Anatolian Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Neve || Anatolia and the Balkans

Anatolia and the BalkansAuthor(s): J. RoodenbergSource: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 58, No. 2, Anatolian Archaeology: A Tribute to PeterNeve (Jun., 1995), pp. 119-122Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210488 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.138 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:36:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210488?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MAP kl?? n"" %Ck MAE Sri axe;

MA Yn

VTI: 4

x?4 "RNki t'

N Sig 0, Uk r'j

MRS 1"WTV If- y I

y ?V

00011 K'. 4W

u34%ps INS 'T'Vol

01;

Fop W.

01. CROPS PLO . I . . . . .

0AN I A zx.- t?;' Sk

Wn 15

"M two&, '.4 W j. I'll 101 Qq

i'S low,1- R

.....................

Roman period may have been replaced by non-Jews in the Byzantine era.

The 1994 season was the second car- ried out by the Sepphoris Regional Pro-

ject (SRP) which continues the 1985-89 work of the Joint Sepphoris Project. Spon- sored by Duke University with the Uni-

versity of Connecticut, the 1994 excavations were directed by E. Meyers and C. Meyers of Duke University.

Carol Meyers

Overview of the area 85.3 at Sepphoris, showing the substantial walls of a Late Hel- lenistic building, which perhaps had a military function, located near the towering citadel that crowns the upper city.

Anatolia and the Balkans

Edited by J. Roodenberg. Special Issue of Anatolica. 331 pp. Leiden, Holland: Ned- erlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1993; HFL 115 (paper).

A review essay by Ronald L. Gorny As the title of this collection of arti-

cles suggests, it discusses the question of relations between Anatolia and the Balkans. The scope of the book is limited, however, to postulated prehistoric links between the two geographic entities and the investigation of a proposed Euro- Anatolian cultural zone in which inten- sive human interaction is said to be manifest in the archaeological remains of both regions.

The inspiration behind this manu-

script was a symposium held in Istanbul

during November of 1991. A primary goal of the symposium was to bring together scholars from east and west who shared a common interest in relations between Anatolia and the Balkans, but had la- bored in separate worlds for decades.

Participation was limited to roughly forty scholars who examined Balkan-Anatolian relations between 5,500 and 3,000 BCE.

This means that, for all intents and pur- poses, Anatolia and the Balkans is written by scholars for scholars. In other words, readers are expected to have some degree of familiarity with the fundamental issues or be willing to spend some time

acquainting themselves with the material. The manner in which Anatolia and the

Balkans is published is Spartan in design, being fashioned in the same functional

style as Anatolica itself. While the paper- bound volume is devoid of color photographs, it displays an abundance of

quality black and white maps, drawings, and photographs. The twenty-five articles included in the volume are written in

French, German, and English, making the

mastery of several languages necessary for a full appreciation of its contents.

Overall, the presentation is readable and

well-organized, though a few typographi- cal errors have crept into the narrative.

A difficulty for the uninitiated arises in the discrepancy between chronological designations for contemporary periods in Anatolia and the Balkans (for example, the so-called Middle Neolithic of Europe is

contemporary with the Middle-Late

Chalcolithic in Anatolia, see Ozdogan, p. 176 [author and page references are to Anatolia and the Balkans unless other- wise noted]). Further difficulties are encountered in the 'regionalization' of various cultures on the Balkan peninsula (Demoule, 1-17; Jovanovik, pp. 63-74; Pavyik, pp. 231-241; but cf. Ozdogan, pp. 174-176) and the resultant plethora of names which are totally unfamiliar to most students approaching the question from a Near Eastern background. Further confusion can stem from the fact that some authors use uncalibrated dates in their contributions (e.g., Demoule, Table 1,

p. 14; Monah), while other do so in cali- brated terms (e.g., Todorova, Thissen).

The connections between Anatolia and the Balkans in the prehistoric period are most forcefully laid out by Mehmet

Ozdogan's article (pp. 173-193), whose

presentation represents his most incisive contribution on a topic he has long cham-

pioned. The fact that this collection of articles has appeared at all is a credit to

Ozdogan, for without his efforts, this whole discussion would have remained on the back-burner for years to come.

The true significance of Anatolia and the Balkans, however, may be lost on the casual observer, for the impulse behind

ti~i .-- :$B i:..:::Biblical har-U..~:: ........

ai



this volume goes back to the early twen- ties when Anatolia's apparent connections with the Balkan peninsula were first noted. Such views, however, were ahead of their time and smacked of "diffusionism" which was then under intense at- tack. The articulate and up-to-date manner with which this volume's articles

explore the issue of Euro-Anatolian relations suggests that those who first cham-

pioned this cause may not have been so far from the truth.

