Content uploaded by Metin Batıhan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Metin Batıhan on Aug 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARSLANTEPE
I. ULUSLARARASI ARKEOLOJİ SEMPOZYUMU BİLDİRİLERİ
ARSLANTEPE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE I. INTERNATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
Yayına Hazırlayanlar / Edited by
Neslihan Durak - Marcella Frangipane
İnönü Üniversitesi ve Roma La Sapienza Üniversitesi İşbirliğiyle
With the Collaboration of İnönü University and Roma La Sapienza University
I. ULUSLARARASI ARSLANTEPE ARKEOLOJI� SEMPOZYUMU BI�LDI�RI�LERI�
I. INTERNATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGY SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS
4-6 Ekim 2018 / 4-6 October 2018 Malatya
Yayına Hazırlayanlar / Edited by
Neslihan Durak-Marcella Frangipane
Grafik - Kapak Tasarımı / Graphic - Cover Design
Doç. Dr. Yasin Topaloğlu
İletişim Bilgileri / Contacts
Merkez Kampüs, 44280 Battalgazi MALATYA 0422 377 32 24
yayinevi@inonu.edu.tr
© 2019 İnönü Üniversitesi
ISBN
Baskı / Printed by
yasal sorumluluğuaaittir
SEMPOZYUM ONUR KURULU
SYMPOSIUM HONORARY COMMITTEE
Ali KABAN
Malatya Valisi
Malatya Governor
Murat GÜRÜL
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürü
Director General of Monuments and Museums, Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Luigi MATTIOLO
İtalyan Büyükelçisi
Italian Ambassador to Turkey
Ahmet KIZILAY
Prof. Dr. İnönü Üniversitesi Rektörü
Prof. Dr. Rector of İnönü University
Eugenio GAUDIO
Prof. Dr. La Sapienza Üniversitesi Rektörü
Prof. Dr. Rector of La Sapienza University
Hacı Uğur POLAT
Malatya Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanı
Mayor of Malatya Metropolitan Municipality
Selahattin GÜRKAN
Battalgazi Belediye Başkanı
Mayor of Battalgazi Municipality
Giorgio PIRAS
Prof. Dr. La Sapienza Üniversitesi Eskiçağ Kültürleri Bölüm Başkanı /
Prof. Dr. Director of the Antiquities Department of La Sapienza University
SEMPOZYUM DÜZENLEME KURULU BAŞKANLARI
SYMPOSIUM ORGANIZER
Prof. Dr. Neslihan DURAK
İnönü Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Dekanı
İnönü University, Dean of Faculty of Science and Letter
Prof. Dr. Marcella FRANGIPANE
La Sapienza Üniversitesi, Arslantepe Kazıları Başkanı
La Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the Arslantepe Excavations
DÜZENLEME KURULU
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Francesca BALOSSI RESTELLI
Doç. Dr. La Sapienza Üniversitesi/ Assoc. Prof. Dr. La Sapienza University, ITALY
Lucia MORI
Doç. Dr. La Sapienza Üniversitesi/ Assoc. Prof. Dr. La Sapienza University, ITALY
Alessandra RICCI
Doç. Dr. Koç Üniversitesi,/ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Koç University, TURKEY
Sevgi DÖNMEZ
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi/ Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Murat ÖZTÜRK
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi/ Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Aysun TUNA
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi/ Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Federico MANUELLI
Dr. Freie Üniversitesi/ Dr. Freie University, GERMANY
Burhan ULAŞ
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi/ Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Dr. Gianni VINCIGUERRA
Dr. İtalyan Kültür Enstitüsü/ Dr. Istituto Italiano di Cultıura Istanbul
Okan AÇIL
Arş. Gör. İnönü Üniversitesi/ R. A. İnönü University, TURKEY
Çiğdem KIRANŞAN
Arş. Gör. İnönü Üniversitesi/ R. A. İnönü University, TURKEY
Çetin ŞİŞMAN
Malatya İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürü/ Director of Culture and Tourism of Malatya, TURKEY
Mehmet KAZANCI
Malatya İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü/ Directorate of Culture and Tourism of Malatya, TURKEY
Gülhan HALİLOĞLU
Malatya İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü/ Directorate of Culture and Tourism of Malatya, TURKEY
İsmet SARIGÜL
Battalgazi Belediyesi/ Battalgazi Municipality, TURKEY
Kenan ÖZDAŞ
Malatya Müzesi/ Malatya Museum, TURKEY
Samet EROL
Malatya Müzesi/ Malatya Museum, TURKEY
Hüseyin ŞAHİN
Malatya Müzesi/ Malatya Museum, TURKEY
Cem KAYA
Battalgazi Belediyesi/ Battalgazi Municipality, TURKEY
BİLİM KURULU
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Neslihan DURAK
Prof. Dr. İnönü Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Yılmaz Selim ERDAL
