Content uploaded by M. Frangipane
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M. Frangipane on Jun 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Overturning Certainties in
Near Eastern Archaeology
A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener
Edited by
Çiğdem Maner
Mara T. Horowitz
Allan S. Gilbert
|
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Contents
Forewordix
Carol Bier
K. Aslıhan Yener Publicationsxiv
1 Pointed Juglets as an International Trend in Late Bronze Ritual
Practices: A View from Alalakh1
Murat Akar
2 Demographic Trends in Early Mesopotamian Urbanism25
Guillermo Algaze
3 Lapis Lazuli and Shells from Mari to Ebla34
Alfonso Archi
4 The Metals Trade and Early Bronze Age Craft Production at Tell
Tayinat48
Stephen Batiuk and Timothy P. Harrison
5 A Gold and Lapis Lazuli Bead from Petras, Crete67
Philip P. Betancourt, James D. Muhly and Susan C. Ferrence
6 Alloys and Architecture: Periodic and Quasiperiodic Patterns in
Sinan’s Selimiye in Edirne82
Carol Bier
7 A Syro-Cilician Pitcher from a Middle Bronze Age Kitchen at
Tell Atchana, Alalakh101
Müge Bulu
8 Available in All Colors! Remarks on Some Masks from the Late Bronze
Age Levant117
Annie Caubet
9 Alalakh Monsters128
Dominique Collon
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
vi Contents
<UN>
10 Sharing Technologies and Workspaces for Ceramic and Vitried
Material Production at Tell Atchana-Alalakh139
Gonca Dardeniz
11 Unpublished Hittite Seals in the Collections of the Amasya
Museum157
Meltem Doğan-Alparslan and Metin Alparslan
12 Thoughts on the Anthropomorphic Pottery Vessel Found in Liman
Tepe171
Armağan Erkanal and Ayşegül Aykurt
13 The Role of Metal Procurement in the Wide Interregional
Connections of Arslantepe during the Late 4th–Early 3rd
Millennia 186
Marcella Frangipane
14 Why Alashiya is Still a Problem211
Allan S. Gilbert
15 Novel Uses of Wild Faunal Resources at Transitional Middle-Late
Bronze Age Tell Atchana222
Mara T. Horowitz and Canan Çakırlar
16 The Extramural Cemetery at Tell Atchana, Alalakh, and
Modeling245
Tara Ingman
17 Origins of the Copper Ingots of Alalakh260
Ergun Kaptan
18 Were There Sea Peoples at Alalakh (Tell Atchana)?275
Robert B. Koehl
19 Alalakh and Kizzuwatna: Some Thoughts on
the Synchronization296
Ekin Kozal and Mirko Novák
20 Early Iron in Assyria318
Hartmut Kühne
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
vii
Contents
<UN>
21 Balance Stone Weights and Scale-Pans from Kültepe-Kanesh: On One
of the Basic Elements of the Old Assyrian Trading System341
Fikri Kulakoğlu
22 The Organization of Metal Production at Hattuša: A First
Assessment403
Joseph W. Lehner and Andreas Schachner
23 A Metal Workshop? Multi-Hollow Anvils at Taştepe Obası in
Southeastern Konya436
Çiğdem Maner
24 Upstream from Alalakh: The Lower Orontes Area in Syria453
Stefania Mazzoni
25 The Çaltılar Archaeological Project: Archaeological, Archaeometric,
and Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Pottery Production and
Consumption in Southwest Turkey477
Nicoletta Momigliano and Mustafa Kibaroğlu
26 New Observations for the Late Chalcolithic Settlement at Barcın
Höyük503
Rana Özbal, Hadi Özbal, Fokke Gerritsen, Ayla Türkekul Bıyık and
Turhan Doğan
27 Pass the Wine: Drinking Cups at Early Bronze Tarsus521
Aslı Özyar
28 An Underworld Cult Monument in Antioch: The Charonion543
Hatice Pamir
29 The Iron Age “Spoon Stoppers/Censers” Production in the Amuq:
An Example from Chatal Höyük560
Marina Pucci
30 Unprovenienced Seals from the Amuq in the Hatay Museum577
Robert K. Ritner, Hasan Peker and Ömer Çelik
31 Alala/Mukiš under Hittite Rule and Thereafter614
Itamar Singer†
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
viii Contents
<UN>
32 The Anatolian-Syrian Relationship in the Light of the Ortaköy-
Šapinuwa Tablets634
Aygül Süel
33 Iron Age Arrowheads from Kerkenes645
Geofrey D. Summers
34 The Contexts of Painted Plaster in the Middle Bronze Age Palace of
Tel Kabri665
Assaf Yasur-Landau, Nurith Goshen and Eric H. Cline
Index683
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
© , , | ./_
<UN>
The Role of Metal Procurement in the Wide
Interregional Connections of Arslantepe during
the Late 4th–Early 3rd Millennia
Marcella Frangipane
Abstract
This paper discusses the role played by metal procurement and distribution in the in-
tense relationships established between mobile, pastoral communities of the northern
and north-eastern Anatolian mountains and the Upper and Middle Euphrates pop-
ulations in the second half of the fourth and rst half of the third millennium .
These relations seem to have been rst managed by emerging early state centers of
the Euphrates Valley such as Arslantepe. It seems that the Euphrates valley became
an attractive place and a meeting point for these mobile populations, also creating an
opportunity for them to come into contact with the Syro-Mesopotamian world. The re-
markable increase in metal demand and production documented at Arslantepe and in
the whole Eastern Anatolian region from the second half of the fourth millennium on-
wards goes hand in hand with the intensication of their relations with the northern
and north-eastern pastoral groups. The similarity in technology, metal composition,
and types of metal objects in all the areas involved, as well as the continuity shown by
the Arslantepe metal products at the beginning of the third millennium, when Kura
Araxes-linked cultures dominated the scene, support this hypothesis.
This paper pays homage to Aslıhan Yener by presenting some general re-
markson a topic that falls within one of her elds of interest and research.
I hope it will be a small contribution to the debate on the role of metallurgy
in ancient Anatolian societies, to which Aslıhan has given such remarkable
impetus.
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, Sapienza University of Rome.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Arslantepe in the Fourth–Early Third millennia : Introductory
Remarks
The origins and structural characteristics of the strongly centralized system
manifested at the site of Arslantepe in the last centuries of the fourth millenni-
um (Frangipane 2010a; Frangipane 2012a), though having much in common
with parallel Mesopotamian developments, show a number of distinct traits
that stress the “Anatolian” features of the local culture. The rst of these pecu-
liar traits is the lack of a real urbanization phenomenon and the consequent
low degree of interdependency between the center and its rural population
(Frangipane 2010b). Arslantepe in Period , though among the larger sites
in its region, was indeed a small settlement in comparison with the Mesopota-
mian settlements, even smaller than in Period (Late Chalcolithic 3–4), and
it was mainly occupied by public and elite buildings, suggesting that perhaps
almost exclusively the families involved in the elite activities were living there.