While a casual reading might have us believe the "diffusionist" controversy has become a thing of the past, the fact that it is not dead underlies the sensitivity shown by the contributors to the whole

question of human movement and rela-

tionships in the region. Several of the

authors, in deference to proponents of

migration and diffusionism, couch their ideas in the more acceptable terminology of a common cultural zone, or as Ozdo-

gan puts it, " 'a common developing zone' interacting within itself." This inter-

action, while not precluding some popu- lation movements (Ozdogan, p. 179) is based on the assumption of internal development rather than external influence. The geographic range of this common cultural zone extends from the

Hungarian Plain to the southeastern stretches of Anatolia where it is effec-

tively cut off from contact with

Mesopotamia by the Taurus Mountains. Evidence suggests that contacts

within this zone took place in two stages. The first, beginning around 5,500 BCE

(Thissen, pp. 302-303; Todorova, p. 307), continued until the beginning of the fourth millennium BCE. There is a break in contact at this time, the reason for which remains unclear. Various events

may have been responsible including tectonic activity, climatic changes which resulted in higher temperatures, extended

periods of drought, erosion, changing sea levels, and nomadic invasions from the north Pontic steppes (Todorova, pp. 307-318; Lichardus-Itten, p.101). The exist-

ing social system-so evident in the

widespread uniformity of the Balkan

Early Neolithic cultural network-col-

lapsed, and the breakdown initiated an

ai77:

NNW'U Ak.A :"N Ao"t

Chalcolithic curvilinear pottery from Aliiar H6yOk: the best evidence for a common cultural zone in Anatolia and the Balkans. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute.

800-year period of mostly local development (Demoule, p. 10; Makkay, p. 118, Todorova, pp. 307-311). The stabilization of environmental conditions at the end of the fourth millennium led to the development of the so-called "Troja-Baden Kul- turblok" which witnessed a renewal of cultural interaction taking place in south- east Europe (pp. 315-16). Although Troy and the rest of Anatolia had been pulled increasingly into the Near Eastern sphere of influence by this time (Ozdogan, p. 178), the improving conditions may well have set the stage for far-reaching relations between Anatolia and Europe dur-

ing the Middle and Late Bronze Ages when an increasing demand for metallur-

gical expertise probably encouraged further contacts between the two areas.

The role played by the sea in developing this common cultural zone figures prominently in several contributions

(Demoule, 1-17; Makkay, p. 123; Rooden-

berg, p. 257; Thissen, p. 303; Wijnen, p. 326: also see Thissen 1993, p. 207, n. 4). Demoule, for example, effectively argues that the Aegean Basin is a unifying fea- ture for the lands around it and that the evolution of a common culture zone is the logical outcome of this type of seaborne interaction. The results are seen in the strong degree of cultural unity at sites scattered across the region. This

widespread cultural unity makes it more

certain that the Aegean Basin, the Mar- mara Sea, and the Black Sea were not the cultural barriers scholars once thought, certainly lesser obstacles than the Taurus mountains which stood as a barrier between Central Anatolia and the

Mesopotamian complex for millennia

(Ozdogan, p. 180). The increasing evidence of sea contacts during this period makes it all the more reasonable, in fact, that the sea should be viewed, not as a barrier to interaction, but as a means by which an intensification of interaction was able to take place.

Agreement regarding the details of this cultural zone is not, however, univer-

sal, as Nikolov's article (pp. 167-171) shows. Nikolov posits a "kontaktzone" built during the first stage of relations (ca. 5,500-5,000 BCE.) not on the basis of interaction among its constituent parts, but on cultural influences that originated out- side of the region (p. 169). Unlike earlier diffusionist views (Todorova 1978) which understood a unidirectional proliferation of contacts and interaction originating in the Balkans, Nikolov (along with

Lichardus, p. 93) sees a movement in the

opposite direction from Northwest Ana- tolia into the Balkans. This influence

begins during the Karanova II period and reaches its fullest extent with the Kara- nova IV Suggestions of this sort, of

course, fly in the face of the idea of

27 T, I ct s Vat~-:::: i:

49 :?. Id~9~~~ wI....?" -.1 eo so s?t 9,? : ~~i ic~lox



44''

IN- 4l a

?"v

sov

IA 49L?L~~aur~a ~ ~ J; _

A single piece of Szakalhat pottery (at top right) from the Aligar collection at the Oriental Insti- tute represents the ceramic tradition of the Hungarian plain. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute.

internal development proposed by Ozdogan. Bringing the idea of diffusion once again into the equation, they compel scholars to see the inadequacies of the traditional posing of the issue, as in

Hauptmann's (p. x): ex "Balcania" lux or ex Anatolia lux? There is, perhaps, more

potential in researching the development of "a light from within."

