015-62
TS38.340
Destruction
B170a
DL
IA-015-21
415
195/67
Buff Painted
94
IA-015-67 226 IA-015-21 423 195/67 not same Buff Painted
IA-015-70
Destruction
B170B
DL
IA-015-22
423
195/67 not same
Buff Painted IA-015-74 TS38.339 Destruction B170B DL IA-015-24 423 195/67 Buff Painted
IA-015-80
TS36.104
Oven 5b/Ch. 2
A302
IA-015-28
412
195/122
Buff Painted IA-015-88 Destruction B170 DL IA-015-31 423 195/67 Buff Painted
IA-018-57
TS38.347
K
B159
14,50
IA-018-12
320
189/64
Buff Painted IA-028-02 TS37.123 S. Oven 5 A 315 IA-028-01 323 189/- Buff Painted
IA-028-06
TS37.255
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-028-01
334
190/64
Buff Painted IA-028-07 TS37.255 Oven Drift A315-A IA-028-01 334 190/64 Buff Painted
IA-028-08
TS36.27
36e
Unstratified
IA-028-02
324
189/64
Buff Painted IA-034-21 TS37.111(a) Oven Drift A315-A IA-034-01 341 190/121 Buff Painted
IA-034-38
TS37.122
Oven 5a, W. pit
A313
IA-034-03
339
190/65,121
Buff Painted IA-034-55 TS37.120 Oven 5 A315 pub pict might be wrong IA-034-05 381 193/66 Buff Painted
IA-034-57
TS37.106
Oven Drift
A 315-A
IA-034-06
331
190/64
Buff Painted IA-034-64 TS37.107 Oven 5a, W. fire pit A310 IA-034-06 326a 190/64 Buff Painted
IA-034-84
35b
IA-034-08
383?
193/66
Buff Painted IA-034-96 TS37.112 Oven Drift A315-A IA-034-10 342 191/121 Buff Painted
IA-034-126
B6
Int 38
IA-034-11
382
193/66
Buff Painted IA-034-133 TS37.121 S. Ovens 5 A 315 IA-034-12 387 193/66 Buff Painted
IA-034-140
iB
IA-034-13
381?
193/66
Buff Painted IA-039-16 TS38.337 IT B26 15.50/Int38.26 IA-039-02 373 193/66 Buff Painted
IA-039-20
TS37.114
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-039-02
375/374
193/66
Buff Painted IA-039-33 T37.117 Oven 5/W pit A312 IA-039-03 376 193/- Buff Painted
IA-041-07
TS36.140
Oven 2
A296
IA-041-01
401
194/67
Buff Painted IA-041-17 TS37.136 Oven 5 large pit A309 IA-041-02 390 194/122 Buff Painted
IA-041-20
TS36.220
Oven 5c
IA-041-03
393
194/122
Buff Painted IA-041-23 TS37.138 Oven Drift A315-A IA-041-03 391 194/122 Buff Painted
IA-041-37
TS37.135
N Oven 5
A314
IA-041-05
389
194/67,122
Buff Painted IA-041-54 TS36.270 14,30 IA-041-06 420 195/122 Buff Painted
IA-042-04
TS38.391
Destruction
B170 ?
DL
IA-042-01
351
191/65,121
Buff Painted IA-042-15 TS36.224 JFD DL (14.15?) IA-042-02 354 191/65,121 Buff Painted
95
IA-042-16
TS38.334
black floor
B174
18.00/Black Floor (15.00?)
IA-042-02
358a
192/66
Buff Painted IA-042-19 TS38.385 Sect B B170 ? DL IA-042-02 348 191/65,121 Buff Painted
IA-042-25
TS37.128
N. oven 5
A314
IA-042-02
350
191/121
Buff Painted IA-042-28 TS37.133 S. Oven 5 A315 IA-042-03 345 191/65 Buff Painted
IA-042-56
TS37.132
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-042-07
346
191/121
Buff Painted IA-042-59 JFD to 14.50 floor IA-042-07 356 192/65 Buff Painted
IA-042-65
TS37.166
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-042-08
371
193/66
Buff Painted IA-042-80 TS36.94 Oven 5 A298 IA-042-09 319 189/- Buff Painted
IA-048-08
TS38.354
Oven 5b
A309
IA-048-04
397
194/122
Buff Painted IA-054-22 TS37.262 Int 47 IA-054-18 403 194/67 Buff Painted
IA-054-24
TS38.309
unstratified
IA-054-19
335
190/64
Buff Painted IA-054-33 TS37.258 Int 47 in P IA-054-29 369 193/- Buff Painted
IA-054-73
TS38.155
Destruction
B170
DL
IA-054-59
349
191/65,121
Buff Painted IA-057-19 TS38.211 DL IA-057-05 388 193/67,122 Buff Painted
IA-002-02
TS37.145
Oven 5
A311
IA-002-01
409
195/122
Buff Painted IA-004-25 TS38.89 Oven 5 B185 16,10 IA-004-04 424? 195/122 Buff Painted
IA-042-11
TS35.37
W12
14,15
IA-042-01
353
191/121
Buff Painted IA-048-04 TS37.63 Oven 5, W fire pit A310 part of this is in pict#IA-048-06 IA-048-02 322 189/- Buff Painted
R301-D3-14
TS36.99
Oven 5
A304
R301-D3-08
357
192/65,121
Buff Painted R301-D3-25 TS37.133 Oven Drift R301-D3-11 336 190/65 Buff Painted
R301-D3-28
TS37.462
Oven Drift
R301-D3-11
398
194/122
Buff Painted R301-D3-29 TS36.311 14,95 R301-D3-11 355 191/121 Buff Painted
R301-D3-30
TS36.87
Oven 5b
R301-D3-11
329
190/64,121
Buff Painted IA-005-17 TS36.110 Oven 5 A304 DL? IA-005-05 468 199/- White Painted
IA-006-62
like TS37.290
B60-68
13.50-15.50
IA-006-22
like 442
197/68
White Painted IA-007-20 TS37.184 S. Ovens 5 A315-A IA-007-06 450 198/- White Painted
IA-007-62
TS37.181
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-007-15
440
197/68
White Painted IA-007-82 TS37.151 Oven 5c A307 IA-007-21 490 200/69 White Painted
IA-007-83
TS37.152
Oven 5b, large pit
A309
IA-007-21
489
200/69
White Painted IA-007-89 TS36.117 big pottery oven A294 IA-007-24 437 197/68 White Painted
IA-008-03
TS37.313
east side (possıble H)
229
below 14.6
IA-008-02
444
197/68
White Painted
96
IA-008-13 TS36.109 Oven 5 A297 IA-008-06 473 199/69 White Painted
IA-008-15
TS37.4
N. Oven 5
A314
IA-008-08
471
199/68,123
White Painted IA-008-16 TS36.71 36u/IS 13.65-14.25 IA-008-09 474 199/68 White Painted
IA-008-22
TS37.164
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-008-12
458
198/68,123
White Painted IA-008-33 36u DL IA-008-15 475 199/69 White Painted
IA-008-34
JFD
DL
IA-008-15
475
199/69
White Painted IA-009-39 TS37.182 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-009-10 456 198/68 White Painted
IA-011-28
TS37.170
Oven 5, w fire pit
A310
IA-011-08
432
196/-
White Painted IA-015-52 TS37.161 S. Ovens 5 A315 IA-015-18 500 201/70 White Painted
IA-015-54
TS38.359
DL
IA-015-19
502
201/70
White Painted IA-015-55 TS38.130 Jf B300h 14,00 IA-015-19 498 201/70 White Painted
IA-015-65
TS37.158
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-015-21
495
201/123
White Painted IA-015-72 TS37.391 37e unstratified IA-015-23 491 201/123 White Painted
IA-020-77
TS35.53 (on sherd 35.153)
B170 c
DL
IA-020-25
434
196/68
White Painted IA-023-05 TS37.162 Oven 5 A 315 IA-023-02 501 201/70 White Painted
IA-023-06
TS37.163
Oven drift
A319-A
IA-023-02
499
201/70
White Painted IA-028-15 TS36.116 By oven 5 A297 IA-028-03 443 197/68 White Painted
IA-034-04
TS37.176
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-034-01
455
198/-
White Painted IA-034-45 TS38.178 Destruction B170b DL IA-034-04 446 197/68 White Painted
IA-034-86
TS37.169
Oven Area
IA-034-09
449
198/-
White Painted IA-034-121 TS38.160 Destruction B170b DL IA-034-11 457 198/68,123 White Painted
IA-034-122
TS38.160
Destruction
B170b
DL
IA-034-11
457
198/68,123
White Painted IA-034-130 TS36.115 Oven 5 A297 IA-034-12 454 198/- White Painted
IA-041-01
TS37.150
S Ovens 5
A315
IA-041-01
481
200/69,123
White Painted IA-041-06 TS37.149 N Oven 5 A314 IA-041-01 485 200/69 White Painted
IA-041-16
TS36.35
36c
Unstratified
IA-041-02
482
200/69
White Painted IA-041-21 TS37.155 S Ovens 5 A315 IA-041-03 483 200/69,123 White Painted
IA-041-38
TS36(7).106
Oven 4
A295
IA-041-05
486
200/69,123
White Painted IA-042-26 TS36.226 Oven 5, W fire pit A310 IA-042-02 459 198/123 White Painted
IA-042-27
TS37.187
Oven Area
IA-042-03
479
200/69
White Painted IA-042-55 TS38.162 Destruction B170 DL IA-042-07 433 196/68 White Painted
IA-042-58
TS38.162
Destruction
B170
DL
IA-042-07
433
196/68
White Painted
97
IA-054-26 TS35.18 35w/TSA unstratified IA-054-21 430 196/68 White Painted
IA-054-28
TS36.22
36t/Jd
Int at 14.79-14.95
IA-054-23
431
196/68
White Painted Mixed-001-13 TS37.148 Oven 5a, W pit A313 Mixed-001-05 484 200/69 White Painted
Mixed-001-46
TS37.160
Oven 5, W fire pit
A310
Mixed-001-22
469
201/70
White Painted IA-039-03 TS37.167 Oven Area IA-039-01 467 199/- White Painted
IA-039-24
TS37.179
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-039-02
469
199/-
White Painted IA-054-20 TS37.65 Oven 5 only one small part of what is described? IA-054-16 447 197/- White Painted
R301-D3-13
TS37.157
Oven 5, W pit
A313
R301-D3-08
492
201/-
White Painted R301-D3-15 TS37.183 Oven Drift A315-A R301-D3-09 465 199/68,123 White Painted
R301-D3-16
TS36.47
36u?/K
13.65-14.25
R301-D3-09
474
199/68
White Painted R301-D3-26 TS37.290 ? R301-D3-11 442 197/68 White Painted
R301-D3-27
TS37.290
?
R301-D3-11
442
197/68
White Painted IA-005-12 K B144A 15,25 IA-005-04 Buff Painted
IA-005-14
Kb
B165-6
15.10-20
IA-005-04
Buff Painted IA-005-15 K B139 15,16 IA-005-04 Buff Painted
IA-005-30
K
B139
15,16
IA-005-08
Buff Painted IA-009-87 Kb B169 16,00 IA-009-20 Buff Painted
IA-009-116
Kb
B165
15.10-.20
IA-009-25
Buff Painted IA-010-37 K B139 15,16 IA-010-10 Buff Painted
IA-010-63
K
B141
15,20
IA-010-19
Buff Painted IA-010-91 K B153 15,70 IA-010-27 Buff Painted
IA-015-57
K
B142
15,17
IA-015-20
Buff Painted IA-015-64 TS38.227 K B144A 15,25 IA-015-21 Buff Painted
IA-034-53
K
B144 A
15,25
IA-034-05
Buff Painted IA-034-97 K B144 A 15,25 IA-034-10 Buff Painted
IA-034-139
K
B144 A
15,25
IA-034-13
Buff Painted IA-036-14 Kb B165-6 15.10-.20 IA-036-03 Buff/white Painted
IA-039-15
K
B144A
15,25
IA-039-02
Buff Painted R301-D6-04 Mw B183 16,75 R301-D6-01 Buff Painted
IA-007-75
N1 soft earth
126
15,75
IA-007-18
Buff Painted IA-009-51 K B144A 15,25 IA-009-14 Buff Painted
98
IA-009-75
K3K4M1
138
16,40
IA-009-18
Buff Painted IA-010-71 Lb B214 16.17-.50 IA-010-21 Buff Painted
IA-010-83
La. S. End
B206
15,70
IA-010-24
Buff Painted IA-010-86 La. S. End B206 15,70 IA-010-26 Buff Painted
IA-039-07
Room K
B140?