Prof. Dr. Hacettepe Üniversitesi /Prof. Dr. Hacettepe University, TURKEY
Marcella FRANGIPANE
Prof. Dr. Sapienza Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Sapienza University, ITALY
Fahri IŞIK
Prof. Dr. Emekli / Prof. Dr. Emeritus, TURKEY
Mehmet IŞIKLI
Prof. Dr. Atatürk Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Atatürk University, TURKEY
Fikri KULAKOĞLU
Prof. Dr. Ankara Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Ankara University, TURKEY
Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN
Prof. Dr. İstanbul Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. İstanbul University, TURKEY
Holly PITTMAN
Prof. Dr. Pennsylvania Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Pennsylvania University, USA
İlknur TAŞ
Prof. Dr. Hitit Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Hitit University, TURKEY
K. Aslıhan YENER
Prof. Dr. Koç Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Koç University, TURKEY
Turgut YİĞİT
Prof. Dr. Ankara Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. Ankara University, TURKEY
Isabella CANEVA
Prof. Dr. Salento Üniversitesi / Prof. Dr. University of Salento, ITALY
Francesca BALOSSI RESTELLI
Doç. Dr. Sapienza Üniversitesi / Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sapienza University, ITALY
Gian Maria DI NOCERA
Doç. Dr. Viterbo Üniversitesi / Assoc. Prof. Dr. Viterbo University, ITALY
Zeynep ERES ÖZDOĞAN
Doç. Dr. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Assoc. Prof. Dr. Istanbul Technical University, TURKEY
Sevgi DÖNMEZ
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi / Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Murat ÖZTÜRK
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi / Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Haluk SAĞLAMTİMUR
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Ege Üniversitesi / Asst. Prof. Dr. Ege University, TURKEY
Aysun TUNA
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi İnönü Üniversitesi / Asst. Prof. Dr. İnönü University, TURKEY
Elena CALANDRA
Dr. İtalya Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (MIBACT), Arkeoloji Enstitüsü (ICA) Direktörü / The Director of
the Central Institute of Archaeology (ICA) of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Italy (MIBACT) ITALY
Giulio PALUMBI
Dr. Lyon Üniversitesi / Dr. Lyon University, FRANCE
İÇİNDEKİLER
SUNUŞ - FOREWORD
AHMET KIZILAY
Prof. Dr. İnönü Üniversitesi Rektörü
Prof. Dr. Rector of İnönü University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LUİGİ MATTIOLO
İtalya Ankara Büyükelçisi
Italian Ambassador to Turkey
AHMET KIZILAY
Prof. Dr. İnönü Üniversitesi Rektörü
Prof. Dr. Rector of İnönü University
TEODORO VALENTE
Prof. Dr.
Roma La Sapienza Üniversitesi İnovasyon ve Teknoloji Transferi Araştırmalarından Sorumlu Rektör Yrd.
Prof. Dr. Deputy Rector for Research Innovation and Technology Transfer Sapienza University of Rome
GIORGIO PIRAS
Prof. Dr. Roma La Sapienza Üniversitesi Eskiçağ Kültürleri Bölüm Başkanı
Prof. Dr. Director of the Department of Antiquities Sapienza University of Rome
SECTION 1
ARSLANTEPE: PAST AND FUTURE
MEHMET ÖZDOĞAN
Tarihöncesi Dönemde Malatya:
İstanbul Üniversitesi Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı’nın Bölgedeki Araştırmalara Katkıları
1-17
ISABELLA CANEVA
Once Upon a Time at Arslantepe. A Personal Experience
19-31
FRANCESCA BALOSSI RESTELLI
Arslantepe’nin Günümüz ve Gelecek Görünümü:
Disiplinlerarası Araştırmalar, Yerleşimin Korunması, Müzeleştirilmesi ve İletişim
33-42
CORRADO ALVARO-GIOVANNA LIBEROTTI
From Traditional Tools to Digital Technology:
Documenting and Analyzing the Fourth Millennium Architecture at Arslantepe
43-60
AYSUN TUNA
Future Projections from Today’s Perspective on Protection Practices in Arslantepe
61-69
SECTION 2
THE RESEARCHES AT ARSLANTEPE:
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A LONG MILLENARIAN HISTORY
MARCELLA FRANGIPANE
Arslantepe. Siyasi Merkezin Yükselişi ve Düşüşü: Tapınaktan Saraya Sarayd an Surla Çevrili Bir Kente
Arslantepe. The Rise and Development of a Political Centre: From Temple to Palace to a Fortified Citadel
71-104
SECTION 3
LATE CHALCOLITHIC DEVELOPMENTS AND INTERREGIONAL RELATIONS
FRANCESCA BALOSSI RESTELLI
The External Relations of Arslantepe in the First Half of the 4th Millennium BCE
105-117
MARIA BIANCA D’ANNA
Between The Local and the Global: An Interregional Perspective
on Late Chalcolithic 5 Arslantepe (3350-3100 BCE CA.)
