Prehistoric Sites on the Cilician Coastal Plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery from the 1991 Bilkent University Survey

Prehistoric Sites on the Cilician Coastal Plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery fromthe 1991 Bilkent University SurveyAuthor(s): Sharon R. SteadmanSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 44 (1994), pp. 85-103Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642985 .

Accessed: 29/08/2013 09:35

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].

.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AnatolianStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:35:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642985?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


PREHISTORIC SITES ON THE CILICIAN COASTAL PLAIN: CHALCOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE POTTERY FROM THE

1991 BILKENT UNIVERSITY SURVEY

By SHARON R. STEADMAN

The ceramic material discussed in the following paper was collected during a survey conducted by the Dept. of Archaeology and History of Art at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. The survey, under the direction of Doctors Ilknur Ozgen and Marie-Henriette Gates,' was undertaken in the summer of 1991 and covered the coastal area from the site of Yumurtalik, southeast of Misis and Misis Dag, and continued along the coastal plain to include the site of Kinet Hoyok, near Dortyol north of the Iskenderun Plain (The Hatay). This entire region can be considered the eastern half of the Cilician coastal plain (Fig. 1).

The objectives of the survey were two-fold: to surface collect ceramic remains from mounds in the investigation area, and to conduct a geomorpho- logical study of the plain and its relation to the surrounding topographical regions (alluvial plains to the east and west-foothills of the Amanus and Anti- Taurus to the north and northeast). A detailed report on the geomorphology of this region has been published by the geomorphologist who accompanied the survey team, Dr. Sancar Ozaner, of the Maden Tetkik ve Ara5tirma Enstitiisii (Mineral and Research Exploration Institute).2

The Bilkent University team chose to investigate this particular area for several reasons. As already mentioned, a primary goal was to attempt a geo- morphological study of this region of the Cilician Plain. Secondly, it was noted that the majority of this coastal region was not included in M. V. Seton- Williams' 1951 survey of the Cilician Plain.3 The Bilkent University team did, however, also re-survey several of the sites listed in Seton-Williams' study. Thirdly, this coastal area is undergoing rapid industrial development, and indeed many sites in this region have already been partially or wholly destroyed by new roads and the construction of large industrial buildings. The Bilkent Survey team sought to investigate this area before a large number of hiiyiiks were leveled by industrial progress.

METHODOLOGY: SURVEY STRATEGY AND CERAMIC CLASSIFICATION

The methodology for the retrieval of the ceramic materials included two collection strategies, one for hiytiks, or mounds, and one for open areas. The hiiyiiks were divided into sections, or quadrants: north face, south face, east face and west face, and occasionally the top of a mound was collected separately. At times it was impossible to sample one of these sections due to the ter-

1I. Ozgen and M.-H. Gates, Ara~tirma Sonualari Toplantisi X (1993): 387-94. The survey team consisted of Professors Ilknur Ozgen and M.-H. Gates, Dr. Sancar Ozaner, a geomorphologist from MTA, Ms. Fahriye Bayram from the Ministry of Culture's General Directorate of Monuments and Museums, and five Bilkent University students. The present author did not participate in the survey and it is through the generosity of Professor Marie-Henriette Gates that this prehistoric material from the survey was made available to me. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Professor Gates for her invaluable help and continued support. I would also like to extend thanks to Mr. Jeremy Baker and Bilkent University student Sevil Batali for their invaluable assistance in the illustration of the ceramic materials included in this article.

2S. Ozaner, Arkeometrl Sunuglart Toplantisi VIII (1993), 337-55. 3M. V. Seton-Williams, AS IV (1954), 121-74.



86 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Fig. 1. Map of Surveyed Sites.

Fig. 2. Geographical Areas.



PREHISTORIC SITES ON THE CILICIAN COASTAL PLAIN

rain or surface vegetation of the mound. The collections from these sections were kept as a distinct unit in consecutively numbered bags. In the open areas the survey team walked transects, at a distance of 10-20 m. from one another, depending on the terrain. In both types of collection areas there was a particular effort to collect diagnostics since they are more likely to function as chronological and typological indicators.

Twenty-three sites were sampled during the survey, and over 100 bags collected (now stored at Bilkent University). These sites fall into three geographical areas (Fig. 2) which M.-H. Gates has numbered one through three sequen- tially from west to east. Area One, the furthest west, encompasses the eastern half of the Ceyhan alluvial plain. The western boundary of Area One falls just west of the town of Ceyhan southward to a point on the coast just a few kilometres west of Yumurtalik. The area then extends eastward up the coast approximately 20 km. east of Yumurtalik, and ends at the topographical edge of the plain. Area Two is essentially the region between the most eastern boundary of the Ceyhan Plain and the western edge of the Plain of Issos. The topography of Area Two is mostly low volcanic formations, which has produced gently sloping ridges and valleys that have remained virtually unchanged since antiquity. Area Three, farthest to the east and south, includes the Issos Plain and the region of the Amanus range foothills, southward toward the Iskenderun Plain.

The material collected from the 23 sites in these three regions spans the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age (EBA) to medieval/present times. Of con- cern to the present study is the material which dates from the Late Chalcolithic (LC) to the EB II period. Ceramic remains dating to these periods were recovered from six sites, most of them falling into the Area One and Two geographical zones, with only one site located in Area Three. In the Bilkent Survey report these six sites have been designated as Site 2 (no local name), a mound only a few metres north of the larger Classical site of Muttalip Hiyiik (Site 1), Kara Hiiyiik (Site 12), Boyali Hiiytik (Site 15) Tiilek Hiiyiik (Site 16), Site 19 (no local name) and Yenikby (Site 21). Of these six, four were previously surveyed by Seton-Williams,4 including Sites 12, 15, 16 and 21.