15,17
IA-039-01
Buff Painted IA-004-14 Oven 5 A313 IA-004-03 Buff Painted
IA-004-15
TS36.119
Oven 5
A304
IA-004-03
Buff Painted IA-004-20 TS37.11 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-004-04 Buff Painted
IA-004-27
TS36.110
Oven
A304
IA-004-05
Buff Painted IA-004-06 Jf? of N.W B300 14,00 IA-004-02 Buff Painted
IA-042-14
TS38.269
Jf
B105
to 14.10
IA-042-02
Buff Painted IA-042-18 TS36.40 Oven 5 A300 IA-042-02 Buff Painted
IA-042-21
TS37.131
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-042-02
Buff Painted IA-042-40 TS37.187c Kb B164 15,00 IA-042-05 white Painted
IA-042-41
Drain sect/JFD
to floor# 7
IA-042-05
white Painted IA-042-47 W of seal wall B194 14,35 IA-042-06 Buff Painted
IA-041-32
TS36.102
Oven 5
A304
IA-041-04
Buff Painted IA-007-76 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-007-18 Buff Painted
IA-007-14
TS37.186
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-007-05
Buff Painted IA-007-16 TS37.185 Oven Area IA-007-05 Buff Painted
IA-009-103
TS37.232
Oven area
IA-009-23
Buff Painted IA-011-07 Oven 5 A304 IA-011-03 Buff Painted
IA-011-34
Oven 5
A300
IA-011-09
Buff Painted IA-015-24 TS37.146 TA/Oven 5 IA-015-09 Buff Painted
IA-015-53
TS37.134(?)
Oven 5, W. pit
A313
IA-015-18
Buff Painted IA-028-09 Oven 5, Ch. 2 A302 IA-028-02 White painted
IA-034-02
TS37.180
Oven Area
IA-034-01
Buff Painted IA-034-63 Oven 5, W. fire pit A310 IA-034-06 Buff Painted
IA-034-116
TS 37.???
Oven Drift
A 315?
IA-034-10
Buff Painted IA-039-23 Ash pit,below 14,20 fired ash layer IA-039-02 Buff Painted
IA-039-28
Oven 5/W. fire pit
A310
IA-039-03
Buff Painted IA-020-29 TS38.421 nJ B189 14,90 IA-020-12 Buff Painted
99
IA-020-35
K
B160
14,40
IA-020-12
Buff Painted IA-009-74 end of alley Nw of Ob 103 15,00 IA-009-18 White painted
IA-009-84
n of 30
B173
15,00
IA-009-20
Buff Painted IA-010-35 N of Jo B173 DL IA-010-10 Buff Painted
IA-010-77
K
B133
14,00
IA-010-22
White painted IA-039-06 K B145 15,00 IA-039-01 White painted
IA-039-37
W. of Jo
B173
15,00
IA-039-03
White painted IA-041-15 Jo B107 15,00 IA-041-02 White painted
IA-007-73
TS38.368
La S. end
B206
15,00
IA-007-18
Buff Painted IA-009-23 Alley NW of Ow 97 14,50 IA-009-05 Buff Painted
IA-039-04
jw
B94
14,00
IA-039-01
Buff Painted IA-034-123 Jw B300 13,50 IA-034-11 Buff Painted
IA-011-22
Kb
B164
13-14.60
IA-011-06
Buff Painted IA-015-89 W. of Jo B173 15,00 IA-015-31 White painted
IA-015-75
Jf
B105
14.19-14.95
IA-015-24
White painted IA-007-66 Kb B157 13,50 IA-007-16 Buff Painted
IA-005-36
K
B134
12,70
IA-005-09
Buff Painted IA-005-37 SK B146 12,70 IA-005-09 Buff Painted
IA-041-28
K
B147
12,90
IA-041-04
Buff Painted IA-042-62 K B147 13,80 IA-042-07 Buff Painted ?
IA-009-93
K
B134
13,80
IA-009-21
Buff Painted IA-010-74 K B134 12,90 IA-010-22 White Painted
IA-011-15
K
B147
13,70
IA-011-05
Buff Painted IA-011-35 TS37.293(5?) K B153 12,90 IA-011-10 Buff Painted
IA-034-85
TS37.355
K
B144 A
15,25
IA-034-09
White Painted IA-042-05 unit Lb 15,70 IA-042-01 White painted
IA-042-51
La
B203
15,50
IA-042-06
White Painted IA-028-03 TS38.187 176 i? DL IA-028-01 647 213/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-028-19
TS36.31
Unstratified
IA-028-05
645
213/74
Imp Cypriot white IA-028-20 TS36.20b ıntrusıon B60-68 13.50-15.50 IA-028-06 643 213/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-054-79
TS37.104
DL
IA-054-65
648
214/74
Imp Cypriot white
100
IA-054-80 TS37.104 37e DL IA-054-65 648 214/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-054-82
TS37.104
DL
IA-054-65
648
214/74
Imp Cypriot white IA-054-83 TS36.34 36m unstratified IA-054-65 649 214/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-057-05
TS36.122
DL
IA-057-01
666
215/75,125
Imp Cypriot white IA-034-32 TS38.22 sherds from walls B300f Unstratified IA-034-02 654 214/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-034-39
TS38.21
K
B134
13,80
IA-034-03
656
214/74
Imp Cypriot white IA-034-51 TS36.20 36q 14,24 IA-034-05 643 213/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-034-114
TS38.18
Jo (eıa)
B109
15,25
IA-034-10
658
214/74
Imp Cypriot white IA-007-09 TS36.187 SE section ca 14.00 IA-007-03 644 213/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-007-64
TS37.324b
14,50
IA-007-16
668
215/75
Imp Cypriot white IA-042-64 TS37.488 15.95 (unstratified?) IA-042-08 665 214/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-055-10
TS37.257
i9
Unstratified
IA-055-13
667
215/75,125
Imp Cypriot white IA-055-16 TS36.121 West DL/14.00 IA-055-15 644 213/74 Imp Cypriot white
IA-034-18
TS38.34
Jf
B103
Int opening at 14.30
IA-034-01
662or1061
214or246/83
Imp Cypriot white IA-034-44 TS38.25 sK B146 12,70 IA-034-03 661or1065 214or246/83 Imp Cypriot white
IA-034-149
TS38.24
Intrusion
IA-034-10
660or1064
214or246/83
Imp Cypriot white IA-007-50 Jw B118 15,00 IA-007-13 White painted
IA-015-66
K
B147
12,90
IA-015-21
White painted IA-034-17 TS38.31 B16 Int 38.16 IA-034-01 1066 246/83 Imp Cyp White Ptd
IA-034-15
S. Oven 5
IA-034-01
Buff Painted IA-042-77 Jw B117 15.90?? IA-042-09 Buff Painted
IA-010-09 K B144A 15,25 IA-010-04 Black-on-Red
IA-010-45
K
B144
15,45
IA-010-14
Black-on-Red IA-034-25 Kb B169 16,00 IA-034-02 Black-on-Red
101
IA-039-01
K
B144 A
15,25
IA-039-01
Black-on-Red IA-039-35 K B144 15,31 IA-039-03 Black-on-Red
IA-008-02
La
B203(or 1)
15,50
IA-008-01
Black-on-Red IA-010-15 La B203 15,50 IA-010-05 Black-on-Red
IA-010-23
Ld
B224
16.55 floor
IA-010-07
Black-on-Red IA-010-41 s KB B167 15,50 IA-010-13 Black-on-Red
IA-010-49
ne corner O 1560 s of lıntel stone
B180
15.47-74
IA-010-15
Black-on-Red IA-016-54 Lb B209 15,70 IA-016-13 Black-on-Red
IA-034-27
TS37.266
L3N1
122
15,40
IA-034-02
Black-on-Red IA-015-09 TS36.238 36w/Nb 14.21/14.50 IA-015-03 539 204/124 Black-on-Red
R301-D3-19
TS36.318a
Jf
B103?
14,10
R301-D3-10
518
202/123
Black-on-Red R301-D3-20 TS36.323 DL R301-D3-10 529 203/124 Black-on-Red
IA-034-43
TS37.229
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-034-03
513 or 631
202or212/-
Black-on-Red IA-016-04 TS37.220 N Oven 5 A314 IA-016-01 526 203/124 Black-on-Red
IA-016-66
TS38.380
DL
IA-016-01
545
204/70
Black-on-Red IA-016-05 TS37.210 Oven 5a, W fire pit A310 IA-016-02 535 204/124 Black-on-Red
IA-016-07
TS37.222
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-016-02
538
204/124
Black-on-Red IA-016-12 TS37.213 Oven 5a A312 other part in pict# IA-016-05 IA-016-03 533 204/70 Black-on-Red
IA-016-15
TS36.244
36m
14.50-14.90
IA-016-04
531
204/70
Black-on-Red IA-016-20 TS37.216 n Oven 5 A314 IA-016-05 548 204/71,124 Black-on-Red
IA-016-21
TS37.224
Ovens
IA-016-05
542
204/124
Black-on-Red IA-016-25 TS37.208 Oven Drift A315-A IA-016-06 524 203/70 Black-on-Red
IA-016-32
TS37.209
Oven 5, w of w pit
A311
IA-016-08
525
203/70
Black-on-Red IA-016-33 TS37.217 n Oven 5 A315 IA-016-08 534 204/124 Black-on-Red
IA-016-42
TS37.215
Oven 5, lrg pit
A309
IA-016-10
511
202/70
Black-on-Red IA-016-48 TS37.214 W of w pit/Oven 5 A311 IA-016-12 515 202/70 Black-on-Red
IA-016-49
TS37.207
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-016-12
512
202/70
Black-on-Red IA-016-59 TS37.221 Oven 5, lrg pit A309 IA-016-18 536 204/124 Black-on-Red
IA-002-11
TS37.219
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-002-05
Black-on-Red IA-002-21 K B138 15,00 IA-002-07 Black-on-Red
IA-042-38
TS37.105
Oven 5, W fire pit
A310
IA-042-04
Black-on-Red IA-041-42 Oven 5 A304 IA-041-05 Black-on-Red
102
IA-041-49
Oven 5
A304
IA-041-06
Black-on-Red IA-008-10 Oven 5 A305 IA-008-04 Black-on-Red
IA-008-11
Oven 5
A305
IA-008-04
Black-on-Red IA-008-31 Oven 5 A304 IA-008-14 Black-on-Red
IA-009-56
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-009-15
Black-on-Red IA-009-63 TS35.93 Oven 4 A295 IA-009-16 Black-on-Red
IA-015-05
TS37.225
Oven Drift
315A
IA-015-02
Black-on-Red IA-015-46 TS37.5?40 Ovens IA-015-13 Black-on-Red
IA-016-58
TS37.218
N Oven 5
A314
IA-016-17
Black-on-Red IA-016-61 TS37.211 Oven Drift A315-A IA-016-19 Black-on-Red
IA-028-18
Oven 5
IA-028-04
Black-on-Red IA-042-68 TS37.174 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-042-08 Black-on-Red
IA-042-75
K
B138
15,00
IA-042-09
Black-on-Red IA-009-66 Room K B136 14.30-.60 IA-009-17 Black-on-Red
IA-036-37
Jf of N. wall
B300
13,80
IA-036-06
Black-on-Red IA-034-82 K B151 13,50 IA-034-08 Black-on-Red
IA-016-24
E of P/16
15,00
IA-016-06
Black-on-Red IA-002-09 TS37.392 sK B146 13,50 IA-002-04 Black-on-Red
IA-009-62
sK
B146
12,90
IA-009-16
Black-on-Red IA-015-37 ne corner O 1560 s of lıntel stone B180 15.47-74 IA-015-12 Black-on-Red
IA-016-36
ne corner O 1560 s of lıntel stone
B180
15.47-.74
IA-016-09
Black-on-Red IA-016-31 K B134 13,50 IA-016-07 Black-on-Red
IA-034-24
K
B151
DL
IA-034-02
Black-on-Red
IA-019-30
K3M1
108
15,50
IA-019-05
White Painted/Bichrome IA-006-18 TS37.367 M4M3O2 239 Below 15 IA-006-09 119 172/59 Bichrome
IA-019-14
TS37.325
Near Ob
15,50
IA-019-03
143
174/60
Bichrome IA-019-30 K3M1 108 15,50 IA-019-05 White Painted/Bichrome
IA-019-64
L3N1
122
15,40
IA-019-13
Bichrome IA-040-04 Q B239 12.30-.50 IA-040-02 bichrome
IA-006-13
Alley NW of 0a
B96
15,00
IA-006-07
Bichrome IA-040-26 Oven Jw eıa B120 15,20 IA-040-05 Bichrome
IA-006-25
TS36.448(or9?)
Oven 4
A 295
IA-006-12
Bichrome
103
IA-019-87 TS38.220? n Oven 5 A314 IA-019-15 Bichrome
IA-020-55
TS37.830
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-020-16
Bichrome IA-034-75 TS38.403 big pottery oven, ch. 2 A294 IA-034-07 Bichrome
IA-040-12
Jw
B117
15.00?