119-130
HOLLY PITTMAN
Glyptic Art from Arslantepe: Interregional Styles, Imported Seals and Local Seals
131-142
SUSAN POLLOCK
Food-related Practices in late 4th Millennium BCE Iran and Mesopotamia:
A Comparative Perspective
143-155
SECTION 4
LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE AT ARSLANTEPE AND RELATED REGIONS
FEDERICO MANUELLI
From The Margin of the Hittite State to The Capital of the Kingdom of Melid:
The Late Bronze and Iron Age Developments at Arslantepe
157-171
FRANCESCO DI FILIPPO - LUCIA MORI
The Malatya Plain in The Network of Interregional Relations in The Late Bronze and Iron Ages
173-184
İLKNUR TAŞ
Malitiya Kenti’nin de İçinde Bulunduğu Yukarı Fırat Bölgesinde, Hitit Devleti
Tarafından Yürütülen Bir Merkezileştirme Politikasından Bahsetmek Mümkün Müdür?
185-190
SECTION 5
THE BRONZE AGE-COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
MEHMET IŞIKLI - SEFA KÖSE
A Short History of the Researches on the East Anatolian Kura-Aras Culture:
Two Key Settlements Two Leading Figures
191-202
HALUK SAĞLAMTİMUR - METİN BATIHAN - İNAN AYDOĞAN
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe the Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs
at the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age
203-215
A. TUBA ÖKSE
Geography Shaping Life-Style: Similarities and Dissimilarities of the
Upper Euphrates and Upper Tigris Regions During The Bronze and Iron Ages
217-226
SERKAN ERDOĞAN
A Necropolis Belonging to The Early Bronze Age in The Upper Euphrates Region:
Sakyol (Pulur) / Körkuyular
227-236
ATİLLA ENGİN
A Middle Bronze Age Palace At Oylum Höyük and New Findings
237-252
MURAT AKAR- DEMET KARA
Center and Periphery Dynamics between the Altinözü Highlands and the Amuq Valley Lowlands:
The New Rescue Excavations at Toprakhisar Höyük (Hatay, Turkey)
253-267
SECTION 6
TERRITORIAL STUDIES IN THE MALATYA PLAIN
GIAN MARIA DI NOCERA
Settlement Patterns in the Malatya Plain and Metallurgical Developments at Arslantepe:
The Role of Surrounding Communities
269-284
SEVGİ DÖNMEZ
New Contributions to the Research on the Early Bronze Age in the Malatya Region
285-301
SECTION 7
STUDIES IN THE MALATYA PROVINCE
ZEYNEP ERES ÖZDOĞAN
Malatya Köylerinde Geleneksel Kerpiç Mimarinin Yıkım Süreçleri Üzerine Gözlemler
303-315
HÜSEYİN ŞAHİN
Rock-Cut Tombs in Malatya and an Example for Dating. Samanköy Rock-Cut Tomb
317-329
HAKAN ERKUŞ-İBRAHİM AKSU-TOLGA ORAL
Beş Bin Yıllık Muhasebe Belgesi ve İç Kontrol Sistemi Aracı Olarak Mühürler
331-336
İSMAİL AYTAÇ-LEVENT İSKENDEROĞLU
Malatya Sevserek I. Han Kazısı Sigrafitto Seramikler
337-353
POSTER SECTION
ŞAKİR CAN
An Annales Approach to The Late Chalcolithic Period of North Mesopotamia
355-359
ELİF TATLI - İSMAİL AYTAÇ
Şahabiye-i Kübra Medresesi Kazısına Ait Seramik Buluntular
361-364
FATİH BAHÇECİ - İSMAİL AYTAÇ
Darende Konut Mimarisinde Şerbetlikler ve Alçı Lambalıklar
365-366
BAŞUR HÖYÜK & ARSLANTEPE
THE ROLE OF METAL WEALTH IN FUNERARY CUSTOMS AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE
HALUK SAĞLAMTİMUR
Ege University, Letter Faculty, Archaeology Department
METİN BATIHAN
Ege University, Letter Faculty, Archaeology Department
İNAN AYDOĞAN
Ege University, Letter Faculty, Archaeology Department
Atıf için / Cite this publication
Sağlamtimur, H.- Batihan, M.- Aydoğan, İ., 2019. “Başur Höyük & Arslantepe the Role of Metal Wealth in
Funerary Customs at the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age”. I. Uluslararası Arslantepe Arkeoloji Sempozyumu / I.