The methodology for the determination of the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze II material from these sites was based on comparative analysis of established ceramic sequences from other sites in this region. These include ceramic sequences from Tarsus,5 Mersin6 and the Amuq.7 Comparative analyses for the Bilkent Survey material were based on corresponding parallels with both the published and unpublished ceramic material from these established sites, particularly from Mersin and Tarsus, which have been made available to the author.8 The Tarsus and Amuq ceramic sequences were relied upon most heavily in the

4Seton-Williams, AS IV (1954), see site listing, pp. 147-74. 5H. Goldman, Excavations at Gozlu Kule, Tarsus. From the Neolithic through the

Bronze Age. Vol. II, Princeton (1956). 6J. Garstang, Prehistoric Mersin. Oxford (1953). 7R. Braidwood and L. Braidwood, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Vol. I.

Oriental Institute Press LXI. Chicago (1960). 8I would like to thank the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, Bryn Mawr

College, The Peabody Museum, and the Oriental Institute for allowing me the opportunity to study the various collections housed in these institutions. For a complete analysis of these materials, see S. R. Steadman, Isolation vs. Interaction: Prehistoric Cilicia and its Role in the Near Eastern World System. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). Ann Abor, Michigan, University Microfilms (1994), pp. 24-35, 200-45.

87



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

determination of the chronological and typological analyses of the ceramic collection from the Bilkent survey.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES As mentioned above, most of the sites exhibiting prehistoric material were

located in Areas One and Two, with only Kara Hiiyiik falling in Area Three. With the exception of Site 16, Tfilek Huiyiik, all of the sites fall within 10 km. of the Mediterranean coastline, with two, Sites 2 and 19, lying within just a few kilometres of the modern coast.

The most westerly site, Site 21, known as Yenikoy, was also visited by Seton-Williams and is cited as Yenik6y II in her publication.9 Yenik6y is located in the eastern region of the Ceyhan Plain, approximately 10 km. north of the coastal city of Yumurtalik. The site includes a conical mound, much eroded, and is surrounded by broad terraces. The largest terrace associated with this site is to the west of the mound, not to the south as described by Seton- Williams.'1 There was an unusually heavy sherd scatter at this site, which can perhaps be explained by heavy erosion from the mound compounded by several generations of ploughing on the terraces. There were numerous diagnostics available on the surface, which offers a good sampling of the site. The mound was sherded in quadrants, and the terraces on three sides (north, south and west) were collected separately. The site is bordered on the north by a modern road and to the south by an irrigation canal.

Further to the east are two more sites, Site 15, Boyali Hfiyiik, the more southerly of the two, and Site 16, Tiilek Htiyiik, both located near the eastern edge of Area One. The sites were placed along a communication/trade route which runs from the northern interior of the Ceyhan Plain in a southeasterly direction to the Issos Plain, through Area Two.

Boyall Hfiyiik, also visited by Seton-Williams and identified by her as "Soyali Hiiyiik'", lies on the western edge of a basaltic outcropping, overlook- ing the Ceyhan valley, approximately 4.5 km. southeast of the modern village of Kurtkulagi. The site has a conical mound, with steep sides all around except in the south where it tapers off to a broad terrace, which has been ploughed. The steeper slopes of the mound were heavily eroded and were collected in quadrants. The southern terrace was collected separately.

Tiilek Hiiyiik is also located at the foot of a basaltic outcropping, approximately 2 km. north of Kurtkulagl. This site, referred to as "Hesigin" by Seton- Williams,12 is situated in a heavily-irrigated valley and thus is somewhat swampy and partially water-logged. The mound, like Boyali, is also very steep and extremely eroded. There are fields to the west and south of the mound which exhibited numerous Roman and Byzantine sherds and tiles. Ttilek Hiiyiik is bordered on all sides by modern irrigation channels, and the southern field has been levelled for planting in the past. All the fields have been ploughed. The mound was collected in quadrants except for the northern slope, which was covered with dense foliage (high reeds) and was inaccessible. The areas to the north and east of the mound were also not collected because of the irrigation channels which made the areas swampy and impassable. The western and southern fields were collected separately.

9Seton-Williams (1954), p. 173 'OIbid. "Ibid., p. 169 2Ibid., p. 156.

88




The next two sites, Site 19 and Site 2, lie in Area Two, near the confluence of the Karanlikkapi (the more western of the two) and Bogazdere rivers, a few hundred metres from the coast. The two sites are very near each other, and are situated in the vicinity of the large classical-period site of Muttalip. There is a cluster of sites in this region, including the Bilkent survey Sites 2, 3, 9, 10, 18 and 19. The two small rivers and the fertile alluvial plain provided an attractive settling ground through the millennia. Unfortunately, these sites are in danger of destruction due to the installation of new roads, and particularly the construction and expansion of the Toros Giibre ve Kimya Fabrika (Fertilizer and Chemical Factory) which is not only located in this area but in fact encloses all of Muttalip Hiiyiik inside its grounds. It is quite fortunate that the Bilkent expedition was able to visit these sites since it is entirely possible that they will disappear in the not too distant future.