IA-040-03
Bichrome IA-020-31 Jw B117 15,00 IA-020-12 Bichrome
IA-020-32
Jw
B118
15,00
IA-020-12
Bichrome IA-020-70 black floor B174 15,00 IA-020-23 Bichrome
IA-019-40
Jc
B95
14,00
IA-019-06
Bichrome IA-019-44 Jc B104+B300h 15,00 IA-019-08 Bichrome
IA-019-48
N of Jc
B173
14,40
IA-019-10
Bichrome IA-019-65 K B160 14,50 IA-019-13 Bichrome
IA-019-68
sw corner above 13.60 floor
B156
15,00
IA-019-13
Bichrome IA-019-100 end of alley Nw of Ob 103 13,50 IA-019-19 Bichrome
IA-020-45
Jw
B115
14,50
IA-020-14
Bichrome IA-019-10 Black Floor B174 14 IA-019-03 Bichrome
IA-020-62
Jc
B104
15,00
IA-020-18
Bichrome /buff IA-019-03 K B134 12,90 IA-019-01 Bichrome
IA-040-15
TS38.158
K
B147
12,70
IA-040-03
1194
260/87
4/Bichrome III IA-019-04 K B147 12,90 IA-019-01 Bichrome
IA-019-06
K
B147
12,90
IA-019-01
Bichrome IA-019-49 K B147 13,80 IA-019-10 Bichrome
IA-019-69
K
B134
13,70
IA-019-14
Bichrome IA-019-73 K B150 12,70 IA-019-14 Bichrome
IA-020-17
TS36.123b
DL
IA-020-10
593
209/73
Bichrome IA-020-34 TS37.245 Oven 5 B301? IA-020-12 580 208/72 Bichrome
IA-028-04
TS38.287
B24
Int 38.24
IA-028-01
585
208/72
Bichrome IA-042-24 TS38.332 Sect B B170 DL IA-042-02 588 209/124 Bichrome
IS-053-12
TS36.617
14.70-15.00/DL
IA-053-07
583
208/72,124
Bichrome IA-054-25 MSW/NW sect/NW side below&on E side wall IA-054-20 584 208/72 Bichrome
IA-054-34
TS36.123a
14,00
IA-054-30
593
209/73
Bichrome IA-054-74 TS37.268 i9 IA-054-60 594 209/73 Bichrome
IA-055-24
TS37.243
Oven Drift
IA-055-23
581
208/72
Bichrome IA-057-06 TS36.228 E of IA pit?/JFD 14.30-14.60 IA-057-01 592 209/73,124 Bichrome
IA-011-14
TS36.257
ıntrusion
B13
unstratified
IA-011-05
582
208/124
Bichrome IA-006-51 TS37.237 Oven 5, large pit A309 IA-006-19 612 211/- Bichrome
IA-007-53
TS37.233
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-007-14
620
211/-
Bichrome IA-007-54 E edge B245 12,80 IA-007-14 633c 212/74 Bichrome
IA-007-55
TS36.275
360
12,80
IA-007-14
633d
212/74
Bichrome IA-007-56 TS36.273 36t/No 13 14.80-15.20 IA-007-14 633b 212/74 Bichrome
IA-007-57
TS38.427
M
B184
Unstratified
IA-007-14
633a
212/74
Bichrome IA-009-102 EW street B60-68 13.50-15.50 IA-009-22 621 211/- Bichrome
104
IA-011-12
TS37.171
Ovens Drift
A315-A
IA-011-05
595
210/123
Bichrome IA-011-18 TS37.173 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-011-05 597 210/123 Bichrome
IA-020-03
TS36.182
15,30
IA-020-04
608
210/73
Bichrome IA-020-39 TS38.424 N wall by Int. 2 and 16 below ca 14.50 IA-020-13 600 210/125 Bichrome
IA-020-68
TS37.236
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-020-22
603
210/73,125
Bichrome IA-020-72 TS36.142 Oven 5 A302 IA-020-23 598 210/73,125 Bichrome
IA-040-06
TS37.239
Oven 5 W pit
A313
IA-040-02
611
210/73
Bichrome IA-042-23 TS37.127 Ovens Drift A315-A IA-042-02 622 211/- Bichrome
IA-054-88
Int
IA-054-13
609
210/73
Bichrome IA-034-58 TS37.168 Oven Drift A 315-A S of Oven 5 IA-034-06 632 212/73 Bichrome
IA-019-53
TS37.234
Oven Drift
A315-A
IA-019-11
626
211/-
Bichrome IA-019-90 TS37.238 Oven Area IA-019-16 619 211/73 Bichrome
R301-D3-11
TS37.235
Oven 5 large pit
A309
R301-D3-08
625
211/125
Bichrome R301-D4-06 TS37.463 E352 R301-D4-09 623 211/124 Bichrome
IA-019-93
TS38.188
K
B138
15,00
IA-019-16
142
174/60
Bichrome IA-020-15 TS36.395 SE sect. Pit dug, house fill below 14.20 IA-020-09 634 212/73 Bichrome
IA-020-44
TS36.16
14,50
IA-020-14
637
212/74,124
Bichrome IA-020-84 TS36.223 W 46? Int opening at 14.55 IA-020-26 635 212/74 Bichrome
R301-D3-07
TS36.327
14,00
R301-D3-05
636
212/124
Bichrome IA-020-81 TS36.229 SE big wall to 14.20 IA-020-26 640 213/74,124 Bichrome
105
Table A3: Late Iron Age Pottery List
Depot #
Exc. #
Location
Trench
Depth
Picture
Pub #
Page/fig
Period/Cat. IA-007-22 S. Bldg. B88-90 13.60-14.00 IA-007-07 1008 240/81 Buff Painted
IA-007-51
Jw
B71-79
13.00-14.60
IA-007-14
1007
240/81
Buff Painted IA-008-12 TS36.40 Xe to 13.65 floor IA-008-05 1001 239/81,134 Buff Painted
IA-041-18
TS38.202
Xb
B103
13,90
IA-041-03
1003
239/134
Buff Painted IA-041-19 TS38.393 B27 Int 38.27 IA-041-03 1006 240/81 Buff Painted
IA-041-29
TS38.212(also TS37.29)
36e
unstratified
IA-041-04
1004&1005
240/81
Buff Painted IA-041-35 TS36.55 36o/Tablet Unit 13,40 IA-041-05 1015a 240/81 Buff Painted
IA-042-22
TS37.330
Xb
B103
to 13.90
IA-042-02
1000a
239/81
Buff Painted IA-042-31 TS36.248a 13,87 IA-042-03 1000 239/81 Buff Painted
IA-042-73
Tablet Unit
B254
N Int 37.1(13.60?)
IA-042-09
1014
240/81
Buff Painted IA-054-30 TS36.152 13,50 IA-054-25 995 239/80 Buff Painted
IA-057-16
TS38.389
B60-69
13.50-15.50
IA-057-04
999
239/81,134
Buff Painted IA-028-05 TS38.429 B24 Int 38.24 IA-028-01 996 239/134 Buff Painted
IA-028-17
TS36.218
36qu/No 46
IA-028-04
996a
239/81
Buff Painted IA-028-17 TS36.218b,c 36qu/No 46 IA-028-04 996a 239/81 Buff Painted
IA-007-02
TS38.370
Xa
B95
DL?
IA-007-01
1011
240/134
White Painted IA-042-06 TS37.32(4?)8 S of Xa B122 15.4 (13.80?) IA-042-01 1010 240/81,134 White Painted
IA-042-09
TS37.487
13,70
IA-042-01
1015
240/81
White Painted IA-042-36 TS38.617 B51-59 13,95 IA-042-04 1012 240/81 White Painted
IA-015-42
TS37.396
Zf
B98
13,30
IA-015-13
1179
258/139
Buff Painted IA-015-83 TS36.264 36u IA-015-28 1182 258/139 Buff Painted
IA-041-14
TS36.70
IA-041-02
1174
258/139
Buff Painted IA-041-41 TS36.70 N room VI cent bldg/Zf-Zc 13,30 IA-041-05 1174 258/139 Buff Painted
IA-042-35
TS36.168
SE Wing/JFD/Ib
below 13.30
IA-042-04
1166
257/86
Buff Painted IA-055-02 TS36.160 Unstratified IA-055-03 1169 257/86 Buff Painted
IA-002-01
TS36.261
Below 13 M floor
IA-002-01
1180
258/139
Buff Painted IA-002-07 TS37.392 87c 12,70 IA-002-04 1183 258/139 Buff Painted
R301-D1-10
TS36.175
Room CD/AJW/IC
below 13.60m floor
R301-D1-08
1173
257/139
Buff Painted IA-041-12 TS36.240 MSW/S of wall 1/S of Jsw 13,06 IA-041-02 1187 259/- White Painted
106
R301-D1-21
TS36.150
Room CD/UnitG
below 12.60-.80
R301-D1-17
1186
259/139
White Painted R301-D1-22 TS36.(1)63 Room A & SW wing/I 13.00-.40 R301-D1-18 1185 259/138 White Painted
IA-004-21
TS37.39
Jc
B94
13,95
IA-004-04
Buff Painted IA-004-22 TS37.292? Jc B94 13,95 IA-004-04 Buff Painted
IA-005-16
JFD-I-/AC
13.25-13.50
IA-005-04
Buff Painted IA-005-18 Jc B92 13.42-13.94 IA-005-05 Buff Painted
IA-005-32
jsw eıa
B130
13,50
IA-005-08
Buff Painted IA-007-68 IT B241 12,50 IA-007-17 Buff Painted
IA-009-20
1936
A&C(?)
13.25-12.55
IA-009-03
Buff Painted IA-009-19 MWc(?) B252 13,40 IA-009-03 Buff Painted
IA-019-23
Q
B243
12,50
IA-019-05
White Painted IA-042-69 MSW floor 13.40 IA-042-08 White Painted
IA-009-77
Jsw
B122
13,00
IA-009-19
White Painted IA-009-95 Jc to 13.80 IA-009-21 Buff Painted
IA-009-111
H
B231
12,10
IA-009-24
Buff Painted IA-010-73 Jsw B122 13,00 IA-010-22 White Painted
IA-039-47
MWc
B250
13,36
IA-039-04
Buff Painted IA-039-38 H B63 14.05-.50 IA-039-03 White Painted
IA-042-66
Unıt H
B235
15,00
IA-042-08
White Painted IA-009-12 T area B237 12.00-12.30 IA-009-03 Buff Painted
IA-010-60
Jf
B97
12.85- 13
IA-010-18
Buff Painted IA-010-78 Jc B95 13.94 IA-010-22 White Painted
IA-009-97
H
245
15.47
IA-009-22
Buff Painted IA-010-65 unıt H B83.84 42868,00 IA-010-20 Buff Painted
IA-010-85
Unıt H
B83?
14.45?
IA-010-25
Buff Painted IA-011-17 H B83 14.05-.50 IA-011-05 Buff Painted
IA-011-24
H
251
15,50
IA-011-07
Buff Painted IA-015-16 TS37.405 H B83 14.05-.50 IA-015-05 buff painted
IA-015-90
J
B244
12.?0
IA-015-31
White Painted IA-010-79 MWc B250 13,36 IA-010-22 White Painted
IA-011-26
MWc
B250
13,36
IA-011-07
Buff Painted IA-011-32 I-T B234 12,10 IA-011-09 Buff Painted
IA-028-10
sJ
B244
12,80
IA-028-02
Buff Painted
107
IA-019-45 Lb B123 13,25 IA-019-09 Buff Painted
IA-039-34
IT
B241
12,50
IA-039-03
Buff Painted R301-D1-02 TS36.156&TS36.69 36?/SE bldg 13,30 R301-D1-03 159&1203 176&262/60 Imp Cypriot White
IA-007-84
TS38.313
B27
Int 38.27
IA-007-22
1067
246/83
Imp Cypriot White IA-054-16 TS37.320 AE Araba unstratified IA-054-12 1056 245/75A Imp Cypriot White
R301-D4-03
TS37.323
Int 75 (Unstratified)
R301-D4-05
1055
245/135
Imp Cypriot White IA-034-89 TS38.270 IA-034-09 1054 245/83 Imp Cypriot White
IA-034-127
TS38.270
IA-034-11
1054
245/83
Imp Cypriot White IA-034-146 TS36.13 36r?/Xa 13,98 IA-034-15 1058 245/135 Imp Cypriot White
IA-057-03
TS38.357
B35
Int 38.35
IA-057-01
1057
245/83
Imp Cypriot White IA-007-71 TS36.179 B.H. 13 IA-007-17 1356 278/94 Imp Cypriot White
IA-034-98
TS36.178
35w/TSA
IA-034-10
1357
279/94
Imp Cypriot White IA-041-59 IA-041-07 1358 279/94 Imp Cypriot White
R301-D1-01
TS38.565a
R301-D1-03
1205
262/141
Imp Cypriot White R301-D1-03 TS38.564l? Ib B254 n Int 37.1 R301-D1-03 1204 262/141 Imp Cypriot White
R301-D1-05
TS38.565c/e?