Given the intensive redistribution and administrative operations document-
ed by the thousands of clay sealings found in situ in the imposing fourth mil-
lennium architectural complex (a palace-like installation or palace prototype),
as well as the local character of these operations, as has been documented in a
recently published volume (Frangipane ed. 2007a; see also Blackman 2007), we
may infer that a substantial number of persons, probably much greater than
the people actually living in the site, were involved in the public activities of
the Arslantepe “palace”. They may have lived in scattered villages or hamlets
in the surrounding plain (Frangipane and Di Nocera 2012), thus retaining a
certain independence in the conduct of their subsistence economy and daily
activities, though at least part of this population was probably under obliga-
tion to ofer tributes and/or labor services to the central institutions.
The absence of urban growth can be to some extent explained by the envi-
ronmental conditions of the Malatya region, where good agricultural land and
abundance of water were limited by the mountainous landscape surrounding
the plain, with the result that agricultural production could not expand suf-
ciently to support a large non food-producing urban population. This lack
of an urban structure, on the other hand, must have also been related to the
lack of a multi-layered and deeply-rooted stratied society such as those of
Mesopotamia emerging from the developmental Ubaid period. The data we
have from both excavation and survey at Arslantepe in fact point to a possible
basic social dichotomy between two main components: the elites, living in
Period is Late Chalcolithic 5 in the recent reassessment of the 4th millennium chronol-
ogy of Mesopotamian and peri-Mesopotamian regions, Rothman 2001: 7, tab. I.1
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
the political, administrative, and religious center at Arslantepe, and the com-
mon people, mainly living in the countryside. This trait seems to have been
shared by other nearby Anatolian communities in the nal Late Chalcolithic
and Early Bronze Age, though I believe that the Arslantepe leaders, probably
in contrast to emerging elites of other Anatolian regions (see for example cases
belonging to the so-called Troy culture, Frangipane 2007), had the capacity to
control a substantial part of the staple products and labor of the population
(Frangipane ed. 2010a), which is a feature more in keeping with the “Mesopo-
tamian” model.
In other words, Arslantepe, in the era of state formation, seems to have been
a border community in geographical and socio-political terms, showing both
“Mesopotamian” and “Anatolian” traits. There are indeed a number of origi-
nal and peculiar features in the Arslantepe Period development among
which, for example, is a rapid decrease in the sacred character of the main
public activities (which was conversely more typical of the Mesopotamian en-
vironment), as shown by the precocious secularization of the redistribution
practices (Frangipane 2010b).
Arslantepe appears to be an autonomous center, though linked in various
ways to the events and transformations that were contemporarily occurring in
the Mesopotamian world. Its elites were capable of managing their external re-
lations in their own way, opening to diferent directions. This is clearly shown
by the intensive connections that Arslantepe established with the northern
and north-central regions of Anatolia in the second half of the fourth millenni-
um (see Figure13.1), besides the well-known relations with the Uruk world
(Palmieri 1973; Frangipane and Palmieri 1983; Frangipane 2012a). The powerful
central institutions leading the site in the fourth millennium must have largely
controlled these relations.
Arslantepe and the whole Upper Euphrates region also became an attractive
place for the mobile populations of the mountains that were probably moving
along the east–west highland corridor south of the Black Sea coast and north of
the Malatya plain. The archaeological evidence shows that the Arslantepe
community (or at least the elites living at the site) shared some types of hand-
made Red-Black pottery with central Anatolian sites such as Alişar, Alaca, and
Çadır Höyük in the fourth millennium (von der Osten 1937; Orthman 1963;
Koşay and Akok 1966; Gorny et al. 2002; Palumbi 2008b; Steadman et al. 2008;
The two Period temples lost the dominant character in the public architecture that had
previously characterized Temple C in Period ; they were small and closed to the public,
whereas redistribution practices mainly took place in the storeroom area, which does not
show any clear connection with those temples or other ceremonial buildings.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Çalıskan Akgül 2012, 2013). This pottery seems to have appeared for the rst
time at Arslantepe, as a minority among the chaf-faced LC3 horizon typical
of the Malatya plain, at the end of Period , around the middle of the fourth
millennium , when it was probably already established in Central Anatolia
(Schoop 2005; Palumbi 2008b); it then became more common in Period ,
though remaining limited to particular categories of vessels, such as bowls,
cups, small jars, jugs, and “fruit stands” (Figure13.2).
The so-called “fruit stand” is a typical central Anatolian shape, unknown
in the eastern Late Chalcolithic pottery traditions. The selection of forms and
location of these vessels in public, often ceremonial, contexts suggest that they
were used for particular functions such as drinking and eating in the course
of public and/or elite performances. Similar pottery is also well documented
in the Altınova plain, in the Late Chalcolithic 5 levels of Tepecik (Esin 1982;
Çalışkan Akgül 2013), thus supporting the idea that relations of some weight
must have existed in the fourth millennium between the Upper Euphrates re-
gion and the northern areas of central Anatolia where a spectrum of inter-
related cultures can be found. The evidence suggests that the populations of
the northernmost zone of the Upper Euphrates valley were involved in a wide
network connecting mobile, perhaps nomadic or semi-nomadic groups living
and moving along the routes south of the Black Sea coast in this period. Upper
Euphrates sites such as Arslantepe could have mediated relations and created
an opportunity for these northern populations to come into contact with the
Mesopotamian world to the south.
We do not have any direct evidence of the role played by the early Kura-
Araxes (Kura-Araxes ) groups in these east–west relations in the last centuries
of the fourth millennium. The adoption in the early Kura-Araxes pottery of a
ring technique similar to that used in Central Anatolia and the Upper Eu-
phrates valley to obtain the red-black bi-chromatic aesthetic efect is worth
mentioning. Red-Black fabrics were, however, combined with local shapes in
the early Kura-Araxes pottery (Sagona 1984, 2000; Palumbi 2008a), giving the
impression that they had been adopted by imitating other experiences. This
hybridization phenomenon may suggest contacts, direct or mediated, between
these north-eastern highland communities and the Upper Euphrates valley,
This idea, proposed for the rst time by Alba Palmieri (1973) and U. Esin (1982), is currently
shared by many scholars, cf. Ökse 2007; Palumbi 2008b; Çalışkan Akgül 2012, 2013.