A primary problem hindering the

investigation of the Balkano-Anatolian

relationship is that of chronology While the relative sequences in both areas have been fairly well established, absolute

chronology is still at issue, and the corre-

lation of the two systems continues to be one of the biggest challenges in Anatolian

archaeology (Renfrew 1973; Easton 1976:

146; Yakar 1979:51-53). Peter Kuniholm's

Aegean and Near East Dendrochronology Project rises to the challenge of carefully chronicling the correlation of dendro-

chronological investigations with an ever-

expanding number of secure carbon-14 dates (cf. Kuniholm 1989,1993). While the final outcome of Kuniholmis ambitious

project is still some time off, his initial efforts have often yielded spectacular results. Continued patience and persis- tence will be needed, however, as investi-

gators search for the "missing links"

necessary to harmonize the European and Near Eastern chronologies, especially in the problematic fourth millennium.

In lieu of secure carbon-14 dates for the region, pottery remains the primary source of evidence for the proposed "common cultural zone," and most of the

pertinent comparative materials comes from excavated sites in Europe. The dearth of excavated materials from central Anatolia means that the pertinent date to connect it to such a zone is not always obvious. Several Anatolian sites are criti- cal to the argument: the volume makes

prominent mention of Gelveri. Another which was often referred to, but not for-

mally included, is the site of Alipar

H6ytik in Yozgat Province of central

Turkey (esp. Ozdogan and Parzinger). Needless to say, I noted these comments with great interest because of my own work at Aligar and in the surrounding Kanak Su basin.

Excavated in the late 1920s and early 1930s by the Oriental Institute, Aligar was shown to have a long prehistoric sequence, a situation which should shed

light on the current topic. However, the lack of secure carbon-14 dates for Aligar has made this important sequence ques- tionable, and it remains on the periphery of the discussion. The name is bandied about with little in the way of new data to add as evidence. Clearly, any resolution to the problem of cultural development in central Anatolia during the prehistoric periods will have to take into account the

role of Aligar. This is a problem that our own excavations at Aligar H6ytik, and now (adir H6yiik, intend to address. While a full analysis of the role these two sites played in prehistory is still forth-

coming, it would not seem inappropriate to share a few thoughts which bear di-

rectly on what is being discussed so

articulately by those who contributed to this volume.

As a starting point we can look at the

black-polished pottery tradition so abun-

dantly documented at Aligar. This pottery plays a pivotal role throughout this cultural zone as an indicator of the late Chal- colithic in Anatolia or the Late Neolithic in the Balkans (see Jovanovid, p. 69;

Makkay p. 119; Ozdogan, pp. 179-181). One of the most striking elements of this style of pottery is the punctuated-incised style of decoration described by von der Osten

(1937:57-60, figs. 65-68) and common to other contemporary sites within this zone. Similar black-polished pottery, including fine black-ware vessels, punctuated-incised sherds, bowls with red-

polished interiors, and one example with

white-painted decoration on the interior

surface, was found at (adir H6yiik in 1994. Although our analysis of these new materials is in a preliminary stage, the

black-polished pottery of Qadir appears to be very similar to the Diindartepe- summit materials described elsewhere by Thissen (1993:213-215).

Related to the black-polished pottery tradition is the presence of graphite- slipped pottery at both Aligar and (adir

Hbyiik. At Aligar, this ware was found in Level 16-12 (von der Osten 1937:57, Fig. 63, nos. 3-4). Additional pieces now reside in both the Oriental Institute collection and the Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civi- lizations (Thissen 1993:218, n. 27). Graphite-slipped pottery found in sound-

ing 770.900 during the 1994 season at

Cadir H5yiik is identical to that found at Aligar. The best external connections for central Anatolian graphite-slipped wares are with the Karanova VI Vinga D cultures, as indicated in this volume by Demoule (pp. 9-10, map 6), Tasic (pp. 286-87, 291), and Thissen (1993:218-219). This Balkan connection provides a date

.. ... .... ..~ 1ow

3i A



somewhere between 3000 and 3500 BCE.

for the pottery from both Aligar and 9adir (Thissen 1993:218-219).

Perhaps the most striking evidence used to argue a common cultural zone in Anatolia and the Balkans is the curvilinear-decorated pottery of Gelveri which is cited in this volume by both Esin (pp. 47-

56) and Makkay (1993, esp. fig. 3, p. 128). Curvilinear-decorated pottery of the same type was also found at Alisar and is

probably earlier than the graphite-slipped pottery, though no levels are noted for the

Aligar exemplars. This swirling decoration (the so-called fruchenstich tech-

nique; Makkay, p. 121) is also cited in the

Japanese Kamankale I volume (written in

Japanese, pp. 201-202, fig. 12, nos. 1-24). At

Aligar, in fact, there appear to be examples of curvilinear decoration on both punctuated-incised (Gorny 1995) and painted sherds (von der Osten 1937:57, Fig. 64, no.