Site 2, with no local name, is only 100 m. north of Muttalip, in a field that has, regrettably, been bulldozed. It is situated near the eastern bank of the Bogazdere River. Only a thin layer of cultural deposit remains atop the natural bedrock. Site 2, in its present state, consists simply of a sherd scatter on a slightly elevated band running on a north/south axis. It is approximately 175 m. long (north/south), and 80 m. wide (east/west), and is cut on the west side by a canal, and bordered on the east by sand and pebbles. In addition, it has been partially cut away by water canals installed by the Toros Chemical Factory, and other elements such as electrical poles and previous farming ventures have also served to eat away at the site. It is the opinion of M.-H. Gates that Site 2 was probably once a larger mound and what remains today is only the eastern edge of the settlement. The remaining deposit of Site 2 appears to be burnt soil, with remains of burnt clay and bricks. The site was sampled in rough transects at 10 m. intervals, followed by a free sweep of the area in an attempt to collect all possible diagnostics.

Site 19, also with no local name, is located further north and west of Muttalip, between the confluence of the two rivers. The site has a small oval hilltop, with scattered basalt field stones which form an enclosure wall around the base of the hill. There is a small ploughed field at the foot of the hill, to the southwest. Site 19 is high enough to overlook Site 18,13 farther down in the valley. The thin sherd scatter from this area, which was approximately 150 x 150 m., appeared homogeneous and was collected in a free sweep across the deposit.

The last site is located in the southwestern region of Area Three, and is numbered Site 12 in the Bilkent survey report. The local name is Kara Hiyiik. This site was also surveyed by Seton-Williams, who reports as well that it is called Kara Hiytik.'4 Kara Hiiyiik is located on what S. Ozaner believes to have been the ancient (Bronze Age) coastline,15 although today Kara Hiiyik lies several kilometres inland. Kara Hiyiuk consists of a steep-sided conical mound, with cultivated fields and citrus trees in the fields at the base of the mound. In addition, there are modern houses on the east side and at the top, as well as extensive pitting across the entire mound. Stone walling, also reported by Seton-Williams, is visible, and dates to the late Roman period. The site was

3It should be noted here that several examples of prehistoric sherds were collected from Site 18. However, the sample was so small that a claim of prehistoric occupation at this site is, at best, dubious.

'4Seton-Williams (1954), p. 159. 5S. Ozaner (1993).

89



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

collected in two halves (east and west); the collection was made more difficult because of the modern occupation. In addition, the fields to the east, west and north were also collected separately.

THE CERAMIC ANALYSIS The prehistoric ceramic material collected from these sites ranges in date

from the Cilician Late Chalcolithic (relatively correlated with the Amuq F phase) to the EB II period (similarly correlated with the Amuq H/early I phases). It should be noted that numerous examples of Cilician EB III material were also collected. However, it is the opinion here that the significant change seen in the ceramic repertoire of EB III Cilicia (Tarsus) indicates that the end of the EB II period was a logical terminal point for the "prehistoric" ceramic material from the Bilkent Survey.'6 The EB III pottery from these sites fits more naturally, therefore, into a discussion of the Late EB and Middle Bronze ceramics from the survey. Therefore, the "prehistoric" pottery discussed here is that from Late Chalcolithic down to the Cilician EB II.

The ceramic assemblage from these periods, as noted in the "Methodology" section, has been divided into various categories based on comparative analysis using the sequences from Cilicia and the Amuq. These categories are described below and are organized based either on the Tarsus or Amuq classification into which they fall (in some cases they can be correlated with both sequences). While in each classification the description is based on the entire assemblage, both diagnostics and non-diagnostics, only the diagnostics are represented in the figures. The diagnostics account for approximately 25% of the entire collection from all six sites.

Late Chalcolithic Wares Tarsus LC Coarse Chaff-faced Ware (correlate. Amuq F Chaff-faced

Simple): Numerous examples of this ware were recovered (exclusively from Site 2). This handmade ware has a chaff-marked face and ranges in colour from buff to pink. Some sherds exhibit a yellowish tinge. The fracture is irregular. The cores are generally grey, and the temper is mostly chaff, with some white and black grit. The surface is soft and easily marked; it is pitted with chaff and sometimes by large grits. There is occasionally a self-slip, and some pieces were smoothed with a brush or cloth although this was not a common treatment. Unfortunately no diagnostics of this ware were found and therefore a determination of vessel forms is not possible.

This ware was found exclusively at Site 2. (None drawn: no diagnostics were recovered.)

Tarsus LC Smooth-Faced Light-Slipped Ware (Correlate: Amuq F Smooth- faced Simple): This is a wheelmade ware, often well levigated and well fired, with a straight and fairly smooth fracture. The colour of the fabric ranges from buff, to orange, to grey, usually falling in the pink to orange/buff range. The temper is usually multi-coloured sand and minerals, with a bit of shell. Occasionally there is some vegetable temper. The texture is sandy, and the cores are usually entirely oxidized except in the coarser examples where there

6See Mellink's description of Early Bronze ceramic sequences for Cilicia, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (1992), pp. 213 ff.; see also the discussion of ceramics and Cicilian chronology in Steadman (1994) pp. 24-35.

90




1

2 if

3

4

65 (

7 'f

8

,10,

11 X I

13 (

4 \ i /

15 I /

17

12 (

0 5 1Om.

Fig. 3. Late Chalcolithic Pottery: 1-9, Smooth-faced Light-slipped Ware; 10-12, Chaff-faced Red-slipped and Burnished Ware; 13-17, Light-slipped Chaff-faced Ware.

91



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

may be a grey core. Surface treatment includes self-slip, occasionally quite heavy, which is smoothed or wiped, often only on the exterior of the vessel. There are a few examples of burnishing, but only on the bowls and particularly below carination. There is one example of painted decoration (Fig. 3:5) in the form of vertical bands beginning at the rim.7 The paint is brownish-red in colour. Shapes of the vessels include jars, some with rolled, or everted rims, and bowls with everted rims and ring bases, and some with carination.