The role played by pastoral nomadic populations in the formation of the same Uruk system
has been recently stressed by Anne Porter, though, in my opinion, attaching too prominent a
part to it (see Porter 2012).
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
perhaps also including some links with north-central Anatolian communities
already in the Late Chalcolithic.
The radical changes in external relations that strongly afected Arslantepe’s
development in Period VIB1, at the very start of the third millennium , are
signicant in this respect. At the beginning of Early Bronze Age I, after the col-
lapse of the Late Chalcolithic palace and its centralized system, the site was
occupied by scattered huts probably belonging to transhumant groups linked
to the Kura-Araxes world who seem to have seasonally settled on the leveled
ruins of the palace for about a century, between 3100 and 2900 . These
groups, as has been clearly demonstrated by G. Palumbi, had red-black pottery
with shapes belonging to the Kura-Araxes repertoire but with diferent color
patterns and a related ring technique that appear to have followed the tradi-
tional aesthetic criteria and technology already used at Arslantepe in Period
(Palumbi 2008a, b).
The links with previous traditions in pottery manufacture and taste, as-
sociated with a radical change in the pottery inventory of shapes and use,
reveal on the one hand that the Kura-Araxes communities established strong
new relationships with the Upper Euphrates populations at the end of the
fourth millennium , imposing their inuence on this area; on the other
hand, as has again been brilliantly proposed by G. Palumbi, it is suggested that
these relationships were perhaps mediated by some “local” pastoral groups
living in the highlands surrounding the Malatya-Elazığ region who had been
moving with their ocks along nomadic or transhumant routes for centuries
(Palumbi 2010; 2012). They may have become part of the Kura-Araxes cul-
tural sphere in the period of its “expansion”, also in turn contributing to its
formation.
These groups, though archaeologically not yet visible, may have lived in
the area surrounding the Malatya plain already during the palace Period ,
perhaps interacting with the local sedentary populations and their elites and
being involved in the central system of goods and services circulation. The cen-
tralized economy operating at Arslantepe may have indeed worked as an at-
tractive system, stimulating and managing the exchange of products that must
have also been of some advantage for the pastoral groups (Frangipane 2010b;
Palumbi 2010). When the palace and its power structure collapsed at the very
end of the fourth millennium , an empty “space” and a power vacuum were
left that allowed the neighboring pastoral groups related to the Kura-Araxes
world to settle on the site; thus, they became archaeologically visible as strong
actors in the new third millennium developments in the Malatya plain (Fran-
gipane 2012b, 2015). Previously established interregional relations must have
been strengthened, though with some fundamental changes for the actors who
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
took on negotiating and leadership roles, as well as the disappearance of a cen-
tralized authority.
Arslantepe’s Relations with the Northern Highlands and the
Demand for Metals in the Centralized Society of the Fourth
Millennium
Interest in establishing wide-ranging relations with the mountain people of
north-central and north-eastern Anatolia by the Late Chalcolithic communi-
ties of the Upper Euphrates may have been fostered, among other factors, by
the need for metals, in which the whole mountainous region surrounding the
southern and south-eastern coast of the Black Sea is rich. Mobile groups living
in these areas as well as passing through them may have contributed to the
procurement and distribution of metal ores and artifacts. It is well known that
nomadic or transhumant pastoral groups, thanks to their easy access to the
sources, often exploit metals and circulate them among the sedentary popula-
tions in the form of both raw materials or nished and semi-nished products,
thereby creating special circuits of goods which include, besides “exotic” or
precious materials, the dairy and secondary products of their stock-raising.
Archaeological evidence from a number of sites shows the remarkable de-
velopment of metallurgy and use of metal objects by apparently mobile or
semi-mobile populations, who developed this craft activity sometimes in a
fairly specialized form, as was the case of the Ghassulians (Levy 1995). Though
this production was often aimed at internal use by the local elites, it may also
have circulated within a wider area. It is not by chance that this interest in met-
als by nomadic populations developed during the period of the emergence of
the rst elites in sedentary societies and the parallel increase in demand for
materials displaying and expressing their prestige and power. Their greater fa-
cility in reaching the ores, processing raw materials, and circulating their prod-
ucts in the new hierarchical socio-political contexts may have in turn contrib-
uted to the formation of hierarchies in the nomadic groups as well, as seems to
have been the case in both Ghassulian and Caucasian communities. Major use
of metals is indeed attested within these communities, with a particular em-
phasis on prestige objects or, at any rate, elite-destined items of display such
as jewelry and weapons, which mainly had a local distribution as can be very
clearly seen particularly in the Southern Levant.
It is sucient to mention the well-known Nahal Mishmar hoard (Bar Adon 1980).
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Going back to the eastern Anatolian societies, the hypothesis of a role played
by the demand for metals in stimulating and strengthening wide-ranging re-
lations between the emerging proto-state societies of the Upper Euphrates
valley and pastoral groups moving along the northern mountainous fringe is
supported by the great development of metallurgy at Arslantepe and in other
Late Chalcolithic sites in the second half of the fourth millennium (Yener 2000:
44–50; Di Nocera 2010, 2013) in the framework of a kind of metallurgical circuit
distinguished by the appearance of similar metallurgical technology, metal
composition, and types of metal objects in many of the involved regions (Kus-
nareva and Chubinishvili 1970; Yener 2000: 44–50; Courcier 2007, 2010).
The rich array of metal artifacts, particularly weapons, found in the palace
buildings at Arslantepe in Period shows the development of a very sophis-
ticated metallurgy (Frangipane and Palmieri 1983; Caneva and Palmieri 1983;
Caneva et al. 1985; Di Nocera 2010, 2013). Products of this industry are unques-
tionably comparable to similar objects from both the South Caucasus and the
Black Sea coast, although the majority of the comparable examples from these
regions are unfortunately not well dated and cannot be ascribed with any cer-
tainty to the same early period as the Arslantepe items. Butted spearheads
(Figure13.3: c–d) in particular are very similar to examples found in the Trans-
caucasian region (Kushnareva 1997:, Fig. 29; Yener 2000: 50; Courcier 2007:
Fig.15), and some of their typological features (the tri-partition and the leaf-
shaped blade) are also found on the Black Sea coast at Ikiztepe, Dündartepe,
and other sites (Bilgi 1990: Figs.10–11; Yener 2000: 50) though these spears, the
dating of which is uncertain or debated, also show diferent traits.