B25
Int 38.25
R301-D1-03
1205
262/141
Imp Cypriot White R301-D1-06 TS38.564e Ib B254 n Int 37.1 R301-D1-03 1204 262/141 Imp Cypriot White
IA-020-20
TS38.263
IT
B248
13,10
IA-020-11
1207
262/87,141
Imp Cypriot White IA-057-08 Unıt J B244 12,80 IA-057-01 imp. White painted
IA-034-102
oH
B230
12,10
IA-034-10
buff painted IA-034-110 QT B200 12.30-.50 IA-034-10 buff painted
IA-034-01
H floor
247
15,47
IA-034-01
imp. Buff Painted IA-042-32 H 245 IA-042-03 Buff Painted
IA-034-120
H
11
IA-034-11
white painted R301-D4-07 TS36.358 from floor# 10 R301-D4-12 1017 241/134 3/Black-on-Red
108
R301-D4-08
TS36.357
13,77
R301-D4-12
1019
241/134
3/Black-on-Red IA-002-03 B238 12.42-12.50 IA-002-01 Cilician Black-on-Red
IA-002-16
TS37.399
Unıt T
B246
12,90
IA-002-05
Cilician Black-on-Red IA-005-01 west part to 14.20 kerpic IA-005-01 possibly late Black-on-Red
IA-007-46
S of pit(?)/MW
13,06
IA-007-12
Black-on-Red IA-009-61 H B231 12,10 IA-009-16 Black-on-Red
IA-009-65
Q
B243
12,50
IA-009-17
Black-on-Red IA-039-40 Unıt I B233? 12,42 IA-039-04 Black-on-Red
IA-041-09
TS36.241
below 13.25
IA-041-01
Black-on-Red IA-010-16 IT B248 13,10 IA-010-05 Black-on-Red
IA-042-53
H
B83
14.05-.50
IA-042-07
Black-on-Red IA-011-09 Jsw B122 13,00 IA-011-03 Black-on-Red
R301-D6-09
TS37.267
H
251
15,50
R301-D6-05
looks later
Imp Black-on-Red IA-016-50 TS37.411 H 254 below 15.80 IA-016-13 110 170/58,115 Black-on-Red
R301-D1-09
TS37.477
ıntrusıon
B16
Int 38.??
R301-D1-06
1188A
259/138
Black-on-Red R301-D4-04 TS37.473 Unstratified R301-D4-06 1074 247/135 Imp Black-on-Red
IA-054-78
TS38.362
EW St.
B60-68
13-15.50
IA-054-65
1068
246/83
Imp Black-on-Red R301-D1-08 TS36.371 IC below 13 m floor R301-D1-06 1208 262/141 Imp Black-on-Red
IA-057-24
TS36.469
2 pieces in this picture, another in IA-057-03
13,80
IA-057-04
1029
242/82,135
Bichrome IA-006-12 TS38.395 12.80 and below IA-006-07 1030 242/135 Bichrome
IA-006-20
Room C/S of Xa
under 13.4
IA-006-10
1031
243/82
Bichrome IA-040-22 35w/S. of Xa below 13.40 IA-040-05 1031 243/82 Bichrome
IA-006-29
TS38.121
SJ
B244
12,80
IA-006-12
1037
243/82
Bichrome IA-006-50 TS38.1 ıntrusıon B14-15 Int 38.13-.14 IA-006-18 1035 243/82 Bichrome
IA-020-01
Room A, NW corner/Tablet Unit
13.40-13.55
IA-020-03
1039
243/82
Bichrome IA-020-89 unstratified IA-020-03 1032 243/75A Bichrome
IA-042-61
TS35.1
35 j
IA-042-07
1036
243/82
Bichrome IA-009-101 TS37.265 araba unstratified IA-009-22 1041 243/82 Bichrome
IA-019-99
TS38.306
E wall line of big house
B333
Intrusion
IA-019-18
590
209/72
Bichrome IA-019-80 TS37.244 Oven Drift A315-A IA-019-15 627 211/73 Bichrome
IA-054-35
TS38.312
upper fill in pıt
B199
15,95
IA-054-30
1044b
244/82
Bichrome IA-055-04 TS38.312 above butted pit B199 15,95 IA-055-06 1044a 244/82 Bichrome
109
IA-006-30
TS38.371c
rest in IA-054-27
B257
13.60-14.00
IA-006-13
1049
244/83,135
Bichrome IA-006-33 TS38.373 JW B71-79 13.00-14.60 IA-006-13 1050 245/75a Bichrome
IA-019-16
TS38.613
13.50-13.65
IA-019-03
1053
245/83
Bichrome IA-019-20 TS38.374 h1 below 13.25 IA-019-03 1051 245/75A Bichrome
IA-054-33
TS38.371a,b
Tablet Unit
B51-59
above 13.60
IA-054-27
1049
244/83,135
Bichrome IA-006-43 TS36.230 Room B, E of wall 13.48-13.50 IA-006-17 1190 260/86,87 Bichrome
IA-057-07
TS37.338(B?)
37/17-25
similar to picture 1190, but not same
IA-057-01
1190
260/86,87
Bichrome IA-006-44 TS36.230 Room B, E of wall 13.25-13.40 IA-006-17 1190 260/86,87 Bichrome
IA-006-45
TS36.230
Room B, E of wall/N-S street
B54
13.25-13.40
IA-006-17
1190
260/86,87
Bichrome IA-006-02 226 Unstratified IA-006-01 1196 260/87 Bichrome
IA-019-18
TS38.157
IA-019-03
1195
260/87
Bichrome R301-D4-01 13,50 R301-D4-04 1195a 260/139 Bichrome
R301-D4-02
TS36.367
13,50
R301-D4-04
1193
260/139
Bichrome IA-020-08 TS38.9 Jf B99-100 (13.37) 13.5 IA-020-06 1197 261/87 Bichrome
IA-020-02
TS38.301
MWc/S of Jw
B251
below 13.36
IA-020-03
1198
261/87
Bichrome IA-020-90 TS38.301 S of Jw below 13.36 IA-020-25 1198 261/87 Bichrome
IA-006-68
TS38.10
NE corner
B242
12.50-13.50
IA-006-25
1199
261/87
Bichrome IA-006-22 Unıt H B235 12,20 IA-006-11 Bichrome
IA-006-24
MWc(or L)
B250
13,36
IA-006-12
Bichrome IA-006-27 TS37.3594 13.60-13.73 IA-006-12 Bichrome
IA-006-42
Room D
13.00-13.25
IA-006-16
Bichrome IA-006-56 B251 13,36 IA-006-20 Bichrome
IA-006-66
JK
B146
12,70
IA-006-24
Bichrome IA-019-70 oH B231 12,10 IA-019-14 Bichrome
IA-019-82
below roman wall
B238
12.42-.50
IA-019-15
Bichrome IA-019-94 IT B241 12,50 IA-019-16 Bichrome
IA-020-04
Room C
below 12.80
IA-020-05
Bichrome IA-020-33 jsw floor B123 13,25 IA-020-12 Bichrome
IA-020-63
Jc
to 13.80
IA-020-19
Bichrome IA-020-82 Q B243 12,50 IA-020-26 Bichrome
IA-040-04
Unıt Q
B239
12.30-.50
IA-040-02
Bichrome IA-040-23 HQ B232 12,10 IA-040-05 similar to IA-040-22? Bichrome
IA-009-91
T area
B237
12.00-12.30
IA-009-21
Bichrome IA-009-98 H B231 12,10 IA-009-22 Bichrome
IA-009-109
Jsw
B122?
13 00
IA-009-23
Bichrome IA-009-106 H B83 14.05-.50 IA-009-23 Bichrome
IA-040-13
H
B83
14.05-.50
IA-040-03
Bichrome
110
IA-006-10 JO 13,00 IA-006-05 Bichrome
IA-006-52
JW
B71-79
13.00-14.60
IA-006-19
Bichrome IA-020-21 H B235 15,00 IA-020-11 Bichrome
IA-020-76
H apse area
218
15,00
IA-020-25
Bichrome IA-020-69 H 251 15,50 IA-020-23 Bichrome
IA-020-36
jsw floor
B123
13.25
IA-020-12
Bichrome IA-042-76 TS38.13 sJ B244 12,80 IA-042-09 1359 279/94 Bichrome
IA-019-27
oH
B230
12,10
IA-019-05
probably imp.
bichrome IA-019-102 TS38.343 JSW B300 13,20 IA-019-20 probably imp. Bichrome
111
APPENDIX B
FIGURES
Figure B 1
112
Figure B 2
113
Figure B 3
114
Figure B 4
115
Figure B 5
116
Figure B 6
117
Figure B 7
118
Figure B 8
119
Figure B 9
120
Figure B 10
121
Figure B 11
122
Figure B 12
123
Figure B 13
124
Figure B 14
125
Figure B 15
126
Figure B 16
127
Figure B 17
128
Figure B 18
129
Figure B 19
130
Figure B 20
131
Figure B 21
132
APPENDIX C
CATALOGUE
1. Sample #1
Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard cup
Period: EIA
Locus: B 112
Location: Unit J, Room Jo
Elevation: 15. 60 m
D: 20 cm.
Th. W.: 0.7 cm
H: 4.6 cm.
Description: Light buff clay (10 YR- 8/4). Paint dark brown bands (7.5 YR 3/1) both interior and exterior. Fine to medium fabric. No gray core.
Surface Treatment: Wet-smoothed and self-slipped
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: Fine and medium limestones are visible on the surface and the body. There are copious mica and rare black grits.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B1
2. Sample #2
Black-on-Red
133
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard bowl
Period: Transitional from Early Iron Age to Middle Iron Age
Locus: B 116
Location: Unit J, Room Jw
Elevation: +14.60 m
D: circa 17cm. because the rim is broken
Th. W.: 0.7 cm
H: 3.4 cm
Description: Reddish clay (7.5 YR- 7/6). Slipped, interior firing is light red and exterior to brownish red. Dark brown (7.5 YR 3/1) painted bands both on interior and exterior. Fine to medium fabric. Gray core.
Surface Treatment: Slipped, and smoothed.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: There is some fine to medium black grits, fine to medium limestone and some mica.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B2
3. Sample #3
Cypro- Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard Bowl
Period: EIA
134
Locus: 124
Location: East of wall U
Elevation: 15.50 m
D: 16 cm
Th. W.: 1 cm- 0.5 cm
H: 3 cm
Description: On the exterior, there are large dark brown (5 YR- 4/2) band below rim with the serious of thin lines/bands. Two dark brown bands on the interior. Clay is buff (5 YR- 6/6) with gray core. Fine to medium ware.
Surface Treatment: Self- slipped, smoothed.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: Medium size copious limestones are visible on the surface and on the clay. There is some medium black grits and few micas.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B3
4. Sample #4
Black-on-Red
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Bowl
Period: EIA
Locus: B 124
Location: Unit J, Jsw above 15.10 floor
Elevation: + 15.10 m
135
D: 24 cm
Th. W.: 0.7 cm
H: 2.5 cm
Description: Buff clay (7.5 YR- 6/3) with gray core. Slip is red (10R- 5/6). Two dark brown (7.5YR- 3/1) bands. Some parts of the paint are worn out. Fine to medium fabric. Gray core.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and smoothed
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Subgroup 1 of Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant quartz, frequent calcite and common carbonate, mica-schist, feldspar
Visible inclusion: There is some fine and medium limestones which are mostly visible on clay. Also, there are fine black grits and few micas.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B4
5. Sample #5
Kitchen ware
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Cooking pot
Period: EIA
Locus: B 112
Location: Unit J, Jo
Elevation: 15.60
D: 16 cm
Th. W.: circa 1 cm
H: 9.5 cm
136
Description: Buff to pinkish clay (7.5YR- 8/4). Wheel marks on the exterior surface. Coarse fabric. Exterior is self-slipped to around the rim. (10YR- 8/4- pale brown) Interior is not treated. No gray core.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and smoothed on the exterior.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: There are copious and coarse limestones and black grits. These are especially visible on the handle. There is some shells.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B5
6. Sample #6
Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Body sherd
Period: EIA
Locus: B 260
Location: Southwest corner Gray earth
Elevation: 15.70 m
D:
Th. W.: 0.5 cm
H:
Description: Body sherd. Clay is pinkish buff (7.5YR- 7/4). Very fine fabric. Dark brown (7.5YR- 3/2) painted. Decorated with the concentric circles and bands. Visible wheel marks. No gray core.
137
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and burnished outside but not inside.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 8 (imported)
Inclusion: Dominant quartz and few silica and serpentine
Visible inclusion: Almost no visible inclusion except very few and very fine limestone and few mica.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B6
7. Sample #7
Black-on-Red
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Body sherd
Period: EIA
Locus: B 180
Location: Unit T, North east corner O 15.60 m and South of lintel stone
Elevation: 15.60 m
D:
Th. W.: 0.4 cm
H:
Description: Body sherd. Clay is light red (10R- 6/8). The color of clay is different from the local clay. Exterior surface has color transition from light red (2.5YR- 6/6) to darker, brownish red (2.5YR- 5/4) due to the firing. There are brown painted (5YR- 3/2) concentric circles as decorative motif. Fine fabric. Medium to high burnished outside, inside is not treated.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and burnished
Petrographic aspects:
138
Fabric: Fabric 2 (imported)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz with few foraminifera.