3; P1. II, no. 3; cf. Omura, Kaman Kale

Hdyiik I, p.197, fig. 2). There are seven

pieces of the ware in the Oriental Insti- tute collection, the nicest of which is a small black-polished bottle with a

swirling spiraloid design (d 2370).1 The

painted style is paralleled by examples from Yeniyapan (Omura, Kamankale I, p. 210, nos. 1-5). Although there is no prove- nance for this material at Alipar, it must fall within the range of the pottery from Gelveri (Ozdogan 1994) and Yeniyapan which dates to the Karanova V and Vinqa C phases (Makkay, p.121) or somewhere between 4000 and 3500 BCE (Thissen 1993:

222). Other pieces may also be significant ?? as one sherd is reminiscent of Szakalhat

pottery (von der Osten 1937:60, Fig. 67, no.

3), a site from the Late Neolithic Btikk

(Tisza-K6r6s) culture of the Hungarian plain (cf. von der Osten 1937, Fig, 67 no. 3) and another has affinities with the

"corded ware" from the same area (von der Osten 1937:58, Fig. 65, no.19).

As noted above, a primary goal of Anatolia and the Balkans was to familiarize

scholars of the west with the nearly un- known work of their colleagues in the east. In this respect, the volume has pro- vided a great service that more than fulfills the editor's stated goals. This un-

precedented collaborative effort brings together an intriguing group of scholars

who, though separated for years by politi- cal barriers, nevertheless, address a common interest. The chance to debate common concerns has by no means pro- duced a "popular" book, and some difficulties will exist for the general reader. In

spite of this, Anatolia and the Balkans is a welcomed addition to the literature repre- senting the archaeology of both regions. Overcoming the "scholarly" nature of the book is well worth the effort of those whose interests touch on this part of the ancient world. The most significant contribution of Anatolia and the Balkans is that it updates the best previous overview, The

Cambridge Ancient History (1982), and adds

significant new information about important developments, not the least of which are the Gelveri finds.

In the final analysis, the question of cultural exchange in this Balkano-Anato-

lian zone has yet to be definitively an-

swered, and a variety of issues remain to be addressed. Among these are the pre- cise role of the Marmara area in the trans- ference of cultural influences and the extent to which central Anatolia was drawn into the activities of this network of cultural exchange. This volume represents a significant contribution to these

investigations, but as Hauptmann indicates (p. x), Anatolia and the Balkans is only a preliminary step in the direction of an answer. Continued excavation at sites like

Ilipinar, Gelveri, Aligar Hdyiik, and 4adir

H6yiik, as well as the development of a

complete chronological scheme based on secure carbon-14 dates from central Ana- tolian sites will be required to produce an answer to the questions posed by those who contributed to this valuable collection of articles.

1 The piece noted is marked d 2730 but the 1931 records show 2730 as being a small pottery cake from S 27 on the terrace and not the incised pottery sherd that almost certainly had to come from the deep sounding. As it stands, there are no depths or levels listed for any of the curvilinear pieces which may partly ex- plain why the sherd(s) were never published. Apparently the misplaced pieces were lost and somehow fell through the cracks.

Bibliography

Kuniholm, E 1993 A Date-List for Bronze Age and Iron

Age Monuments based on Combined Dendrochronological and Radiocar- bon Evidence. Pp. 371-373 in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors: Studies in Honor of Nimet Ozgiix. Ankara.

1989 A 677 Year Tree-Ring Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age. Pp. 279-293 in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Ozgiig, Ankara.

Omura, S. et al. 1992 Kamankale I. Tokyo.

Osten, von der, H. H. 1937 The Aliiar Hiiyiik: Seasons of 1930-32.

Oriental Institute Publications 28, part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ozdogan, M. 1991 An Interim Report on the Excavations

at Yarimburgaz and Toptepe in East- ern Thrace. Anatolica 17:59-120.

1994 Marmara Bolgesi-Balkanlar-Orta Anadolue Arasinda Kronoloji Soru- nun yeni Bir Yaklasim. Pp. 69-79 in XL Turk TarihKurumu Kongresi I.

n.d. Pre-Bronze Age Sequence of Central Anatolia: An Alternative Approach. Beran Festschrift. In Press.

Renfrew, C. 1973 Before Civilization. New York: Alfred

Knopf. Thissen, L.

1993 New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic: Old Evidence from the Turkish Black Sea Littoral. Anatolian Studies 43:207-237

Todorova, H. 1978 The Eneolithic in Bulgaria. BAR Interna-

tional Series 48. Oxford: British Ar- chaeological Reports.

Yakar, J. 1985 The Later Prehistory ofAnatolia: The Late

Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. BAR International Series 268. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

22 . Ri 47 isc 0 444

-~AZ

Iff 2z aelogis -el

8 p?41ql~3



Documents

Anatolian Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Neve || Anatolia and the Balkans