This ware was found at Sites 12, 15, 16 and 21. (Fig. 3:1-9.)

Amuq F Chaff-faced Red-slipped and Burnished Ware: Only a few examples of this ware were recovered. This is a handmade ware that appears wheel- finished. It is coarse and somewhat crumbly, normally with a pinkish-red fabric, but occasionally brick-red in colour. The fracture is rough and irregular. The temper is primarily chaff, but also includes black and white minerals which can cause considerable pitting of the surface. Some examples were slipped in a brick-red colour and were then roughly burnished. Several of the sherds are secondarily burned and it is possible that they belong to vessels used as cooking pots. The one handle that was recovered suggests a pitcher; otherwise the forms reflect vessels that appear to be primarily bowls with flared rims.

This ware was found at Sites 2 and 18 (see note 13). (Fig. 3:10-12.)

Tarsus LC Light-slipped, Chaff-faced Ware (Correlate Amuq Chaff-faced Simple): This is a handmade ware, with a soft texture that is sandy and gritty, and easily marked. The fabric ranges in colour from buff to pink, occasionally with a yellow tinge. The temper is mostly chaff, with some black and white mineral inclusions. The core is usually grey, and the fracture is generally smooth and straight. The surface is usually self-slipped, very thinly, and only on the exterior. Occasionally it is smoothed or blotted. It is sometimes difficult to detect the slip because it is so thinly applied. This ware is represented by jars with straight and slightly flared rims.

Examples of this ware, though few in number, were found at Sites 2 and 19. (Fig. 3:13-17.)

General Cooking Pots:'8 Several examples of handmade ceramics were collected that can be assigned to the Cilician Late Chalcolithic, and perhaps the beginning of the Early Bronze, and are almost certainly cooking pots. These vessels are mostly chaff and grit tempered, coarse and crumbly and range in colour from brown and dark red, to buff. The fabric is soft and easily marked and the surface is pitted with chaff marks. The cores are uniformly grey to black, and the fracture is rough and irregular. Along with the chaff temper there are some mineral inclusions, usually in colour. The surfaces are dark and several examples were lightly slipped and burnished. Usually there is only a light self-slip. All examples are secondarily burned, probably by cooking fires. Forms include pots and jars with simple rims.

All of the examples of this ware come from Site 2. (Fig. 4:1-5.)

'7This particular painted sherd may instead date to the Early Bronze I period and may perhaps be identified as an example of the Tarsus "Transitional Red Painted Ware" in H. Goldman (1956), p. 95.

'8Bilkent survey examples of this ware are most closely identified with Tarsus LC "Soft Gritty" or "Coarse Crumbly" Ware.

92




1 \ I /

IA(I 2

I 3>

4 1 /

5 I

6

7 C (

8s C

I 9/

10

(b

C

11

12

0 5 10cm.

Fig. 4. Late Chalcolithic Pottery: 1-5, Cooking Pots. Early Bronze Pottery: 6-12, Hard Gritty Cooking Pot Ware.

93

-~~~~~~~~~~~~A

t la~~~~~

-

b



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

I 1

1 X

,2/

3 - KJ

4K

11 )

12

13

4*' 14

15 \c

6 q I 6t

7

8

9 t

10

177 1

18

19

21 1 - I ,16

0 5 10cm

Fig. 5. Early Bronze Pottery: 1-3, Red Burnished Ware; 4-10, Red Gritty Plain and Burnished Ware; 11-21, Plain Simple Ware/Simple Ware with Orange Slip and Burnish.

I IT - ~_m

94

^




Early Bronze Age Wares Hard Gritty Cooking Pot Ware.:l9 This handmade ware is generally coarse

and somewhat crumbly, with a grey core. The fabric ranges in colour from dark grey to reddish-pink. The inclusions are primarily limestone, but also include vari-coloured minerals and crushed shell. Some grits are large enough to cause pitting on the surface. The fracture is generally irregular. The surface is slipped with a buff to pink slip, or self-slipped, and then wiped or brushed in horizontal strokes, possibly on a slow tournette. The forms are restricted to large jars, some with rolled or folded rims, others with collar-rims, and flared rims.

This ware was found at Sites 15 and 21. (Fig. 4:6-12.)

Red Burnished Ware (generally dates to Tarsus EB I): The fabric of this ware ranges in colour from dark grey to reddish orange. Occasionally some examples are buff coloured. The temper is mainly vari-coloured minerals, with some coarse shell as well as lime. The ware is hard-fired and is usually fully oxidized; the fracture is generally straight and smooth, although sometimes irregular. The surface is usually slipped, often self-slipped and then burnished, occasionally both on the interior and exterior of the vessel, but usually only the exterior. The colours range from grey-black and brown to reddish orange. Usually the burnishing marks are horizontal, but occasionally vertical. Various examples are wheel burnished, and then wiped or scored with a small tool. The forms represented in the sample are restricted to bowls, one with a flat, angled and lipped rim, a second with a flat base, and a third with a rounded base.

Although there was a fair sample of Red Burnished Ware found, there were few diagnostics. Representative examples of this ware were found at Sites 12, 16 and 19. (Fig. 5:1-3.)