Visible inclusion: Almost no visible inclusions. There are very few medium to coarse stone and very few visible fine limestone.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B7
8. Sample #8
Black-on-Red
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Body sherd
Period: EIA
Locus: B 169
Location: Kb, South Edge West of Grain Pit North of Big House
Elevation: 16.00 m
D:
Th. W.: 0.4 cm
H:
Description: Body sherd. Buff clay (7.5YR- 7/4). The color of clay is similar to locally produced pottery, but the fabric is much finer. Slightly seen gray core. Exterior is red (2.5YR- 4/8) due to the slip. There are two black bands on the exterior.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and burnished.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: not identified
Inclusion: fabric is too fine to identify the inclusions
139
Visible inclusion: Some fine black grits. Few fine to medium limestone but they are close to surface not within the body.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B8
9. Sample #9
Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard cup
Period: MIA
Locus: A 300
Location: Inside Oven 5
Elevation:
D: 9 cm
Th. W.: circa 1 cm
H: 5.1 cm
Description: Buff clay (7.5YR- 7/4) with gray core. Banded decoration with brown paint (7.5YR- 3/1). Thick band on the rim and on the body, there are thin bands in between. Exterior is slipped with buff (2.5YR- 6/6). Medium to coarse fabric. Paint is not well applied and fainted on some parts.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and smoothed on the outside, inside is not treated.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
140
Visible inclusion: Some mica is visible especially on the slipped parts. Copious fine black grits on the interior surface. Medium to coarse lime and stone inclusions. Also, few shells.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B9
10. Sample #10
Bichrome
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Crater
Period: MIA
Locus: B 96
Location: Jc, +13.95 m., Alley of Northwest of Oa
Elevation: 15.00 m
D: 34 cm
Th. W.: 0.9 cm
H: 7.3 cm
Description: Pinkish buff clay (7.5YR- 7/4). Exterior and interior is white /buff (10YR- 8/3) slipped. Dark brown (10YR- 3/2) band on the rim and below the rim, wide dark brown band on the interior. Red band (2.5YR- 6/6) between two dark brown bands and concentric circles below them. paint worn of on the rim. Slightly seen gray core.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
141
Visible inclusion: Copious fine to medium limestones. Copious mica is quite visible in the clay. Fine black grits. Some medium stones. There are holes on the clay.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B10
11. Sample #11
Bichrome
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard bowl
Period: MIA
Locus: A 315-A
Location: Oven Drift
Elevation:
D: 18 cm
Th. W.:
H: 3.2 cm
Description: Buff (5YR- 6/6) clay with slightly gray core. Two bands on the interior of the rim; light red (2.5YR- 6/6) and brown band (5YR- 2.5/1). Fingerprint on the interior side of the rim. Fine fabric.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped, smoothed, and medium to high burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: There is some mica, very fine to medium limestone and very fine black grits.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B11
142
12. Sample #12
Bichrome
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Jug, Amphora
Period: MIA
Locus: B 174
Location: N end and NE corner above black floor
Elevation: + 15.00 m.
D: 11 cm
Th. W.: 0.6 cm
H: 2.3 cm
Description: Buff pinkish clay (7.5YR- 7/4). Interior is buff slipped (10YR- 8/4) and brown band (10YR- 3/1) on the rim and lines below it. Exterior rim has brown bands. Red paint (2.5YR- 5/6) on the neck.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and light burnished.
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 3 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate, common quartz and few mica-schist and feldspar
Visible inclusion: There is some limestones, very fine copious black grits, some fine to medium stones and few mica.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B12
13. Sample #13
Black-on-Red
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard bowl
143
Period: MIA
Locus: Ovens
Location:
Elevation:
D: 21 cm
Th. W.: 1.1 cm
H: 4.5 cm
Description: Buff (7.5YR- 7/4) clay. No gray core. Two black bands (7.5YR- 2.5/1) on the exterior. Exterior is orangish red (5YR- 7/8) and interior is light red (2.5YR- 6/8) due to the firing. Medium fabric.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and lightly burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: Copious medium limestones. There are holes in the clay and some medium to coarse (brown) stones and maybe few shells. Also, there is some fine to medium black grits and some micas.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B13
14. Sample #14
Black-on-Red
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Bowl
Period: MIA
Locus: T4 EXT4
144
Location: Drain set to floor
Elevation:
D: 24 cm
Th. W.:
H: 4 cm
Description: Fine ware. No gray core. Exterior is highly worn out. There is trace of brown paint so, brown band on the rim could extend to the exterior. Slip is mostly gone on the exterior but, preserved on the interior. Clay is buff (5YR- 7/6). Black (2.5YR- 2.5/1) lines on the interior. Red slip (2.5YR- 5/6).
Surface Treatment: Slipped and burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 9
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and common quartz with few serpentinite
Visible inclusion: There are very fine black grits and limestones and some mica.
There are small holes in the fabric.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B14
15. Sample #15
Kitchen ware
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Cooking Pot
Period: MIA
Locus: A 312
Location: Oven 5, West pit
Elevation:
D:
145
Th. W.:
H:
Description: Body sherd. Brown (7.5YR- 5/4) clay. No gray core. Interior is light brown (7.5YR- 6/3) and exterior is reddish brown (5YR- 6/6). Traces of soot on the exterior. Coarse fabric.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped, roughly smoothed
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 4 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant Carbonate and microfossils, common calcite and quartz
Visible inclusion: There are copious coarse black stones. Traces of organic material both on the surface and in the clay. Some fine to medium limestone. Few shells and few mica.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B15
16. Sample #16
Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Body sherd
Period: MIA
Locus: T4 Ext 4East to 14.50 floor
Location:
Elevation: 14.50
D:
Th. W.:
H:
146
Description: Body sherds. Two pieces from the same vessel but they are not mended. Probably imported. Whitish clay (10YR- 8/2). No gray core. Fine fabric. Interior is white slipped (10YR- 7/2). Exterior is buff (10YR- 8/3) but could be due to the firing. Dark brown (7.5 YR 3/1) lines between two bands. In one sherd, there is also curving line which is part of a concentric circle. Also, there is wider band below the break. Interior is untreated.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: not identified
Inclusion: Fabric is too fine to identify the inclusions
Visible inclusion: There is almost no visible inclusion. One piece has very few small holes in the clay. Very few mica.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B16
17. Sample #17
Kitchen ware
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Cooking Pot
Period: MIA
Locus: A 314
Location: Oven 5
Elevation:
D:
Th. W.:
H:
147
Description: Body sherd with handle. Dark gray core. Brown clay (7.5YR- 5/3). Exterior and interior is red (2.5YR- 5/6). Coarse ware. Fingerprint on the handle.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and roughly smoothed
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 6 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant quartz, frequent carbonate and feldspar with common calcite
Visible inclusion: There are coarse stones, fine to medium limestones and medium black grits. Also, there are few holes.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B17
18. Sample #18
Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Jug / flask or bottle neck
Period: LIA
Locus: B 122
Location: Jsw
Elevation: 13.00 m
D: 6 cm
Th. W.: 0.4 cm
H: 4 cm
Description: Buff (7.5YR- 7/4) clay and surface. No gray core. Dark brown (7.5 YR 3/1) band on the rim and on the exterior. Paint on the rim worn off.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and smoothed
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
148
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
Visible inclusion: There are copious fine limestones, very few shell, fine black grits and few medium stones.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B18
19. Sample #19
Black-on-Red
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard Bowl
Period: LIA
Locus: B 230
Location: Unit H
Elevation: 12.10 m
D: 23 cm
Th. W.: 0.6 cm
H: 2.3 cm
Description: Thin gray core. Fine fabric. Interior and exterior surfaces are red (7.5YR- 5/6). Reddish brown bands (5YR- 3/2) on the interior. Large reddish-brown bands on the exterior where the handle starts.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 1 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant carbonate and quartz, few rock fragments, serpentinite, opaque minerals, and calcite
149
Visible inclusion: Few small holes are visible on the clay. There are fine to medium limestones, fine black grits and few medium brown stones.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B19
20. Sample #20
Cypro-Cilician Buff Painted
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Standard cup
Period: LIA
Locus: B 92
Location: Jc
Elevation: 13.42- 13.94 m
D: 21 cm
Th. W.: 0.9 cm
H: 4.1 cm
Description: On the handle, there is a thick slip. Slip is red. There is no slip in where the handle should be. Clay is buff (10YR- 7/3) with slightly seen gray core. Curving brown line (5YR- 3/1) above the handle. Exterior part has orangish buff color (7.5YR- 7/4) and interior is buff (10YR- 8/4). Brown band (5YR- 3/1) on the rim and below it.
Surface Treatment: Slipped and smoothed
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 5 (local)
Inclusion: Frequent mica-schist and carbonate, common quartz and few opaque minerals
150
Visible inclusion: There are copious fine to medium limestones, fine black grits which are especially seen on the break and medium to fine mica.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B20
21. Sample #21
Kitchen ware
Macroscopic aspects:
Type: Jug, amphora
Period: LIA
Locus: B 234
Location: I- T
Elevation: 12.10 m.
D: 13 cm.
Th. W.: 0.4 cm
H: 6.5 cm
Description: Clay is red (10R- 4/8). No gray core. Interior has lighter red color than the exterior probably due to firing. Soot traces on the handle.
Surface Treatment: Self-slipped and roughly burnished
Petrographic aspects:
Fabric: Fabric 7 (local)
Inclusion: Dominant quartz, frequent feldspar, common carbonate and calcite
Visible inclusion: There are very fine to fine limestones, few medium to coarse stones. Also, there are small holes on the clay.
Figure: Appendix B, Figure B21
151
APPENDIX D
PETROGRAPHY RESULTS
1. Fabric 1
Samples #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #9, #10, #11, #13, #18, #19, and #20
20-30%, double spaced or less. Moderately aligned to the margins of samples. Unimodal, poorly sorted.
Dominant: Carbonate; <4.5 mm mode= 1.8-2 mm. Composed of different shapes but mostly equant rounded and elongate angular shapes. There are few microfossils as well.
Dominant/Frequent: Quartz; <3.5 mm, mode=1.5 mm. Composed of mostly equant very angular shapes. There are some grains attached to carbonate.
Few: Igneous rock fragments; <4.1 mm, mode= 1.8 mm. Composed of mostly quartz, feldspar, and either epidote or serpentine. Grains are elongate angular or sub-angular shape.
Few: Serpentinite; <2.6 mm, mode=2.6 mm. Elongate rounded and equant sub-rounded grains.
Few: Opaque minerals; <1.7 mm, mode= 0.6 mm. Equant rounded and elongate rounded grains.
Few: Calcite; <2.3 mm, mode= 1.5 mm. Equant well rounded and equant angular shapes.
Very few: Plagioclase; <1.2 mm, mode= 0.4- 0.6 mm. Equant angular and elongate sub-angular.
Very few: Biotite; <1.1 mm, mode= 1.1 mm. Equant sub-rounded.
Very rare: Epidote; <1.2 mm, mode=0.6 mm. Equant angular.
152
Few: Olivine; <4.2 mm, mode= 1.1 mm. Elongate sub-angular grains. While most of the grains are altered, the biggest grain is not altered.
Rare: Silica; <4.1 mm, mode= 1.6 mm. Elongate angular.
Very few: Amphibolite; <2.3 mm, mode= 0.7- 0.8 mm. Elongate angular.
Few: Mica-schist: <2.8 mm, mode= 1.3 mm. elongate angular and sub-angular.
Very few/ few: Alkali feldspar; <2.6 mm, mode= 1 mm. Elongate sub-angular and equant angular.
Very rare-Absent: Serpentine; 0.6 mm. Elongate angular.
Matrix
60-7-%. Matrix is sandy. Dark brown in XPL and brown in PPL. (x50) Moderately homogenous because of the core. The core is lighter brown than the margins. Sample #2 has red slip on the exterior surface.
Voids
7 %. There are large voids surrounded by carbonate which is probably decomposed limestone. Very few are in the margin of the samples. There are mostly planar voids and some vughs. The rest is elongate sub-angular.
Comments
These samples represent the main locally produced group. Carbonates, quartz, feldspar, calcite, and serpentinite are dominant in this group. Grains are generally coarse to medium size. However, samples #1, #18, and #19 are better levigated than the main group. This group has two subgroups which have slight changes in the inclusions and the grain sizes.
1.1 Subgroup 1
Sample #4
153
Inclusions
20% unimodal, double spaced. Moderately sorted. Moderately aligned to the margins of the sample.
Dominant: Quartz; <1.6 mm, mode= 0.9 /1 mm. Elongate angular.
Frequent: Calcite; <1.7 mm, mode= 1 mm. Elongate angular, equant angular.
Common: Carbonate; <2.2 mm, mode=1.1 mm. Elongate sub-rounded, equant angular.
Common: Mica-Schist; <2.9 mm, mode= 1.1 mm. Elongate angular, equant angular.
Common: Feldspar; <1.9 mm, mode= 1.2 mm. Elongate angular and sub-angular
Very few: Igneous rock fragments; <2.6 mm, mode= 1.2 mm. Equant angular and sub-angular.