International Arslantepe Archaeology Symposium, 4-6 Ekim 2018 / 4-6 October 2018 Malatya, 203-215
BAŞUR HÖYÜK & ARSLANTEPE
THE ROLE OF METAL WEALTH IN FUNERARY CUSTOMS AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE
HALUK SAĞLAMTİMUR-METİN BATIHAN-İNAN AYDOĞAN
During the phase following the “collapse” of the Uruk System at the end of the 4th
millennium BC in northern Mesopotamia there are developments which were not seen
in previous periods. The trend of cultural homogeneity occurred during the Late Uruk
Period disappeared in the beginning of the third millennium BC and regionally
organized political units with local character have emerged to the eastern and south-
eastern Anatolia and its surrounding areas (Abay 2006; Akkermans, Schwartz 2003:
210-232; Frangipane 2009: 36-37; Ökse 2011: 261). In parallel with these
developments, different funerary customs and the increase and proliferation of metal
usage are the tokens of these radical changes/developments.
Archeological research carried out for many years in the Euphrates Region, have
proved that the region had a very important place in terms of metallurgical activities.
The works, which have been continued within the scope of the Ilısu Dam and HEPP
Projects over the last twenty years, have shown that the Upper Tigris Region had also an
advanced organization in terms of metallurgical activities. Especially at the beginning of
the 3rd millennium BC, Arslantepe in the Upper Euphrates Region and Başur Höyük in
the Upper Tigris Region (fig. 1) are the key settlements for their regions in order to
understand the developments’ dynamics because they had some complex funerary
customs such as human sacrifice and their extraordinary metalwork represented a
difference which had not been seen in any other contemporary settlement. In this paper,
we aim to focus on the significance of metal for the local communities by taking in hand
the tombs and rich metal objects in burial contexts dated to the beginnings of the 3rd
millennium BC revealed at Arslantepe and Başur Höyük located in these two regions rich
in terms of raw material.
204
Haluk Sağlamtimur- Metin Batıhan -İnan Aydoğan
Fig 1. Locations of Başur Höyük and Arslantepe and some of important copper sources are shown in orange.
A Brief Introduction to the ‘Royal Tomb’ of Arslantepe
In the settlement of Arslantepe, some radical changes happened in the political,
economic and social systems after VIA (Late Chalcolithic 5) had come to an end with a fire.
Wattle and daub architecture and red-black burnished wares associated with the pastoral-
nomad tribes in VI B1, took the place of VI A which is characterized by the palace system,
metal weapons, cretulae, seals and mass-produced pottery (Frangipane et alii 2001: 106).
Phase VI B2, following this phase and lasting approximately one hundred years, is
characterized with a rural settlement surrounded by walls and formed by mud-brick houses
with one or two rooms, and Plain Simple Ware and Reserved Slip Ware. It has been stated
that there was a small village occupied with agriculture and animal husbandry in Arslantepe
VI B2, and parallel to this, there were no weapons or luxury metal objects except work tools
(Di Nocera 2013: 129).