Tarsus EB I-II Red Gritty Plain and Burnished Ware: The fabric of this ware is generally brick-red, but does range in colour from grey and pinkish-buff to dark red. It is generally hard-fired and dinky, with a mostly oxidized core, although the few coarser examples do have a blackish core. The temper is almost entirely white limestone with some sand; at times the amount of temper used is copious, causing an easy, straight fracture. The texture is sandy and hard. The surfaces are slipped red-orange or self-slipped. The surface is usually then wiped with a cloth, especially the handles. The treatment is smooth and even. In some cases the surface is burnished, either in patchy vertical streaks or completely. Lips of vessels are always carefully wiped with a cloth. One example, a body sherd with remnants of a broken handle (Fig. 5:10), has a single white matt paint vertical stripe. The forms in this assemblage are dominated by pitchers with handles extending from the rim, and handles thrust through the body of the vessel. There is one side-spouted vessel, a straight collar-rimmed jar, and a rolled-lip cup or bowl.

The majority of this ware was found at Site 21, however several examples were found at Sites 12 and 16. (Fig. 5:4-10.)

Amuq G-H Plain Simple Ware and Simple Ware with Orange Slip and

19Although this ware begins in the Tarsus Late Chalcolithic, the forms represented in the Bilkent Survey assemblage are probably EB I.

95



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

\ /

2\

31I

7 4

6

7 L

8

9/

10 ) S(

11

12 / X

13 - H

,4 ^S1| J

15 6

17

19

20 ,

21 \ I

0I S 0 c 0 5 10 c.

22

-23

24

25

Fig. 6. Early Bronze Pottery: Light Clay Ware.

18. /

If

c I -

96




Burnish (including "corrugated ware"20): This is a wheelmade ware with a fabric that ranges in colour from buff to very orange. The ware is very dense and heavy, hard-fired and except for the corrugated examples, somewhat dinky; it can even be described as "stone-like". It is smooth and slippery to the touch, even somewhat soapy, particularly the corrugated examples, which are of a very fine fabric. The cores are almost always entirely oxidized, with only the thickest, coarsest examples showing some grey. The inclusions are vari- coloured, fine minerals, with only a bit of vegetable temper that occasionally causes surface pitting. The fracture is very straight and smooth. The surface is always smooth, and often self-slipped. The surface colour ranges from buff to orange. On the Plain wares the surface is slipped and then smoothed or wiped, probably while on the wheel. The slipped and burnished wares are heavily slipped and then lightly burnished, sometimes haphazardly, and usually only on the exterior, particularly on the bowls. The corrugated wares are heavily slipped and burnished, on the exterior as well as the interior. The lips are incised and the corrugation is accomplished with a tool, on the wheel. The majority of forms for all the various types described above appear to be bowls, some with a simple, straight, rim, and some with slightly carinated side. Bases are either flat or slightly ringed, and at least one example of a jar shows a possible vesti- gial lug rim.

The majority of this ware was found at Site 15, but examples were also collected from Sites 16, 19 and 21. The corrugated examples were found only at Sites 15 and 16. (Fig. 5:11-21.)

Tarsus EB II Light Clay Ware: This category contains several of the wheelmade Tarsus Light Clay repertoire types, including Lt. Clay Bowls, Lt. Clay Reserve Slip, and painted examples and corrugated wares. In addition, there are several Lt. Clay Bowls with forms and surface treatment that more closely resembles the Amuq G-H Plain Simple types (Fig. 6:19-25). however the fabric seems to be Cilician. The fabric in these vessels ranges in colour from buff to pink, and a few, particularly the Amuq type bowls and the corrugated ware have a greenish tinge. The clay is extremely well levigated in all examples, in addition to being well-fired and completely oxidized in all cases. The texture is soft and gritty and the fracture is straight and smooth. Inclusions are very fine and in most cases the temper is simply fine sand with occasional bits of limestone. The surface of the Lt. Clay Ware, the Corrugated Ware, and the Lt. Clay Bowls are buff to pink, occasionally yellow. They are self-slipped, and then smoothed or wiped on the wheel, usually only on the exterior. The Corrugated Ware is rilled with a tool while on the wheel. The Painted Ware usually has a buff to yellow/pink slip with black, plum, or red-orange paint. The paint is applied in horizontal stripes either on the lip, inside or out, or on the shoulder. The example with the painted shoulder (Fig. 6:11) may be in the design of a triangle rather than a band. The Reserve Slip Ware has the same surface treatment as the Painted Ware but instead of paint the slip is removed

20Several examples in this category could be described as "corrugated", (Fig. 5:17-21) with forms that more closely resemble Amuq I Simple Ware types. However, the surface treatment on these sherds appears to be the slip and burnish treatment of the Amuq G and H phases. It is possible that these few sherds would be more comfortably placed in a "transitional" category between the Amuq H and I phases. However, for the purposes of this study they will remain in the above category until a larger sample can aid in a more accurate determination of the placement for this type of ware.

97



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

in bands with a tool; alternatively it is removed in a single wide band on the exterior lip of the vessel. The forms consist overwhelmingly of bowls, many hemispherical. Lips of the bowls can be straight, turned inward, slightly flared, or rolled/flattened. Bases are flat, rounded, or ringed. Some of the bowls have carinated sides. One of the Amuq G-H type bowls (Fig. 6:25) appears to have a basket handle. Several of the larger bowls might be classified as "pots", and there is one pitcher handle with a vertical incision.

The Lt. Clay Ware was collected from Sites 15 and 21, and the majority of the Tarsus Lt. Clay Bowls were found at Site 2, with some examples coming from Site 21. All of the Lt. Clay Reserve Slip and Painted Wares were found at Site 2, while all the examples of corrugated ware were collected from Site 21. Finally, the examples of Amuq type bowls were found at Sites 15, 16 and 21. (Fig. 6.)