Very few: Opaque minerals; <1.1 mm, mode= 0.7 mm. Equant angular, sub-angular.
Few- very few: Amphibolite: mode= 1.1 mm. Elongate angular.
Very few: Epidote; <0.9 mm >0.8 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Rare-absent: Serpentinite; 0.3 mm. Equant rounded.
Rare: Plagioclase; <1 mm 0.8 mm. Equant sub-rounded and elongate rounded.
Very few- Rare: Olivine; 1.2 mm. Elongate rounded.
Matrix
70% Homogenous. Brown color in XPL (x50) and light to dark brown color in PPL (x50).
Voids
1-2 % elongate angular voids. Few planar voids.
Comments
There are two long rectangular grains which could be clay pellets. It contains more mics-schist than the main group.
154
2. Fabric 2
Sample #7
Inclusions
20 %, Unimodal, double spaced, poorly sorted.
Dominate: Carbonate; <2.1 mm, mode= 0.5 mm. Mostly equant angular but there are some sub-angular and elongate angular ones.
Common: Quartz; <0.7 mm, mode= 0.3 mm. Some are equant rounded and some are elongate sub-angular.
Few: Foraminifera; <0.6 mm, mode= 0.3 mm. Equant well rounded.
Very rare: Serpentine; 0.4 mm, mode= 0.3 mm. Equant rounded.
Sample #10 has also rock fragments and opaque minerals.
Few: Rock Fragments; <5.1 mm, mode= 2.4 mm. they are generally consisted of quartz and epidote, but the rock fragments are igneous rocks, granites. They are equant sub-angular or elongate sub-angular.
Few: Opaque minerals; <1.3 mm, mode= 0.5 mm. Equant rounded or elongate angular.
Matrix
80%. Heterogenous, there are some lighter clay which are part of later alteration, I guess. Dark red in XPL, reddish Brown in PPL. (x50)
Voids
1%. Consisting of elongate, angular and some equant sub-angular voids. There are equant well rounded voids with carbonate around them. These are decomposed carbonate, limestone probably.
Comments
155
This group has red color of clay. It has fine fabric so it does not have a lot of inclusions. It has mica on both samples. Also, the number of decomposed carbonates shows that probably it has limestone which decomposed in the firing process. It has carbonate, quartz, and microfossils as inclusions.
3. Fabric 3
Sample #12
Inclusions
20- 25%. Unimodal, double spaced. Moderately sorted. Moderately aligned to the margins of the sample.
Dominant: Carbonate; <3.8 mm, mode= 1.6 mm. Equant sub-rounded and sub-angular and some elongate angular.
Common: Quartz; <3.7 mm, mode= 1.4 mm. Equant angular and elongate angular and sub-angular.
Few: Alkali feldspar; mode= 0.9 mm. Equant angular.
Very Few: Plagioclase:<0.6 mm, mode=0.6. Equant angular.
Few: Mica-Schist; <1.3 mm, mode= 1.2 mm. Elongate angular and equant angular.
Few: Opaque minerals: <1.2 mm, mode= 0.8 mm. Elongate angular but mostly equant angular.
Very few: Serpentine;<0.5 mm, mode= 0.5 mm. Equant angular.
Rare: Epidote: <2.3 mm, 1.2 mm. Equant rounded. It looks like it composed of several epidotes but there is also quartz and one elongated brown thing. Also, there are elongate angular epidotes.
Very few: Rare; Amphibolite; 0.8 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Matrix
156
70% The color is dark brown in XPL (x50) and again dark brown in PPL (x50). Moderately homogenous.
Voids
Circa 5%. There is a big void in the middle of the sample and surrounded with carbonate. So, this is probably decomposed carbonate. Very few planar voids and vughs.
Comments
It contains dominant carbonate and quartz with few feldspar and mica-schist. Also, there are decomposed carbonates.
4. Fabric 4
Sample #15
Inclusions
20-30% Unimodal, moderately sorted. Double spaced or less. Not aligned to the margins of the sample. Random orientation.
Dominated: Carbonate; <6.5 mm, mode= 2.1 mm. Elongate very angular or equant angular.
Dominated: Microfossils; there are elongate angular (rectangular) ones and there are equant well rounded microfossils. (possibly ooids)
Common: Quartz; <1.4 mm, mode= 0.3-4 mm. Elongate sub-rounded or sub-angular.
Common: Calcite;< 1.2 mm, mode= 0.8 mm. Elongate angular.
Rare: Opaque minerals: <1.9 mm, mode= 0.3 mm. Equant rounded, well-rounded.
Matrix
60-70% Homogenous, very light brown (whitish) in XPL (x50) and light brown in PPL (x50)
Voids
157
1% elongate angular and sub-angular voids. Few planar voids.
Comments
The characteristic aspect of this sample is containing too much and various microfossils in it. It has whitish clay color which is not usual for the main group. There is no other example of this group among the samples. Opaque minerals could be temper because they are very angular.
5. Fabric 5
Sample #20
Inclusions
25 %. Moderately aligned to the margins. Poorly sorted. Unimodal. Double spaced.
Frequent: Mica-schist; <1.9 mm, mode=1.6 mm. Elongate angular.
Frequent: Carbonate; <4.6 mm, mode=1.5 mm. Elongate angular, some equant well rounded.
Common: Igneous rock fragments; <2.1 mm, mode= 1.4 mm. Elongate sub-rounded or very angular.
Common: Quartz;<1.9 mm, mode=1.7 mm. Elongate angular, or equant angular.
Few: Opaque minerals; <1.6 mm, mode= 0.5- 1 mm. Elongate sub-rounded or equant angular.
Very few: Serpentinite: <2.3 mm, mode= 0.5 mm. Elongate sub-rounded. These are alternated serpentine.
Very few: Amphibolite; 0.8 mm. Elongate angular.
Rare: Biotite; 0.6 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Very rare: Plagioclase; 0.9 mm. Elongate angular maybe squarish.
Matrix
158
65- 70% Almost homogenous, there is slip which is different color. The edges are reddish brown in XPL (x50), and core is brown and in PPL (x50) the edges are brown, and the core is darker brown like greenish.
Voids
5 %. There are some voids, decomposed carbonates mostly equant and very angular. Some are planar voids. Moderately aligned.
Comments
The characteristic aspect of this sample is containing more mica-schist than the main group. Quartz, carbonate, mica-schist are main inclusions. Presence of decomposed carbonate indicate that limestone could be also added as temper. There is also possible clay pellet used as temper.
6. Fabric 6
Sample #20
Inclusions
20-25% Unimodal, poorly sorted, moderately aligned to the margins of the sample, double spaced.
Dominant: Quartz; <2.4 mm, mode= 0.8 mm. Equant angular or elongate sub-angular.
Frequent: Carbonate; <1.8 mm, mode= 0.9 mm. Elongate angular and equant sub-rounded. There is also microfossil.
Frequent/ Common: Feldspar; <6.4 mm, mode= 1.2 mm. Elongate angular and equant sub-rounded.
Common: Calcite; <2.9 mm, mode= 1.3 mm. Elongate angular.
Few: Opaque Minerals; <3.7 mm, mode= 0.4- 0.6. Equant sub-angular, rounded.
Few: Mica-Schist; <7.1 mm, mode= 1.4 mm. Equant rounded or sub-angular.
159
Very few: Epidote; <1 mm, mode= 0.6 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Rare: Amphibolite;<1.2 mm and >0.7 mm. Equant sub-angular.
Rare: Pyroxene; 0.8 mm. Elongate sub- angular.
Matrix
65-70% Heterogenous or moderately homogenous. Orange to brown color in XPL (x50) and red to light brown in PPL (x50).
Voids
10% coarse, equant angular voids.
Comments
This sample has very few mafic as inclusion, but the dominant inclusions are almost similar with the main fabric. Some feldspar and quartz grains could be added as tempers. Also, there are microfossils which could be also added as temper.
7. Fabric 7
Sample #21
Inclusions
40-45%. Unimodal, poorly sorted, spaced, homogenous. Moderately aligned to the margins of the sample.
Dominant: Quartz; <3.7 mm, mode= 0.8 mm. Elongate angular or equant angular.
Frequent/dominant: Feldspar; <2 mm, mode= 1.1 mm. Equant angular or elongate angular but there is some equant sub-rounded. Twinned grains.
Common: Carbonate; <1.3 mm, mode= 0.7-8 mm. Elongate sub-angular, equant angular.
Common: Calcite; <1.4 mm. Elongate sub-angular and equant angular.
Very few: Epidote; 0.7 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Very few: Hornblende; <1.4 mm, 0.4 mm. Equant sub-angular.
160
Matrix
50-55 % Red color in XPL (x50) and orangish red in PPL (x50).
Voids
5-10 %. Elongate very angular and angular voids. Moderately same orientation. Very few equant well rounded voids. Frequent planar voids.
Comments
The color of clay is characteristic among samples. It has very light bright red color and it has quartz dominated inclusions. It has calcareous fabric and calcite, quartz, feldspar are main inclusions.
8. Fabric 8
Samples #6
Inclusions
10 %, Silty, homogenous, unimodal, poorly sorted, double spaced or less. Aligned to the margins of the sample.
Dominant: Quartz; <1.6 mm, mode=0.5-7 mm. Elongate angular and equant angular.
Few: Silica; 0.4 mm>, mode= 0.7 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Very few: Carbonate; <1.4 mm, >0.7 mm. Elongate angular almost rectangular.
Very few: Opaque minerals; <1.4 mm, mode= 0.8 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Rare: Olivine: 0.5 mm. Elongate angular.
Few: Serpentine; <0.6 mm, mode= 0.4 mm. Elongate sub-rounded and angular.
Matrix
75 %, Brown in PPL, and reddish brown in XPL (x50). Homogenous
Voids
7%, elongate angular voids.
Comments
161
It has fine grains. There are dominant quartz and serpentinite along with few carbonates, silica, and olivine as inclusions.
9. Fabric 9
Sample #14
Inclusions
Dominant: Carbonate; <1.1 mm, mode= 0.7 mm. Equant angular, sub-angular.
Common: Quartz; <1.2 mm, mode= 0.6 mm. Elongate sub-rounded or sub-angular.
Few: Serpentinite; <0.8 mm, mode= 0.4 mm. Elongate angular.
Very Rare: Serpentine; 0.4 mm, equant angular.
Very few: Silica; <1 mm, mode= 0.4 mm. Equant angular.
Very few: Biotite; <0.6 mm, mode= 0.4 mm. Equant sub-angular.
Very few-rare: Epidote; <0.5 mm, mode= 0.4 mm. Equant sub-rounded.
Very rare: Plagioclase; 0.9 mm. Equant angular.
Very few: Olivine;<0.9 mm, >0.6mm. Elongate, angular and equant sub-angular.
Rare: Amphibolite; <1 mm. >0.4 mm. Elongate angular.
Matrix
Brown in XPL and very light brown in PPL. Homogenous, silty.
Voids
10% Equant angular voids.
Comments
It has medium to fine grains. It has more mafic inclusions. Dominant inclusion is carbonate and there are few serpentinite and quartz.
Not identifiable
Samples #8 and #16
Inclusions
162
3%, open spaced, unimodal, moderately sorted or sorted grain size distribution. Weakly aligned to margins.
Dominant: Carbonate; <1.5 mm, mode= 0.5 mm. Equant, sub-rounded and rounded. Randomly oriented.
Frequent: Feldspar; <3.7 mm, mode= 1 mm. Elongate angular and sub-angular. They all aligned to one way. Twinned.
Few: Quartz; <0.7 mm, mode= 0.3 mm. Equant sub-rounded and sub-angular.
Very few: Serpentine; <0.4 mm, mode= 0.3 mm. Elongate sub-angular.
Very few: Microfossils; <0.5 mm, mode= 0.4 mm. Elongate sub- angular.
Matrix
Reddish brown to darker Brown in XPL, Red brown to light brown in PPL (x50). Moderately heterogenous. There is a color differentiation because of firing.
Voids
1%. Almost no voids. Consisted of elongate angular and sub-angular voids.
Comments
This fabric is characterized with its fine aspect. There is almost no inclusion and voids.
General comments
Among 21 samples from the Iron age levels of Tarsus-Gözlükule, there are eight distinct fabrics. The main fabric has the samples #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #9, #10, #11, #13, #18, #19, and #20. The samples # 10, # 13, and #20 are coming from the oven area so, their existence also an evidence for the local aspect of this group. The characteristic aspect of the local group is containing dominant carbonates with microfossils and quartz. The big amount of the inclusions consists of igneous rock group like quartz, feldspar and serpentinite. There are several subgroups of the main
163
group. The samples #1, 18, and 19 sharing the same aspects. These three are the finer versions of it and have more mafic like amphibolite and pyroxene.