The four-spiral plaque found together with the weapons at Arslantepe
(Figure13.3: e) is on the other hand almost identical to the Ikiztepe examples
(Alkım et al. 1988: pl. 58, 2003; Bilgi 1990: Fig.19, 438–444). Even the Arslantepe
swords (Figure13.3: a–b), which appear to have been unique in the panorama
of metal weapons from this period, may not have been completely isolated
items: a closely comparable object of uncertain provenance and date from a
collection in the Tokat Museum has in fact been recently published and com-
pared with the Arslantepe examples (Zimmerman et al. 2011: Figs. 1, 2). It is
indeed, in my opinion, more probable that this object comes from the same
Tokat region rather than from Arslantepe, as the author of the paper suggests.
The chemical and lead isotope analyses carried out on the Arslantepe metal
objects also point to the same northern and north-eastern region for the raw
material provenience (Hauptmann et al. 2002). The signicant presence of
The date of the Ikiztepe levels and burials is still debated, but it currently seems to be earlier
than previously thought (Zimmerman 2007).
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
arsenic (As) in the Arslantepe copper artifacts, which slightly varies in quan-
tity according to the type and function of the objects (Caneva and Palmieri
1983; Palmieri et al. 1993, 1999; Hauptmann and Palmieri 2000), thus suggesting
a certain control over its concentration in the produced copper, points to the
arsenic-rich ores of both the southern Caucasus and the South-eastern Black
Sea region, and also closely recalls the arsenic-rich copper objects found in
both these areas (Kushnareva and Chubinishvili 1970: tab. –; Özbal et al.
2002; Yalçın 2003, 2008; Meliksetyan and Pernicka 2010). The composition of
the Arslantepe copper artifacts also shows an interesting association of
arsenic and nickel (Ni), together with a more sporadic presence of antimony
(Sb) (Caneva and Palmieri 1983; Hauptmann et al. 2002).
It is worth mentioning that some slag samples from Arslantepe Period
( 3–4) and a big piece of ore found in the Period VIB2 settlement ( ) also
reveal the use of polymetallic ores containing As and Ni, with the addition
of Sb in the rst case, and iron (Fe) in the second (Frangipane and Palmieri
1994–95). The association of copper with As and Ni has also been found in
Transcaucasia (Meliksetyan and Pernicka 2010), at Ikiztepe (Yener 2000: 46;
Özbal et al. 2002), and in the sword of the Tokat collection (Zimmerman et al.
2011: Figure13.5) as well as in the Hassek Höyük and Hacinebi metal ndings
(Behm-Blancke 1984; Schmidt-Strecker et al. 1992; Özbal et al. 1999). This com-
position in the late fourth-early third millennia appears to be fairly common
in eastern and south-eastern Anatolia, but it does not seem to have spread into
the southernmost Mesopotamian regions. These data support the hypothesis
that the development of a local metallurgical industry and a network for raw
metal procurement at sites such as Arslantepe on the Upper Euphrates was
mainly aimed at satisfying local or micro-regional needs rather than intended
for long-distance trade to the societies of southern Mesopotamia.
The demand for metals is probably linked to the desire to display the pres-
tige and power of chiefs and high status persons, as was the case in various
other contexts in the era of elite emergence. In the case of Arslantepe, metal
demand may also have been fostered by new needs for weapons and the imple-
mentation of force. The need for defense may have become a critical factor at
The 9 swords and 12 spearheads found in the palace complex at Arslantepe seem to belong to
two groups, each showing the same As content—mainly ranging from 4 to 6% in the swords
and from 2 to 4% in the spearheads (Caneva and Palmieri 1983; Palmieri et al. 1993). This
suggests either a certain intentional control over the arsenic concentration process during
the smelting or a selection of diferent As-rich ores to produce the two object categories. The
only other possible explanation for such a regularity is that the weapons were produced in
two groups, each belonging to the same stock of metal.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
the end of Period , when the central institutions started to undergo their
deep crises, and the pastoral groups, which had probably been well controlled
and integrated into the political economy of the central institutions, may have
become a competing and conicting component. The nding of 9 swords and
12 spearheads in Building in the Arslantepe palatial complex, which is the
rst appearance of swords known so far, suggests the embryonic development
of an organized form of battle and is probably evidence of a growing instabil-
ity at the end of Period . The assumption of emerging security problems
at Arslantepe at the very end of the fourth millennium is also supported
by the construction of a defence wall around the palace complex exactly at
the end of the Period; this wall in fact partly blocked the monumental
entrance to the palace, diminishing its magnicence.
Changing Relations with the North-Eastern Anatolian Highlands
in a New Political Environment: Arslantepe in Period .
The results obtained in the 2011–2013 campaigns at Arslantepe have shown
that what seemed to have been a weakly-structured and seasonally occupied
settlement in Period VIB1 actually had, at the top of the mound, a ‘chiey hut’,
large, isolated, and rebuilt three times (A 1332–1346 and A1340), and a large,
fairly monumental mud brick building (Building 36, Figure13.4) with a long
hall dominated by a round replace (Figure13.5: c) and containing two storage
areas (Figure13.5: a–b). This building seems to have been a public or commu-
nal structure, perhaps to receive people on special occasions, and a place for
exercising political functions (Frangipane 2012b, 2014). This suggests that the
site retained its importance even after the destruction of the palace and the
collapse of the centralized system, probably becoming a sort of landmark for
the mobile groups living in the region. However, the political, economic, and
social system had changed completely and radically. The new elites, whose ex-
istence is documented in wealthy monumental tombs, founded their power
on a completely diferent basis, and there is no evidence either of centraliza-
tion of resources or control of the labor force. It seems that the basis of this
new social order was a clan or chiey structure for the managing of wealth
like metals and probably herds, and also the regulation of conicts. Instead of
sealings, bowls, and temples, we have now metals, weapons, defensive walls,
and rich tombs.
The residents of Period VIB1 Arslantepe seem to have been part of a wider
pastoral environment in the Upper Euphrates sharing many cultural traits
with north-eastern and Transcaucasian communities, and having almost no
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
connections any longer with the Mesopotamian world. In this new context,
among the abundant materials found in situ in the prominent Building 36
of Arslantepe, we found two beautiful copper spearheads (Figure13.6: a–b),
which reproduce exactly the same technological and morphological features
as the spearheads found in Building in the late fourth millennium palace.
The only diference is the smaller size of the Building 36 examples. Analyses of
these objects, which have just been brought to light, has not yet been done, but
I would not be surprised if they showed the same copper-arsenic composition
as the other spearheads so far found at Arslantepe.