Amuq H-I Brittle Orange/Konya Metallic Ware. This ware resembles the Amuq Brittle Orange type in form and fabric, and while the surface treatment can often be more closely identified with the Konya Metallic Ware, both these ceramic wares are quite similar to each other.2' The fabric from survey examples ranges in colour from dark grey to buff, some with a greenish tinge, and pink to brick red. After firing the colour is grey, orange, red, or dark pur-

2 < _

3

5

0 S 10acm

Fig. 7. Brittle Orange/Konya Metallic Ware.

tIt should be noted that the Tarsus Red Gritty has also been compared to these two wares. In the Bilkent Survey material, however, there are definite, if subtle, differ- ences between the Tarsus Red Gritty described above and the ware classified here as Brittle Orange/Konya Metallic.

98




pie. The core is usually completely oxidized. This ware is very hard-fired, brittle and extremely dinky. The texture is hard, and slightly soapy after it has been slipped. The fracture is straight and smooth. The inclusions are vari-coloured minerals, mostly sand and limestone, and are fairly small. There is some surface pitting, particularly by the white limestone particles. The surfaces are either self slipped, or have a black wash with particles of mica applied to give the vessel a "metallic" cast. The slipped vessels (Fig. 7:1-3) have reddish tones and are simply wiped on the wheel; the bowls may be very slightly burnished. The washed vessels (Fig. 7:4-5) have a thin wash applied by brush while on the wheel. The colour of the fabric is visible through the washed layer and blends with the black "metallic" wash to give the vessel a dark reddish-black bi- chrome sheen.

The majority of the slipped vessels were collected from Site 21. Examples of washed vessels were found at Sites 15, 16, as well as 21. (Fig. 7.)

THE SITE ANALYSIS The objective of the following descriptions is to identify the types of wares

found at each site, and to describe their general location on the mound or open area. The locational analysis and description of the find-spots at these sites may aid later investigators who wish to visit these sites, particularly if these areas suffer further destruction from the various industries in the area. The break- down of ware-types found at each site may provide information such as ceramic regionality (i.e. Cilician or North Syrian), periodization, and may even help to develop a diachronic regional distribution of prehistoric sites in this area. Naturally it is impossible to develop these types of databases using only the six sites reported here. However, it is hoped that future surveys and excavations can benefit from the information provided here.

With respect to the most westerly site, Site 21 or Yenikoy, it can be noted that though most of the examples of prehistoric ceramic types came from the northern quadrant of the mound, there was also a significant scatter from the southeastern quadrant and southern terrace of the site. In addition, all of the sherds recovered from the northern region of the mound date to the Early Bronze period. There is a fairly even distribution between the Amuq wares, such as Plain Simple and Orange Brittle (or Konya Metallic), and Cilician wares such as Red Gritty and Lt. Clay Wares. It is from the south and southeastern mound area and the southern terrace where the few examples of Late Chalcolithic materials, mixed with further Early Bronze materials, were collected. There were no instances of prehistoric ceramics in the collections from the western mound or west terrace.

From the distribution patterns noted above it appears that the Early Bronze settlement at Yenikoy was somewhat larger than the underlying Chalcolithic occupation. Whereas the Chalcolithic settlement seems to have encompassed the southern sloped area and the southeastern area of the mound, the later Early Bronze occupation appears to have been spread across the entire mound, although not extending toward the west. It should be noted that Seton- Williams identified an Early Bronze settlement at Yenikoy based on the presence of Red and Black Burnished Ware.22 On the basis of the Bilkent Survey material it is now possible to add to the catalogue of prehistoric wares present at Yenikoy, including EB I Hard Gritty Cooking Pots and, as noted above, EB I-II Red Gritty Wares, EB II Lt. Clay Wares and Amuq H Brittle Orange

22Seton-Williams (1954), p. 131.

99



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Wares (or perhaps Konya Metallic Wares). In addition, the Late Chalcolithic is represented by several examples of Smooth-Faced Ware. It can be speculated, then, that Yenikoy has a well-established Early Bronze settlement, with some Late Chalcolithic occupation.

The distribution at Site 15, or Boyali Htiyiik, shows the majority of the prehistoric material coming from the western quadrant of the mound, beginning at the top and continuing down the slope, though there is also a scatter across the eastern quadrant. Again the distribution of the Late Chalcolithic material is more restricted than the Early Bronze. Almost all of the Late Chalcolithic material came from the western quadrant, whereas the Early Bronze material was fairly evenly distributed from east to west. No prehistoric material was found in the sample from the northern area of the site, and virtually none from the southern mound or terrace. The ceramic sample from this site predominantly fits the classification groups in the Amuq sequence. Seton- Williams lists Boyali Hiiytik (noted as Soyali Hiiytik in her article) as a site from which she collected Red and Black Burnished Ware.23 Although Red Burnished Ware was collected by the Bilkent survey team, other Early Bronze and Late Chalcolithic materials can now be added to the repertoire of ceramics from Boyali, including LC Smooth-Faced, Lt. Slipped Ware (or Amuq F Smooth-Faced Simple Ware), Amuq Plain Simple Wares and Lt. Clay Wares. Therefore, based on the Bilkent Survey, Seton-Williams' list of periods represented at Boyali Hiiyiik can be enlarged to include Early Bronze24 and Late Chalcolithic.