Generally, the samples taken from the oven area contain similar inclusions. However, the fabric aspects of the sample #15 are quite different from the main local fabric. It has dominant quartz and various microfossils in it as inclusions. Considering its lighter clay color and the aspect of the inclusions, the clay source of this sample should be definitely different from the main fabric. However, its content is not quite different from the local group with carbonates, quartz and calcite so, it is possible that this clay could come from somewhere in the region. Also, if we think about this sample is taken from the cooking pot, it is probably not an important vessel. This situation indicates that there is not only one clay source that is used by the Tarsian potters. Another group is red fine fabric which has one example, #7. This group has red and very fine clay aspects. It does not include too much inclusions. Carbonate and quartz are the dominant inclusions but other than these two, there is not that much inclusions. Considering the macroscopic analysis of the sample, we can say that this was not produced locally. There is another fine group with the brown color which has the finest clay and it has almost no inclusions and the ones are so fine so; it is difficult to identify them. Thus, the samples #7 and #16 are imported vessels. Another group with single specimen, #21, is the red calcareous fabric. The color of the clay is very distinctive, and this could be both because of the clay source and the firing technique. It has also more voids than the others and the density of planar voids is remarkable.
The results of the petrographic analysis of the samples show that there is a continuation in the tradition of the pottery production in the Iron Age levels. main group continued to be produced during the Iron Age, and it seems that in the last
164
period of the Iron Age, they started to produce finer pottery. However, they do not completely abandon the earlier techniques because there are samples from the earlier levels in the same fabric group. Therefore, it can be said that there is a continuous local tradition in the Iron Age.
165
REFERENCES
Ahrens, A., Novak, M., & Kozal, E. (2010). Sirkeli Höyük in Smooth Cilicia. A General Overview From the 4th to the 1st Millenium BC. In P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, & N. Marchetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East May, 5th-10th 2008, “Sapienza”—Università di Roma: Vol. Volume 2 Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East (pp. 55–74).
Arnold, D. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aslan, N. (2010). Kilikya Demir Çağı Seramiği: İthal Boyalı Seramikler ve İlişkiler. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Astour, M. C. (1965). Evidence on the Last Days of Ugarit. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 69(No. 3), 253–258.
Aubet, M. E. (2006). The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aubet, M. E. (2013). Phoenicia During the Iron Age II Period. In M. Steiner & A. E. Killebrew (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE (pp. 706–716). Oxford: OUP.
Barnett, R. D. (1953). Mopsos. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 73, 140–143.
Beal, R. H. (1986). The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Šunaššura Treaty. Orientalia, 55(4), 424–445.
Bikai, P. M. (1978). The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris& Philips.
Bikai, P. M. (1989). Cyprus and the Phoenicians. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 52(No. 4 From Ruins to Riches: CAARI on Cyprus), 203–209.
Bing, J. D. (1971). Tarsus: A Forgotten Colony of Lindos. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 30(2), 99–109.
Boardman, J. (1965). Tarsus, Al Mina and Greek Chronology. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 85, 5–15.
Boardman, J. (1990). Al Mina and History. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 9(2), 169–190.
Boardman, J. (2001). Aspects of “Colonization.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 332, 33–42.
166
Bolat, İ. S. (2015). İçel İli Jeolojik Özellikleri. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Genel Müdürlüğü, 1–19.
Bonatz, D. (1993). Some Considerations on the Material Culture of Coastal Syria in the Iron Age. Egitto e Vicino Oriente, 16, 123–157.
Borger, R. (1956). Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
Bossert, E. M. (2003). Keramik. In Karatepe–Aslantaş, Azatiwataya 1. Die Bildwerke. (pp. 131–150). Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Bouthilier, Christina et al. (2014). Further work at Kilise Tepe, 2007-2011: Refining the Bronze to Iron Age Transition. Anatolian Studies, 64, 95–161.
Bryce, T. (2016). The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited. Anatolian Studies, 66, 67–79.
Caubet, A., Fourrier, S., & Yon, M. (2015). Le sanctuaire sous la colline, Kition-Bamboula VI. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux.
Crespin, A.-S. (1999). Between Phrygia and Cilicia: The Porsuk Area at the Beginning of the Iron Age. Anatolian Studies, 49, 61–71.
Çambel, H. (1999). Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol II: Karatepe-Aslantaş. New York: De Gruyter.
Çambel, H., & Özyar, A. (2003). Karatepe–Aslantaş, Azatiwataya 1. Die Bildwerke. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Dalley, S. (1999). Sennacherib and Tarsus. Anatolian Studies Anatolian Iron Ages 4. Proceedings of the Fourth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Mersin, 19-23 May 199, 49, 73–80.
Darga, A. M. (2012). Karatepe-Azatiwattaya Kalesinin Çanak Çömlek Buluntuları. Anadolu Araştırmaları, 10.
Demetriou, A. (2001). Phoenicians in Cyprus and their Hellenisation the case of Kition. Archaeologia Cypria, Vol. IV, 135–148.
Dinçol, B., Dinçol, A., Hawkins, J. D., Peker, H., & Öztan, A. (2015). Two New Inscribed Storm-God Stelae from Arsuz (İskenderun): ARSUZ 1 and 2. Anatolian Studies, 65, 59–77.
Dodd, L. S. (2012). Squeezing Blood from a Stone: E Archaeological Context of the Incirli Inscription. In M. Lundberg, S. Fine, & W. T. Pitard (Eds.), Puzzling Out the Past: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce Zuckerman (pp. 213–234). Brill.
Dupré, S. (1983). Porsuk I La Ceramique de L’age du Bronze et de L’age du Fer “Memoire” no 20. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
167
Ehringhaus, H. (1997). Die Hethitischen Felsreliefs am Sirkeli Höyük in der Türkei—Bemerkungen zu Neufunden in Kilikien und Lykaonien. Nürnberger Blätter Zur Archäologie 14, 89–104.
Ehringhaus, H. (2005). Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften. Die Felsreliefs der Hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Gander, M. (2012). Aḫḫiyawa – Ḫiyawa – Que: Gibt es Evidenz für die Anwesenheit von Griechen in Kilikien am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit. Studi Micenei Ed Egeo-Anatolici, 54, 1–29.
Gates, M. H. (2010). Potters and Consumers in Cilicia and the Amuq during the ‘Age of Transformations’ (13th-10th centuries BC.). In F. Venturi (Ed.), Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis, 15th November 2007 (pp. 65–81).
Gates, M.-H. (2013). From Late Bronze to Iron Age on Syria’s Northwest Frontier: Cilicia and the Amuq. In S. Mazzoni & S. Soldi (Eds.), Syrian Archaeology in PerspectiveCelebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis Proceedings of the International Meeting Percorsi di Archeologia SirianaGiornate di studio Pisa 27-28 Novembre 2006 Gipsoteca di Arte Antica—S. Paolo all’Orto (pp. 95–116). Edizioni ETS.
Gates, M. H. (2017). A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia Results of the first three Cilician Chronology Workshops. Altorientalische Forschungen, 44(2), 150–186.
Giesen, K. (2001). Zyprische Fibeln, Typologie und Chronologie. Jonsered: Paul Aströms Förlag.
Gilboa, A. (1999). The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 316, 1–22.
Gilboa, A., & Goren, Y. (2005). Early Iron Age Phoenician Networks: An Optical Mineralogy Study of Phoenician Bichrome and Related Wares in Cyprus. Ancient West and East, 73–110.
Gilboa, A. (2013). The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Iron Age I period. In A. E. Killebrew & M. Steiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE (pp. 624–648). OUP.
Gilboa, A., Waiman-Barak, P., & Sharon, I. (2015). Dor, The Carmel Coast Early Iron Age Mediterranean Exchanges. In A. Babbi, F. Bubenheimer-Erhart, B. Marin-Aguilera, & S. Mühl (Eds.), The Mediterranean Mirror Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea Between 1200 and 750 B.C. (pp. 85–110). Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
168
Girginer, S., & Girginer, Ö. O. (2009). Tatarlı Höyük (Ceyhan) Kazısı: İlk İki Dönem. In 31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25-29 Mayıs 2009 Denizli: Vol. 3. Cilt (pp. 453–476). Ayrı Basım. Ankara: İsmail Aygün Ofset Matbaacılık.
Gjerstad, E. (1948). The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic, and Cypro-Classical Periods: Vol. Vol. IV, Part 2. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Goetze, A. (1939). Cuneiform Inscriptions from Tarsus. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 59(1), 1–16.
Goetze, A. (1940). Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goetze, A. (1962). Cilicians. The University of Chicago Press on Behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 16(No.2), 48–58.
Goldman, H. (1937). Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1937. American Journal of Archaeology, 42, 30–54.
Goldman, H. (1937). Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1936. American Journal of Archaeology, 41, 262–286.
Goldman, H. (1963). Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus III. The Iron Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., & Gates, M.-H. (2008). Using Neutron Activation Analysis to Identify Scales of Interaction at Kinet Höyük, Turkey. Journal of Arcaheological Science, 35, 1974–1992.
Güterbock, H. G. (1967). The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 26(No. 2), 73–81.
Güterbock, H. G. (1997). Zum Felsrelief des Muwatalli am Sirkeli Höyük. IstMitt, 47, 104.
Hadjisavvas, S. (2014). The Phoenician Period Necropolis of Kition: Vol. Vol. II. Nicosia: Cyprus Department of Antiquities.
Hansen, C. K. & Postgate. J. N. (1999). The Bronze to Iron Age Transition at Kilise Tepe. Anatolian Studies, Vol. 49, Anatolian Iron Ages 4. Proceedings of the FourthAnatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Mersin, 19-23 May 1997, 111–121.
Hansen, C., & Postgate, N. (2007). Pottery from Level II. In N. Postgate & D. Thomas (Eds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (pp. 343–370). London: British Institute at Ankara, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
169
Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter.
Hawkins, J. D. (2009). Cilicia, The Amuq, and Aleppo New Light in a Dark Age. Near Eastern Archaeology, 72(4), 164–173.
Hodos, T., Knappett, C., & Kilikoglou, V. (2005). Middle and Late Iron Age Painted Ceramics from Kinet Höyük: Macro, Micro and Elemental Analyses. Anatolian Studies, 55, 61–87.
Hölbl, G. (2017). Aegyptiaca aus Al Mina und Tarsos im Verbande des Nordsyrische—Südostanatolischen Raumes. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Iacovou, M. (2014). Cyprus during the Iron Age through the Persian Period, From the 11th Century BCE to the Abolition of the City-Kingdoms (c.300 BC). In M. Steiner & A. E. Killebrew (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000—332 BC) (pp. 795–824). Oxford: OUP.
Karageorghis, V. (2012). Ancient Art from Cyprus, the Cesnola Collection. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Karacic, S., & Osborne, J. (2016). Eastern Mediterranean Economic Exchange during the Iron Age: Portable X-Ray Fluorescence and Neutron Activation Analysis of Cypriot-Style Pottery in the Amuq Valley, Turkey. PLoS ONE, 11, 1–17.
Kaufman, S. (2007). The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Triungular: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation. MAARAV, 14(2), 7–26.
Killebrew, A. E. (2013). Introduction to the Levant during the Transitional Late Bronze Age/Iron Age I and Iron Age I Periods. In A. E. Killebrew & M. Steiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE (pp. 595–606). Oxford: OUP.
King, L. W. (1910). Sennacherib and the Ionians. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 30, 327–335.
Kleiman, A., Fantalkin, A., Mommsen, H., & Finkelstein, I. (2019). The Date and Origin of Black-on-Red Ware: The View from Megiddo. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 123(No. 4), 531–555.
Knapp, B. (Ed.). (1996). Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from Third to the First Millenia BC: Vol. Vol. 2. New York: Greece and Cyprus Research Center.
Knappett, C., & Kilikoglou, V. (2007). Pottery Fabrics and Technology. In N. Postgate & D. Thomas (Eds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (pp. 241–272). London: British Institute at Ankara, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
170
Kozal, E., & Mirko Novák. (2013). Sirkeli Höyük A Bronze and Iron Age Urban Settlement in Plain Cilicia. Der Anschnitt Zeitschrift Für Kunst Und Kultur Im Bergbau Anatolian Metal VI, 25, 229–238.
Kozal, E., & Novak, M. (2017). Facing Muwattalli: Some Thoughts on the Visibility and Function of the Rock Reliefs at Sirkeli Höyük, Cilicia. In E. Kozal, M. Akar, Y. Heffron, Ç. Çilingiroğlu, T. E. Şerifoğlu, C. Çakırlar, S. Ünlüsoy, & E. Jean (Eds.), Questions, Approaches, and Dialogues in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology Studies in Honor of Marie-Henriette and Charles Gates (pp. 371–388). Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Lanfranchi, G. (2007). The Luwian-Phoenician bilinguals of ÇINEKÖY and KARATEPE: an Ideological Dialogue. In R. Rollinger, A. Luther, & J. Wiesehöfer (Eds.), Getrennte Wege? Kommunıkatıon, Raum und Wahrnehmung ın der Alten Welt (pp. 179–217). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike.
Lanfranchi, G. (2009). A Happy Son of The King of Assyria: Warikas and the Çineköy Bilingual. In M. Luukko, S. Svärd, & R. Mattila (Eds.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (Vol. 1–Studia Orientalia Vol. 101, pp. 127–150). The Finnish Oriental Society.