These objects constitute an interesting link between the Period spear-
heads and the identical examples found in the chiey Tomb T1, the so-called
“Royal Tomb” in the terminology used in the rst publication of this excep-
tional nding (Frangipane et al. 2001) (Figure13.6: c). We cannot establish if the
weapons in Tomb T1 were slightly later or nearly contemporary with those in
Building 36, since we do not currently know the exact dating of Tomb T1’s con-
struction (the pit mouth is missing, cut away by later levels). Comparing
its stratigraphic position and that of Building 36 in the Arslantepe sequence,
and considering the close similarity of some pottery items in the two con-
texts, both showing the coexistence of diferent cultural and probably ethnic
components, the Tomb might now be dated either to the very beginning of
Period VIB2 (as it had been dated in the preliminary report: Frangipane et al.
2001) or to a middle/late VIB1 phase, which would be more or less contem-
porary with Building 36. The metal objects found in the Tomb show close
similarities with both the items from Building 36 and those from the fourth
millennium palace. The metal spearheads in particular, besides being identical
to the examples in their shape, had also the same composition (Palmieri
et al. 1998; Frangipane et al. 2001; Hauptmann et al. 2002), and one of them
They both follow the rst layers of the VIB1 occupation, by respectively cutting or be-
ing superimposed on them. In fact, Period VIB1 now clearly shows a sequence of at least
4building phases.
The pottery in the tomb is a mixture of wheel-made Uruk-derived and Red-Black hand-
made Transcaucasian-related wares, and a few examples of wheel-made pottery in the
Uruk tradition have been recently found in situ in Building 36, side by side with the more
abundant Kura-Araxes-like Red-Black pottery. Moreover, a similarity in vessel proles has
also been recognized between the two assemblages.
The missing mouth of the large burial pit, together with the already mentioned presence
of vessels belonging to both the Transcaucasian and post-Uruk Euphrates traditions,
makes it dicult to ascribe the burial precisely to any of these phases (VIB1 or the very
beginning of VIB2).
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
even shows the same silver inlay decoration found in three of the swords of the
fourth millennium palaces (see Figure13.3: b).
The persistence of the same metallurgical technology, skill, and tradition
in the transition from the early state society of the fourth millennium to
the new non-centralized and culturally diferent communities that settled at
Arslantepe in the rst century of the third millennium , together with the
persistence of the Red-Black pottery technology, is a further indication of the
continuity and deep rooting of the relationships established between the site
and its region with northern Anatolian and South Caucasian mountain popu-
lations. It also further stresses the hypothesis that the groups from the north
brought metals and metal technology to the Upper Euphrates valley. We do
not know from which specic region these groups came, or whether they were
distant or neighboring entities, but they were likely part of a wide network
of northern nomadic populations. We can convincingly hypothesize that the
Euphrates valley was a cross-point for these various groups at the end of the
fourth millennium and a place where some sort of hybridization process took
place. And it is possible that the Arslantepe center and the demands by its elite
were one of the main attractions for these groups, thus creating a mutually
benecial relationship.
At the very beginning of the third millennium, the eastern and north-eastern
Anatolian Kura-Araxes-linked communities, expanding towards the west,
seem to have taken over the control of this northern sector of the Euphrates
valley and even settled there, as is documented at Norşuntepe and other sites
of the Altınova plain in a slightly later period, the Early Bronze (Hauptmann
1982). The wide circuit of relations, which had involved various mobile groups
of the mountains and the sedentary communities of the Upper Euphrates val-
ley from the second half of the fourth millennium, was still working but, on the
one hand, the leading actors of these relations seem to have become the north-
eastern Anatolian and South Caucasian communities, and, on the other hand,
the dynamics of the interactions must have been diferent, being now based on
non-centralized relations. Given the continued presence of northern-linked
metal artifacts at Arslantepe, we can condently hypothesize that one of
the reasons for the maintenance of these wide-ranging relations was a well-
rooted system of circulation of metals and metallurgical skills.
It is interesting to note that the metallurgical tradition described above
and originating in the mountains of eastern Anatolia, also spread to the south
along the Middle Euphrates valley in the course of the third millennium .
The deeply changed political systems recorded in this region from the be-
ginning of the third millennium, and the new elites governing them seem to
have used metals and metal weapons as new symbols and tools of their power
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
(Frangipane 2007b; Squadrone 2007). A great number of metal objects, and
particularly butted spearheads of the northern type, appear in the Middle Eu-
phrates valley during the third millennium, and they are found in connection
with the spreading of new burial customs (Cooper 2007). Well-built tombs,
usually cist or stone graves, which were previously unknown in the Middle Eu-
phrates valley and were conversely common in the south Caucasus, appear for
the rst time in this region and display the richness and status of chiefs and
important families with rich metal gifts.
The type of cist grave associated with metals, and especially metal weapons
appears rst in the northern sector of the Euphrates valley at Arslantepe c.
3000–2900 and seems to spread gradually southward along the river bench-
es, though with diferences in richness and monumentality (Hassek Höyük,
Birecik cemetery), reaching the southern part of the Middle Euphrates area
and the nearby regions in the second half of the third millennium (Porter
2002; Montero Fenollós 2004; Ökse 2006; Peltenburg 2007–08; Schwartz 2012;
Schwartz et al. 2006). These latter tombs have changed their original building
features but maintained and further developed their symbolic prominence.
Some Concluding Remarks
According to the archaeological evidence, northern Anatolian and South Cau-
casian metallurgy expanded to the south, toward the Middle Euphrates basin,
in the third millennium , not in the fourth when the Uruk colonies and the
local power centers were there, dominating the scene. The spreading of new
metallurgical models took place together with the difusion of other cultural
traditions, such as new burial customs, which were now probably in keeping
with the radical changes that occurred in the Euphrates societies at the transi-
tion from the Chalcolithic to . The centralized systems had collapsed, and
new local political entities were formed based on diferent socio-economic re-
lations, probably diferent kinds of kinship-based hierarchies, and a diferent
concept and nature of power.
It was at this point that the northern and north-eastern groups of the moun-
tains appear to have been more powerful in negotiating their relations with the
sedentary populations. On the one hand, there were probably no obstacles or
political limitations any more to their expansion along with their products and
It is sucient to mention the rich metal assemblages in the Birecik cemetery (Sertok and
Ergeç 1999; Squadrone 2007) and the difusion of butted spearheads with long butts in the
tombs of Carchemish and Kara Hassan (Woolley 1914; Woolley and Barnett 1952).
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
ideas, and, on the other hand, the now more fragmented political entities in
the Euphrates valley seem to manifest a new clan-tribal structure, which found
in metals and metal weapons the more appropriate expression of the wealth
and power of their elites. This new demand for metals among the settled com-
munities may have been satised and managed through direct, possibly “peer-
polity” relations with the northern communities, which may have become an
interesting counterpart for the new Euphrates leaders.