The distribution at Site 16, Ttilek Hiiyiik, is indicative of erosional dis- placement. The majority of prehistoric ceramic material came from the northwestern conical mound, the highest point on the site. The rest of the collected material was scattered across the southeastern and eastern slopes of the mound. Both Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze material was collected from the highest point on the site, the northwestern conical mound, as well as the slopes to the southeast. It can only be speculated that the concentration of settlement during these periods was located in the northwest and that erosional processes have distributed the prehistoric material over a much larger area. As at Boyali Hiiyiik, Seton-Williams indicates that only Red and Black Burnished Ware was collected at Tiilek Hiiytik (noted as Hesigin in her article).5 The ceramics collected at this site by the Bilkent Survey Project have enlarged the repertoire to include a fair number of Late Chalcolithic Smooth-Faced Wares, as well as Amuq Plain Simple and Corrugated Wares, and it may further be noted that the prehistoric ceramics from Tiilek are overwhelmingly of the Amuq type, dating from the Late Chalcolithic down through the end of the EB II, or Amuq H-I Phases.

Site 2, as already described above, has been severely cut away and exists today in only partial form, with only the eastern edge of the remaining mound preserved. Four bags were collected from the thin layer of deposit at this site, two in the field to the northeast of the settlement, one in the southern-most region of the settlement, and one directly along the north/south axis of the site. It is the last-mentioned bag that produced the entire assemblage of prehistoric ceramic remains. Unlike remains from previous sites, the collection from Site 2

23Ibid. 4See Seton-Williams (1954), p. 169, where she lists the earliest period represented

at this site to be MBA, though this is most likely a misprint. "5Seton-Williams (1954), p. 131.

100



PREHISTORIC SITES ON THE CILICIAN COASTAL PLAIN 101

indicates a substantial Late Chalcolithic settlement perhaps even more extensive than the Early Bronze occupation. Scattered across the collection area, numerous Coarse Chaff-Faced and Chaff-Faced Simple Wares, as well as LC Cooking Pots, indicate that the area left intact was perhaps domestic in nature. The Late Chalcolithic pottery is fairly coarse, and does not appear to be imported. In addition, the presence of cooking pots strengthens the impression that this region of the settlement might have been primarily domestic, while other more industrial areas may have existed in sections of the site that have already been destroyed.

The Early Bronze ceramics are completely different in nature from the Late Chalcolithic material found in this area. Most of the EB sample is com- posed of Tarsus EB II Light Clay Ware, including bowls, Reserve Slip Ware and Painted Ware, which, in contrast to the LC Coarse Ware, is very fine and not necessarily utilitarian. The contrast between the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ceramic sample from Site 2 is interesting, but unfortunately must be left mostly unexplained since the majority of the site is no longer available for investigation. In addition, it should be noted that while the Late Chalcolithic settlement may currently rival, or even exceed, the Early Bronze occupation is size, it may be that the majority of the Bronze Age occupation levels have in fact been bulldozed and no longer exist. Therefore, the partial destruction of this site may have unintentionally created an existing occupational area that offered a biased sample. Unfortunately it is impossible to assess the situation further, and at this point it can be noted only that there was a Late Chalcolithic site at this location, possibly substantial, which was later succeeded by an Early Bronze settlement, perhaps in the EB II period.

Site 19 also produced Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze sherds, but very few in number and hardly enough to permit assessment of the site for any type of detailed information such as locational analysis, or primary period of occupation. The find-density of ceramic materials in the free sweep across the site was small and indicates either very little erosion or somewhat limited occupational levels, the latter being more likely. The prehistoric materials from Site 19 ranged from Chaff-Faced Simple Wares to Amuq Plain Simple Wares. No obviously Cilician material was recovered from this site.

Conversely, the collection from the most easterly site, Kara Hiiyiik, con- tained a substantial number of ceramics that can be identified as Cilician, including Red Burnished and Red Gritty Wares. Very little Late Chalcolithic material was collected from this site, only enough to show a presence in that period. It appears that Kara Hiiyiik, or Site 12, instead had a more extensive Early Bronze settlement. The majority of the prehistoric material came from the top of the mound, in the northeastern quadrant, near two sets of basalt stone walling which are Roman in date.26 Seton-Williams lists Kara Hiiytik as a find spot for Two-handled Cups,27 otherwise known as depas, which probably date to the EB III period. The Bilkent survey material has necessitated a modification of the occupational history of Kara Hiiyiik to include the Early Bronze II period, and perhaps EB I as well, in addition to a probable Late Chalcolithic settlement. Since Seton-Williams found ceramics dating to the Iron Age, Kara Hiiyiik, in future excavations, should provide a long and fruitful sequence for this region of Cilicia/North Syria.

26M.-H. Gates reports that these stone walls are certainly Roman, based on their construction.

27Seton-Williams (1954), p. 131.



ANATOLIAN STUDIES

SUMMARY The ceramic material collected from these six sites has provided much

additional information about the four sites already known from Seton- Williams' survey, as well as the two newly discovered sites. It is clear that there was Late Chalcolithic occupation at all six, although some, such as Sites 15, 16 and particularly Site 2, had a much stronger LC presence than the other three. More difficult to ascertain is the regional affiliation of each site, i.e. whether the ceramic assemblage at each of the six sites was more Cilician or North Syrian (Amuq) in character. Logic would dictate that the most westerly site, Site 21, would exhibit a more Cilician ceramic assemblage, while Site 12, Kara Hiiytik would exhibit a more Amuqian, or North Syrian, cast in its ceramic typology. However, as is often the case when reason dictates a certain course in analyzing archaelogical samples, this most logical of scenarios does not reflect the actual sample.