Lehmann, G. (2005). Al Mina and the east: A report on research in progress. In A. Villing, British Museum, & British Museum Classical Colloquium (Eds.), The Greeks in the east: Vol. British Museum research publication (pp. 61–92). London: British Museum.
Lehmann, G. (2008). North Syria and Cilicia, c.1200- 330 BCE. In C. Sagona (Ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology Volume 28 of Ancient Near Eastern Studies: Supplement (pp. 205–246). Peeters.
Lehmann, G. (2017). The Late Bronze- Iron Age Transition and the Prblem of the Sea Peoples Phenomenon in Cilicia. In P. M. Fischer & T. Bürge (Eds.), “Sea Peoples” Up-to-date New Research on Transformations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13th- 11th Centuries BCE Proceedings of the ESF-Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences Vienna, 3-4 November 2014 (pp. 229–256). Wien: Verlag Der Özterreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften Sonderdruck.
Lemaire, A. (1983). L’inscription Phenicienne de Hassan-Beyli Reconsideree. Rivista Di Studi Fenici, 11, 9–19.
Lemaire, A. (1989). Une Inscription Phénicienne Découverte Récemment et le Mariage de Ruth la Moabite. Eretz-Israel, 20, 124–129.
Lipinski, E. (2003). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, Itineraria Phoenicia Studia Phoenicia 18. Verlag: Peeters.
171
Luckenbill, D. D. (1927). Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia Volume 2: Historical Records of Assyria From Sargon to the End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Luraghi, N. (2006). Traders, Pirates, Warriors: The Proto-History of Greek Mercenary Soldiers in the Eastern Mediterranean. Phoenix, Vol. 60(No. 1/2), 21–47.
Maier, F. G., & Karageorghis, V. (1984). Paphos History and Archaeology. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Sabina Kulemann-Ossen, & Hannah Mönninghoff. (2019). Hybridity of Styles: Iron Age Pottery From Sirkeli. Studi Micenei Ed Egeo-Anatolici, Nuova Serie 5, 111–147.
Negbi, O. (1992). Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands: A Reappraisal. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 96(No. 4), 559–615.
Markoe, G. (2000). Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mazzoni, S. (2003). The Aramean States During the Iron Age II–III Periods. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (pp. 683–705). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazzoni, S., & Bunnens, G. (2000). Syria and the periodization of the Iron Age. A cross-cultural perspective. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, 31–59.
Mirko Novák, & Ekin Kozal. (2011). Sirkeli Höyük 2009 Yılı Çalışmaları. In 32.KAZI SONUÇLARI TOPLANTISI 24—28 MAYIS 2010 İSTANBUL (Vol. 4, pp. 42–50). Ankara: Allâme Tanıtım&Matbaacılık.
Mirko Novák, & Ekin Kozal. (2014). Sirkeli Höyük 2012 Yılı Çalışmaları 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27- 31 Mayıs 2013 Muğla (Vol. 2, pp. 428–442). Muğla: Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Basımevi.
Mirko Novák, & Ekin Kozal. (2014). Sirkeli Höyük 2013 Yılı Çalışmaları 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 02-06 HAZİRAN 2014 GAZİANTEP (Vol. 2, pp. 1–16). Ankara: İsmail Aygül Ofset Matbaacılık.
Mirko Novak et al. (2017). A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia Results of the first three Cilician Chronology Workshops. Altorientalische Forschungen, 44(2), 150–186.
Muhly, J. D. (2009). The Origin of the Name “Ionian.” In V. Karageorghis & O. Kouka (Eds.), Cyprus and the East Aegean: Intercultural Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC. (pp. 23–30). Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Muscarella, O. W. (1967). Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion. London: Quaritch.
172
Novak, M., & Rutishauser, S. (2017). Kizzuwatna: Archaeology. In M. Weeden & L. Z. Ullmann (Eds.), Hittite Landscape and Geography (pp. 134–145). Leiden: Brill.
Novak Mirko. (2017). A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia Results of the first three Cilician Chronology Workshops. Altorientalische Forschungen, 44(2), 150–186.
Novak, M. (2021). Azatiwada, Awariku from the “House of Mopsos”, and Assyria. On the dating of Karatepe in Cilicia. In A. Payne, Š. Velharticka, & J. Wintjes (Eds.), Beyond all Boundaries. Anatolia in the 1st Millennium B.C. (pp. 363–432). Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series. (417- 516). Leiden, Leuven: Peeters.
Nunez Calvo, F., & Aubet, M. E. (2008). Cypriot imports from the Phoenician cemetery of Tyre al—Bass. In C. Doumet-Serhal (Ed.), Networking patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant. The Lebanon and its Mediterranean Connections (pp. 1–17). London: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum.
Nunez Calvo, F. (2011). Tyre – al Bass: Potters and Cemeteries. In C. Sagona (Ed.), Ceramics of the Phoenician – Punic world: Collected Essays (pp. 277–296). Paris: Peeters.
Oggiano, I. (1997). The Pottery of Iron Age II from Tell Afis. In Contributi della Scuola di Specializzazione di Archeoloeia di Pisa I (pp. 187–213).
Osborne, J. (2011). Spatial Analysis and Political Authority in the Iron Age Kingdom of Patina, Turkey.
O’Connor, M. (1977). The Rhetoric of the Kilamuwa Inscription. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 226, 15–29.
Öner, E., Hocaoğlu, B., & Uncu, L. (2005). Tarsus Ovasının Jeomorfolojik Gelişimi ve Gözlükule Höyüğü. In Türkiye Kuvaterner Sempozyumu 5. Bildiriler Kitabı, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2—03 Haziran 2005 (Vol. 5, pp. 82–89).
Özyar, A., Danışman, G., Gürbüz, C., & Özener, H. (2003). Tarsus-Gözlükule 2001 Yılı Enterdisipliner Araştırmaları. In 20. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 27-31 Mayıs 2002 Ankara: Vol. 1. Cilt (pp. 273–278). Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Dösimm Basımevi.
Özyar, A., Mommsen, H., & Mountjoy, P. (2011). Provenance Determination of Mycenaean IIIC Vessels from the 1934-1939 Excavations at Tarsus-Gözlükule by Neutron Activation Analysis. Archaeometry, Vol. 53(Issue 5), 900–915.
173
Özyar, A. (2013). The Writing on the Wall: Reviewing Sculpture and Inscription on the Gates of the Iron Age Citadel of Azatiwataya (Karatepe-Aslantaş). In S. Redford & N. Ergin (Eds.), Cities and Citadels in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks (pp. 115–136). Paris: Peeters.
Özyar, A., Mommsen, H., & Mountjoy, P. (2018). Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-style IIIC Pottery from the Goldman Excavations at Tarsus-Gözlükule. Anatolian Studies, 1–24.
Özyar, A., Ünlü, E., & Pilavcı, T. (2019). Recent Fieldwork at Tarsus-Gözlükule: The Late Bronze Age Levels. In S. R. Steadman & G. McMahon (Eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia Volume II. Recent Discoveries (2015-2016) (pp. 53–71). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Özyar, A., (2021). Sings Beyond Boundaries The Visual World of Azatiwataya. In A. Payne, Š. Velharticka, & J. Wintjes (Eds.), Beyond all Boundaries. Anatolia in the 1st Millennium B.C.Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series. (pp: 417–516). Leiden, Leuven: Peeters.
Peckham, B. (2014). Phoenicia: Episodes Biblicu and Anecdotes from the Ancient Mediterranean. Indiana: Penn State University Press, Eisenbrauns.
Pedde, F. (2000). Vorderasiatische Fibeln: Von der Levante bis Iran. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücken Druckerei und Verlag.
Postgate, N. (2007). The Excavations and Their Results. In N. Postgate & D. Thomas (Eds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia (pp. 31–44). London: British Institute at Ankara, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Pucci, M., & Soldi, S. (2019). Going Red in the Iron Age II. The Emergence of Red Slip Pottery in Northern Levant with special reference to Tell Afis, Chatal Höyük and Zincirli Höyük. In S. Valentini & G. Guarducci (Eds.), Between Syria and the Highlands (pp. 352–364). Rome: Arbor sapientiae.
Pucci, M. (2019). Excavations in the Plain of Antioch III: Stratigraphy, Pottery, and Small Finds from Chatal Hoyuk in the Amuq Plain. Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.
Radner, K. (2010). The Stele of Sargon II of Assyria at Kition: A Focus for an Emerging Cypriot Identity? In R. Rollinger, B. Gufler, M. Lang, & I. Madreiter (Eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die Vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts. Harrassowitz: Verlag.
Reyes, A. T. (1994). Archaic Cyprus A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Röllig, W. (2008). Zur phönizischen Inschrift von Cebelireis Dagi. D’Ougarit à Jérusalem, Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil. Paris: Orient et Méditerranée 2.
174
Schreiber, N. (2003). The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Leiden: Brill.
Şen, D. (2018). Adana Bölgesinin Jeolojisi. 1–12.
Sherratt, A., & Sherratt, S. (1991). From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Bronze Age Trading System. Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, 351–386.
Simon, Z. (2014). Awarikus und Warikas: Zwei Könige von Hiyawa. Zeitschrift Für Assyriologie, 104(1), 91–103.
Smith, J. (2008). Cyprus, the Phoenicians, and Kition. In C. Sagona (Ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Paris: Peeters.
Smith, J. (2009). Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age Into the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, M. (2013). Introduction to the Levant During the Iron Age II Period. In A. E. Killebrew & M. Steiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE (pp. 765–772). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steel, L. (2014). Late Bronze Age Cyprus. In M. Steiner & A. E. Killebrew (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000 – 332 BCE) (pp. 577–591). Oxford: OUP.
Stylianou, P. J. (1989). The Age of the Kingdoms, A Political History of Cyprus in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Cyprus: Archbishop Makarios III Foundation.
Swift, G. F. (1958). The Pottery of the ’Amuq Phases K to O, and its Historical Relationships. Department of Oriental Languages and Civilizations. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Taylor, J. D. P. (1959). The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina, Syria. Iraq, 21(1), 62–92.
Tekoğlu, R., Lemaire, A., İpek, İ., & Kasım, T. (2000). A. La Bilingue Royale Louvito-Phénicienne de Çineköy. Comptes Rendus Des Séances de l’Académie Des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettre, 144(No. 3), 961–1007.
Tufan, M. F., & Girginer, S. (2020). Tatarlı Höyük’ten Bir Grup Black On Red (BoR) Seramiği ve Mikromorfolojik Özellikler. In S. Girginer (Ed.), MORS IMMATURA Amanosların Gölgesinde Hayriye Akıl Anı Kitabı (pp. 427–448). Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
175
Tülek, F., & Öğüt, B. (2014). Prehistoric Pottery of Osmaniye Province in East Cilicia: A Holistic Approach. In International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Teil: Vol. 2., Excavation and progress reports; Posters (Vol. 2, pp. 765–774). Wiesbaden.
Tülek, F., & Öğüt, B. (2015). The Iron Age in East Plain Cilicia – A First Assessment of The Iron Age Pottery from The Osmaniye Survey. TÜBA-AR Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology, 16/2013, 57–79.
Ussishkin, D. (1975). Hollows, “Cup-Marks”, and Hittite Stone Monuments. Anatolian Studies, 25, 85–103.
Ünlü, E. (2004). Locally Produced and Painted Late Bronze to Iron Age Transitional Pottery. In A. Özyar (Ed.), Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project (pp. 145–169). Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Ünlü, E. (2016). Tarsus-Gözlükule Höyüğü Geç Tunç IIB Katmanında Rastlanan Seramik Devamlılıkları. Cedrus The Journal of MCRI, 1–9.
Weeden, M. (2013). The Kingdoms of Karkamish and Palistin in Northern Syria. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 56(2), 1–20.
Weeden, M. (2015). The Land of Walastin at Tell Tayinat. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires, 2, 65–66.
Woolley, L. (1938). Excavations at al Mina, Sueidia. I. The Archaeological Report. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 58, 1–30.
Woolley, L. (1938). The Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia. II. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 58, 133–170.
Yakubovich, I. (2008). Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Yakubovich, I. (2015). Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia. Anatolian Studies, 65, 35–53.
Yakar, J. (1993). Anatolian Civilization Following the Disintegration of the Hittite Empire: An Archaeological Appraisal. Tel Aviv Journaş of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 20(1), 3–28.
Yalçın, S. (2011). A Re-evaluation of the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age Transitional Period: Stratigraphic Sequence and Plain Ware of Tarsus-Gözlükule. In A. Yener (Ed.), Across the border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia: Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31—June 1, 2010 (pp. 195–211). Paris: Peeters.
176
Yon, M., & Malbran- Labat, F. (1995). La Stèle de Sargon à Larnaca. In A. Caubet (Ed.), Khorsabad, Le Palais de Sargon II, Roi d’Assyrie (pp. 159–168).
Yon, M. (2004). Kition dans les textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et corpus des inscriptions Kition Bamboula V. Paris: ERC.