If this interpretation is correct, the evidence of new connections between
north/north-eastern Anatolian groups with the Upper/Middle Euphrates com-
munities in the third millennium , exactly when the use and social role of
metal and the demand for it strongly increased in the latter societies, would
conrm the role probably played by these mountain populations in managing
the metal technology and metal ore circulation. Recently, the newly excavated
mound of Başur Höyük in Siirt province revealed a number of cist graves where
extraordinary and sophisticated metal objects of north-eastern Anatolian and
Upper Euphrates tradition—among which were typical tripartite spearheads—
were associated with painted pottery of Ninevite 5 type (Sağlamtimur and Ozan
2014). This evidence suggests that the inuence of metal-bearing mobile groups
of north-eastern Anatolian/Transcaucasian origin may have also reached the
regions gravitating along the Tigris valley at the periphery of Upper Mesopo-
tamia, expanding in many directions at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age.
The evidence from the fourth millennium Upper Euphrates sites, on the
other hand, shows that the role of these mobile communities in spreading
metals and metal technology must have arisen, and was certainly stimulated
and developed, in the previous period when powerful centers such as Arslante-
pe established privileged relations with such groups coming from the ore-rich
mountains in the north, managing and controlling the relationship by includ-
ing them in their centralized economy.
References
Alkım, B.U., H. Alkım, and Ö Bilgi 1988 Ikiztepe I. Birinci ve ikinci dönem kazilari =
The First and Second Seasons’ excavations (1974–1975). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi.
Alkım, B.U., H. Alkım, and Ö Bilgi 2003 İkiztepe II. Uçüncü, dördüncü, besinci, altinci,
yedinci dönem kazilari (1976–1980) [The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Sea-
sons Excavations (1976–1980)]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Bar-Adon, P. 1980 The Cave of Treasure. The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar.
Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Behm-Blanke, M.R. 1984 Hassek Höyük. Vorläuger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der
Jahre 1981–1983. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34: 31–149.
Bilgi, Ö. 1990 Metal objects from İkiztepe—Turkey. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und
Vergleichenden Archaologie 9–10: 119–219.
Blackman, M.J. 2007 A study of Arslantepe cretulae by chemical characterization.
In Frangipane, M. (ed.), Arslantepe-Cretulae. An Early Centralised Administra-
tive System Before Writing. Arslantepe V. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche
Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,
pp. 396–405.
Caneva, C., and A.M. Palmieri 1983 Metalwork at Arslantepe in Late Chalcolithic and
Early Bronze I: The evidence from metal analyses. Origini XII(2): 637–654.
Caneva, C., Frangipane, M., and Palmieri, A.M. 1985 I metalli di Arslantepe nel quadro
dei più antichi sviluppi della metallurgia vicino-orientale. In Scavi e ricerche archeo-
logiche degli anni 1976–1979, vol. I. Quaderni de “La Ricerca Scientica” 112: 115–137.
Çalışkan Akgül, H. 2012 Looking to the west: The Late Chalcolithic red-black ware of
the Upper Euphrates region. Origini XXXIV: 97–109.
Çalışkan Akgül, H.2013 East Anatolian Red-Black Burnished Ware and Central Anatolian
Relations at the End of the 4th and the Beginning of the 3rd Millennium BC. Ph.D. dis-
sertation. Rome: Doctoral School in Archaeology, “La Sapienza” University of Rome.
Cooper L. 2007 Early Bronze Age burial types and social-cultural identity within the
northern Euphrates valley. In Peltenburg, E.J. (ed.), Euphrates River Valley Settle-
ment: The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC. Levant Supplementary
Series 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 55–70.
Courcier, A. 2007 La métallurgie dans les pays du Caucase au Chalcolithique et au
début de l’âge du Bronze: bilan des études et perspectives nouvelles. In B. Lyonnet
(ed.), Les cultures du Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations
avec le Proche-Orient. Paris: CNRS Editions, pp. 199–232.
Courcier, A. 2010 Metalliferous potential, metallogenous particularities and extrac-
tive metallurgy: Interdisciplinary researches for understanding the ancient metal-
lurgy in the Caucasus during the Early Bronze Age. In Hansen, S., A. Hauptmann,
I. Motzenbäcker, and E. Pernicka (eds.), Von Majkop bis Trialeti: Gewinnung und
Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.-2. Jt. v. Chr. Beiträge des
Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 1–3. Juni 2006. Bonn: Rudolph Habelt
Gmbh, pp. 75–95.
Di Nocera, G.M. 2010 Metals and metallurgy. Their place in the Arslantepe society be-
tween the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. In Frangipane,
M. (ed.), Economic Centralisation in Formative States: The Archaeological Reconstruc-
tion of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Studi di Preistoria Ori-
entale 3. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche
dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, pp. 255–274.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Di Nocera, G.M. 2013 Organization of production and social role of metallurgy in the
prehistoric sequence of Arslantepe (Turkey). Origini 35.
Esin, U. 1982 Tepecik excavations, 1974. Keban Project 1974–75 Activities. Middle East
Technical University Publications, Series I, no. 7. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basi-
mevi, pp. 95–118, pls. 53–78.
Frangipane, M. (ed.) 2007a Arslantepe-Cretulae. An Early Centralised Administrative
System Before Writing. Arslantepe V. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Ar-
cheologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.
Frangipane, M. 2007b The establishment of a Middle/Upper Euphrates EB I culture
from the fragmentation of the Uruk world. New data from Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük
(Urfa, Turkey). In E.J. Peltenburg (ed.), Euphrates River Valley Settlement: The
Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC. Levant Supplementary Series 5.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 122–141.
Frangipane, M. (ed.) 2010a Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archaeo-
logical Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe. Studi
di Preistoria Orientale 3. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e
Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.
Frangipane, M. 2010b The political economy of the early central institutions at Ar-
slantepe. Concluding remarks. In M. Frangipane (ed.), Economic Centralisation in
Formative States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th
Millennium Arslantepe. Studi di Preistoria Orientale 3. Rome: Dipartimento di Sci-
enze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma
“La Sapienza”, pp. 289–307.
Frangipane, M. 2010c Diferent models of power structuring at the rise of hierarchical
societies in the Near East: Primary economy versus luxury and defense management.
In Bolger, D., and L.C. Maguire (eds.), The Development of Pre-State Communities in
the Ancient Near East: Studies in honour of Edgar Peltenburg. British Association of
Near Eastern Archeology Publication Series 2, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.79–86.
Frangipane, M. 2012a Fourth millennium Arslantepe: the development of a centralised
society without urbanisation. Origini XXXIV: 19–40.