At first glance Site 21 initially conforms to the expected pattern. In the Early Bronze Age28 the sample exhibits more of a Cilician typology, with approximately 65-70% of the assemblage being identified with "Tarsus" types of ceramics. However, Sites 15 and 16 show an abrupt shift in emphasis, with only 30% of the assemblage at Site 15 coinciding with "Tarsus" types, and even less of the sample from Site 16 appearing Cilician in character. At Site 2, though substantially smaller than the sample from the Late Chalcolithic, the Early Bronze ceramic sample is entirely Cilician, mostly corresponding to the Tarsus Light Clay Ware in the EB II period. The small Early Bronze repertoire from Site 19 shows an even distribution, while Site 12 exhibits an assemblage that is entirely Cilician in character. Needless to say this does not correspond to an "expected" pattern as it is outlined above.

At first glance, then the character of the assemblages at Sites 15 and 16 would appear anomalous. However, upon closer examination of the types of Amuq ceramics that appear at these sites, a possible explanation emerges. At both sites the Amuq Plain Simple and Orange Slip and Burnished Wares, Corrugated Wares, and Amuq H Brittle Orange Wares make up the majority of the Amuq assemblage. While not considered "fine imports", neither are the Amuq ceramic types found at Sites 15 and 16 examples of simple utilitian "crude ware". Much of the Amuq assemblage from these sites consists of small bowls, none of which could be considered cooking vessels, or even utilitarian in nature. They represent, instead, some of the finer examples of ceramics found at these sites. In contrast, the EB Cilician ceramic types found at the other four sites, as well as Sites 15 and 16, include Red Gritty and Hard Gritty Cooking Pot Wares, both of which can be considered examples of utilitarian wares.

When these points are taken into account, it becomes clear that the presence of Amuq ceramics at Boyali Htiytik and Tilek Hiiyiuk, Sites 15 and 16, might well be explained as the result of trade. Or, alternatively, their presence could be attributable to the acquisition of "foreign", non-Cilician, Amuq wares, rather than to ceramic production at a North Syrian-type regional site. If this is true, and it can be proven only through sourcing analyses, then the character of

28As can be seen in the Late Chalcolithic category of the "Ceramic Analysis" section, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between examples of Cilician and Amuq ceramics of the represented categories. The wares are essentially identical, as are the forms represented by the Bilkent Survey repertoire. It is therefore infeasible to distinguish between a Late Chalcolithic "Cilician" versus "North Syrian" regional attribution of ceramics from these sites.

102



PREHISTORIC SITES ON THE CILICIAN COASTAL PLAIN 103

all six sites, even Kara Hiiytik, is Cilician in nature. Perhaps this is hardly sur- prising given that all six are located in the eastern Cilician Plain. However, the prevalence of the Amuq ceramics at Tarsus, as well as at Mersin, in the prehistoric periods at least suggests that the more easterly sites located along the often-used trade route, running east/west through the Cilician Plain, might indeed prove to be more North Syrian in nature. While further studies are nec- essary, the preliminary analysis conducted here indicates that this is not the case; the sites located along this vital trade route, even those nearest North Syria and the Amuq, exhibit primarily Cilician ceramic typologies.

The prehistoric material collected in the 1991 Bilkent University survey has allowed a re-assessment of several of Seton-Williams' Early Bronze Age sites, as well as enabled the discovery of two additional sites. These new findings by themselves constitute an important addition to the catalogue of sites in an area where little is known about prehistoric settlement patterns. In addition, the effort to collect a full range of ceramic types from each site, with a particular emphasis on diagnostics, has enhanced the known repertoire of ceramic assemblages present at sites previously known from Seton-Williams survey. The Bilkent Survey collection strategy, however, permitted the development of information beyond a list of prehistoric sites and their associated ceramic assemblages. The team's careful records of the geographical and topographical setting, and the precise location of areas surveyed, has provided the forum for insights into topics such as specific areas of prehistoric habitation at each site, as well as the form of habitation (domestic or otherwise) that the site may have supported. Such knowledge would be invaluable for future investigations at these sites.

As has already been stressed, the Bilkent survey was important not only for the type of information reported on here, but also for its timely visits to sites that may not exist in the very near future. The 1991 survey demonstrated how rich the ancient occupational history of this region was, from the Chalcolithic to the Roman periods, and how essential further investigation is in order to prevent vital information from being irretrievably lost. It is hoped that further work in this region, both survey and excavation, will add exponentially to the information provided here.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Braidwood, R. J. and Braidwood, L. S., 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Vol. I. (Oriental Institute Press LXI). Chicago.

Garstang, J., 1953. Prehistoric Mersin. Oxford. Goldman, H., 1956. Excavations at Gdzlii Kule, Tarsus. From the Neolithic through the

Bronze Age. Vol. II, Princeton. Mellink, M., 1992. "Anatolian Chronology." In Chronologies in Old World

Archaeology. R. W. Erich (ed.). Pp. 207-20. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Ozaner, S., 1993. "Iskenderun Korfezi Cevresindeki Antik Yerlesim Alanlarinin

Jeomorfolojik Yonden Yorumu." Arkeometrl Sunuclarl Toplantisi VIII: 337-55.

Ozgen, I. and Gates, M.-H., 1993. "Report on the Bilkent University Archaeological Survey in Cilicia and the Northern Hatay: August 1991." Araytirma Sonuclarl Toplantisi X: 387-94.

Seton-Williams, M. V., 1954. "Cilician Survey." Anatolian Studies IV: 121-74. Steadman, S. R., 1994. Isolation vs. Interaction. Prehistoric Cilicia and its Role in the

Near Eastern World System. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Ann Arbor, Michigan, University Microfilms.



Documents

Prehistoric Sites on the Cilician Coastal Plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery from the 1991 Bilkent University Survey