Frangipane, M. 2012b The collapse of the 4th millennium centralised system at Ar-
slantepe and the far-reaching changes in 3rd millennium societies. Origini XXXIV:
237–260.
Frangipane, M. 2014 After collapse: Continuity and disruption in the settlement by
Kura-Araxes-linked pastoral groups at Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey). New data.
Paléorient 40(2): 169–182.
Frangipane, M. 2015 Upper Euphrates societies and non-sedentary communities linked
to the Kura-Araxes world. Dynamics of interaction, as seen from Arslantepe. In
M. Işikli, and B. Can (eds.), Proceedings on the International Symposium on East
Anatolia—South Caucasus Cultures.: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 174–188.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Frangipane, M., and G.M. Di Nocera 2012 Discontinuous developments in settlement
patterns and socio-economic/political relations in the Malatya plain in the 4th and
3rd millennia BC. In Borrell Tena, F., M. Bouso García, A. Gómez Bach, C. Tornero
Dacasa, and O. Vicente Campos (eds.), Proceedings of the Broadening Horizons 3
Conference. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions,
pp. 289–303.
Frangipane, M., and A. Palmieri 1983 A Protourban centre of the Late Uruk Period.
Origini XII (2): 287–454.
Frangipane, M., and A. Palmieri 1994–95 Un modello di ricostruzione dello sviluppo
della metallurgia antica: il sito di Arslantepe. Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia Archeolo-
gia Antropologia 8–9: 59–78.
Frangipane, M., G.M. Di Nocera, A. Hauptmann, P. Morbidelli, A.M. Palmieri, L. Sadori,
M. Schultz, and T. Schmidt-Schultz 2001 New symbols of a new power in a “Royal”
tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Paléorient 27(2): 105–139.
Gorny, R.L., G. McMahon, S. Paley, S. Steadman, and B. Verhaaren 2002 The 2000 and
2001 season at Çadır Hüyük in Central Turkey: A preliminary report. Anatolica 28:
109–136.
Hauptmann, H. 1982 Die Grabungen auf dem Norşun Tepe, 1974. Keban Project 1974–75
Activities. Middle East Technical University Series I, no. 7. Ankara: Türk Tarih Ku-
rumu Basimevi, pp. 41–70.
Hauptmann, A., and A.M. Palmieri 2000 Metal production in the Eastern Mediterra-
nean during the 4th/3rd millennium: Case studies from Arslantepe. In Ü. Yalçın (ed.),
Anatolian Metal I. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Der Anschnitt 13: 75–82.
Hauptmann, A., S. Schmitt-Strecker, F. Begemann, and A.M. Palmieri 2002 Chemical
composition and lead isotopy of metal objects from the “Royal” tomb and other
related nds at Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia. Paléorient 28(2): 43–70.
Koşay, H.Z., and Akok, M. 1966 Alaca Hüyük Kazısı, 1940–1948: çalışmaları ve keşilere ait
ilk rapor [Alaca Höyük Excavations: Preliminary Report on Research and Discoveries].
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Kushnareva, K.K. 1997 The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of Cultural and So-
cioeconomic Development From The Eighth to The Second Millennium B.C., transl. By
H.N. Michael. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Kushnareva, K.K., and T.N. Chubinishvili. 1970 Drevnie kul’tury yuzhnogo Kavkaza (V-III
tys. do N.E.) [Ancient Cultures of Southern Caucasus (V-III Millennia B.C.)]. Lenin-
grad: Nauka, Leningradskoe otd-nie. (In Russian).
Levy, T.E. 1995 Cult, metallurgy and rank societies: Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500–3500
BCE). In Levy, T.E., (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London:
Leicester University Press, pp. 226–244.
Meliksetyan, C., and E. Pernicka 2010 Geochemical characterisation of Armenian
Early Bronze Age metal artefacts and their relation to copper ores. In Hansen, S.,
A. Hauptmann, I. Motzenbäcker, and E. Pernicka (eds.), Von Majkop bis Trialeti:
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.-2. Jt. v.
Chr. Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 1–3. Juni 2006. Bonn:
Rudolph Habelt Gmbh, pp. 41–58.
Montero Fenollós, J.L. 2004 La tumba de la princesa de Qara Quzaq. Metal, muerte y
prestigio en la cuenca Siro-Mesopotámica a comienzos del III milenio a.C., Histo-
riae 1: 36–55.
Ökse, T.A. 2006 Gre Virike (Period I): Early Bronze Age ritual facilities on the Middle
Euphrates river. Anatolica 32: 1–27.
Ökse, T.A. 2007 Ancient mountain routes connecting Central Anatolia to the Upper
Euphrates region. Anatolian Studies 57: 35–45.
Orthmann, W. 1963 Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien. Istanbuler
Forschungen Bd. 24. Berlin.
Özbal, H., A. Adriaens, and B. Earl 1999 Hacinebi metal production and exchange.
Paléorient 25(1): 57–65.
Özbal, H., N. Pehlivan, B. Earl, and B. Gedik 2002 Metallurgy at Ikiztepe. In Yalçın, Ü.
(ed.), Anatolian Metal II. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Der Anschnitt 15:
39–48.
Palmieri, A. 1973 Scavi nell’area sud-occidentale di Arslantepe. Origini VII: 55–179.
Palmieri, A.M., K. Sertok, and E. Chernykh 1993 From Arslantepe metalwork to arseni-
cal copper technology in eastern Anatolia. In Frangipane, M., H. Hauptmann, M.
Liverani, P. Matthiae, and M. Mellink (eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Moun-
tains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicate. Rome: Di-
partimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Uni-
versità di Roma “La Sapienza,” pp. 573–599.
Palmieri, A.M., A. Hauptmann, and K. Hess 1998 Les objets en métal du tombeau mon-
umental d’Arslantepe de 3000 av. J.-C. (Malatya, Turquie). Revue d’Archéometrie 22:
39–43.
Palmieri, A.M., M. Frangipane, A. Hauptmann, and K. Hess 1999 Early metallurgy at
Arslantepe during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age IA-IB periods. In
Hauptmann, A., E. Pernicka, T. Rehren, and U. Yalçin (eds.), The Beginnings of Met-
allurgy: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Beginnings of Metallurgy”,
Bochum 1995. Bochum, Bergbau-Museum, Der Anschnitt 9: 141–148.
Palumbi, G. 2008a The Red and Black: Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper
Euphrates and Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium
BC. Studi di Preistoria Orientale 2. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeo-
logiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.
Palumbi, G. 2008b Mid-fourth millennium red-black burnished wares from Anatolia: A
cross comparison. In Rubinson, K.S., and A. Sagona (eds.), Ceramics in Transitions:
Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anato-
lia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 27. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 39–58.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Palumbi, G. 2010 Pastoral models and centralised animal husbandry. The case of Ar-
slantepe. In Frangipane, M. (ed.), Economic Centralisation in Formative States:
The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th Millennium Ar-
slantepe. Studi di Preistoria Orientale 3. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche
Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,
pp. 149–163.
Palumbi, G. 2012 Bridging the frontiers. Pastoral groups in the Upper Euphrates region
in the early third millennium BCE, Origini XXXIV, 261–278.
Peltenburg, E.J. 2007–08 Enclosing the ancestors and the growth of socio-political
complexity in Early Bronze Age Syria. In Bartoloni, G., and M.G. Benedettini (eds.),
Sepolti tra i vivi, Buried Among the Living: Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti fu-
nerari in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Rome: Università di Roma “La
Sapienza”. Scienze dell’Antichità 14(1): 215–247.
Porter, A. 2002 The dynamics of death: Ancestors, pastoralism, and the origins of a
third-millennium city in Syria. BASOR 325: 1–36.
Porter, A. 2012 Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothman, M.S. 2001 The local and the regional. In Rothman, M.S. (ed.), Uruk Mesopota-
mia and its Neighbors. SAR Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School
of American Research Press, pp. 3–26.
Sağlamtimur, H, and A. Ozan 2014 Siirt-Başur Höyük 2012 yılı kazı çalışmaları, 35. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı cilt 3. Muğla: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, pp. 514–529.
Sagona, A.G. 1984 The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age. British Arachaeologi-
cal Reports, International Series 214. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Sagona, A.G. 2000 Sos Höyük and the Erzurum region in late prehistory: A provi-
sional chronology for Northeast Anatolia. In Marro, C., and H. Hauptmann (eds.),
Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe et IIIe millenaires. Var-
ia Anatolica XI. Paris: Institut français d’études anatoliennes d’Istanbul and de
Boccard, pp. 329–374.
Schmidt-Strecker, S., F. Begemann, and E. Pernicka 1992 Chemische Zusammenset-
zung und Bleiisotopenverhältnisse der Metallfunde von Hassek Höyük und aus
dem Graberfeld Hassek-West. In Behm-Blancke, M.R. (ed.), Hassek Höyük: Natur-
wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie. Istanbuler Forschungen
38. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth, pp. 108–123.
Schoop, U.-D. 2005 Das anatolische Chalkolithikum: Eine chronologische Untersuchung
zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kultursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien und den
angrenzenden Gebieten. Remshalden-Grunbach: Bernhard Albert Greiner.
Schwartz, G.M. 2012 Era of the Living Dead: Funerary praxis and symbol in third mil-
lennium BC Syria. In Niehr, H., E. Pernicka, and P. Pfälzner (eds.), (Re-)constructing
Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, pp. 59–77.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
Schwartz, G.M., H. Curvers, S. Dunham, B. Stuart, and J. Weber 2006 A third-millennium
B.C. elite mortuary complex at Umm el-Marra, Syria: 2002 and 2004 excavations.
American Journal of Archaeology 110(4): 603–641.
Sertok, K., and R. Ergeç 1999 A new Early Bronze Age cemetery: Excavations near the
Birecik Dam, Southeastern Turkey. Preliminary Report (1997–1998). Anatolica XXV:
87–107.
Squadrone, F.F. 2007 Regional culture and metal objects in the area of Carchemish dur-
ing the Early Bronze Age. In Peltenburg, E.J. (ed.), Euphrates River Valley Settlement:
The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC. Levant Supplementary Series 5.
Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 198–213.
Steadman, S., J.C. Ross, G. McMahon, and R.L. Gorny 2008 Excavations on the North-
central plateau: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age occupation at Çadır Hüyük.
Anatolian Studies 58: 47–86.
Von der Osten, H.H. 1937 The Alishar Hüyük: Season of 1930–32, Parts I and III. Oriental
Institute Publications 28 and 30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Woolley, C.L. 1914 Hittite burial customs. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthro-
pology VI: 87–98.
Woolley, L., and R.D. Barnett 1952 Carchemish: Report on the Excavations at Jerablus
on Behalf of the British Museum. Part III, The Excavation in the Inner Town and the
Hittite Inscriptions. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Yalçın, Ü. 2003 Metallurgie in Anatolien. In Stöllner, T. (ed.), Man and Mining: Studies in
Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Veröfentlichungen aus
dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 114. Der Anschnitt 16: 527–536.
Yalçın, Ü. 2008 Ancient metallurgy in Anatolia. In Yalçin, Ü., H. Özbal, and A.G.
Paşamehmetoğlu (eds.), Ancient Mining in Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean,
International Conference June 15–22, 2008, Ankara, Turkey. Turkey Historical Research
Applications and Research Center Publications 2. on Ankara: Atılım Üniversitesi,
pp. 15–40.
Yener, K.A. 2000 The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in
Anatolia. Leiden: Brill.
Zimmermann, T. 2007 Anatolia and the Balkans, once again—ring-shaped idols from
western Asia and a critical reassessment of some “Early Bronze Age” items from
İkiztepe, Turkey. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26(1): 25–33.
Zimmermann, T., N. Dilek, and T.K. Önder 2011 Ein neues Schwert vom Typus
“ Arslantepe”—frühmetallzeitliche Wafentechnologie zwischen Repräsentation
und Ritual. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 86(1): 1–7.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
North-Central Anatolian Cultures
Arslantepe
Uruk-related cultures
Early Kura-Araxes
Cultures
?
. Map illustrating the main directions of Arslantepe’s relations in the 4th millen-
nium .
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
a. c.
d.
b.
. Arslantepe, Period (LC5). (a) wheel-made “fruit stands” showing the
inluence of Central Anatolian repertoires in the local Late Chalcolithic pottery
production; (b) pottery relecting the diferent cultural relations established
by Arslantepe in the 4th millennium; (c) and (d) typical Red-Black vessels with
central Anatolian connections.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
a.
e.
b.
d.
c.
. Arslantepe, Period . (a–b) Arsenical copper swords; (c-d) arsenical copper
spear-heads; (e) quadruple spiral plaque from Building in the 4th millennium
“palace”.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
. Arslantepe, Period 1. The big building (Building 36) recently found at the top
of the mound.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
a.
c.
b.
. Arslantepe, Period 1. Building 36.
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV
<UN>
a. b.
c.
. (a) Arslantepe, Period . The two spearheads found in Building 36
(Period 1); (b) silver inlay decoration in one of the spearheads
from the “Royal Tomb”; (c) the spearheads from the “Royal Tomb” T1.