The stone cist tomb, which was discovered in the 1995 excavation season at the
settlement of Arslantepe, was built at the bottom of a large pit with the form of a rectangle
and was surrounded with stone blocks and covered by a capstone, is known as the ‘Royal
Tomb’. The tomb is dated to the period between VI B1 and VI B2 (approximately
3000/2950-2900 BC) and is located to the west of the mound in an isolated situation at the
border of the architectural elements of VIA (Frangipane et all 2001: 106). There is a 30-40
year-old man, seen as a “lord/chief”, in the grave and there are four adolescents on the
capstone, three of whom are girls and one boy, the latter four are thought to be sacrifices
(Frangipane et alii 2001; 2017: 178). In the ‘Royal Tomb’ is a mixed pottery repertoire
composed of Red-black Burnished Ware which reflects the tradition of Transcaucasia-
Eastern Anatolia, alongside which are wheel-made wares of Uruk type. In the tomb, besides
weapons such as daggers, axes, sword and spearheads, 75 metal objects composed of metal
vessels, diadem, pins, chisels and ornaments, have been found. The chemical analyses of the
metal objects have shown that these were formed from alloys such as arsenic-copper,
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe The Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs…
205
arsenic-nickel-copper and copper-silver (Di Nocera, Palmieri 1999; Di Nocera 2013: 123).
Because there are already many publications about this grave that we mention here in
outline, it will appear in this paper through references to the objects related with the metals
obtained from the graves of Başur Höyük .
A Brief Introduction to the ‘Kingless Thrones’ of Başur Höyük
At the beginning of the 3rd millennium, after the ‘collapse’ of the Uruk system, the
Başur Höyük EBA I occupation was established on top of the previous settlement. Although
‘U’ shaped hearths and mud-brick structures have been detected within the layer dated to
this period to the northwest and southwest of the mound, the excavation works carried out
in a limited area, have not yet provided enough data about the civil characteristics of the
settlement. Nevertheless, it is understood that the EBA settlement of Başur Höyük portray a
different image than Arslantepe VI B1 which is characterized by the wattle and daub
architecture supported with wood poles of the pastoral-nomads who occupied the mound.
Work to be started in the next excavation season at Başur Höyük, is expected to clarify the
settlement characteristics of the period.
The most essential data of this period come from a cemetery uncovered in the 2011-
2015 excavation seasons to the southeast of the mound. Thus far seventeen burials have
been found in the cemetery which consist of stone cist graves, simple earthen pits and
earthen pits with stone caps. Unlike the single burial inside the ‘Royal Tomb’ of Arslantepe,
multiple burials have been detected in the majority of the graves at Başur Höyük. The human
remains, generally found in flexed position and poorly preserved, are currently under
examination by a team of anthropologists. The initial dating of the cemetery to the transition
between the 4th and the 3rd millennia BC, on the basis of the typological comparanda of the
pottery and the metal objects recovered inside the graves, has been further confirmed by
radiocarbon analysis performed on samples of textiles of the different graves, which gave a
date between 3100 and 2900 BC (Sağlamtiumur, Ozan 2013; 2014; Sağlamtimur 2017;
Sağlamtimur, Massimino 2018; Hassett, Sağlamtimur 2018). The graves seem to be
associated with each other by complex relationships, which need to be further investigated
in order to better understand the internal chronology of the cemetery and possible
contemporaneity of some depositions. In the graves, rich and various metal, pottery and
stone objects were deposited.
Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs at Başur Höyük at the beginning of the EBA
The metal objects in the graves are both various and numerous. Many of them were
found in good condition and when they are evaluated together with the broken examples,
groups of metal finds of the which total number exceeds one thousand, have been
discovered. Among these, there are seals on the top of which animals such as birds, goats
and bulls take place; weapons consisting of axes and tripartite spearheads with leaf-shaped
blades, over a hundred in number; golden and silver beads and ornaments and ritual objects
with animal depictions such as goats and bulls, and sceptres, castanets, various pins, chisels
and vessels (fig. 2: a-n; 3: a-ı). Particularly the metal items we consider as ritual objects,
technically required an advanced proficiency. Besides the casting in a single and double
mould technique for the metal objects such as spearheads, axes, and pins, it appears that the
lost-wax technique was being used in the production of many objects, especially those
considered as unique. For now we can say that the total weight of the metals found in the
graves reached at least 70 kilograms . Because the chemical analyses and typological studies
of the metals are still ongoing, we focus here on on the general similarities and differences of
the metal objects with the materials of Arslantepe.
206
Haluk Sağlamtimur- Metin Batıhan -İnan Aydoğan
The clearest proof of the similarities among the graves of Arslantepe and Başur Höyük
may be the spearheads. Tripartite spearheads uncovered at Başur Höyük form the majority of
the weapon repertoire (fig. 2: c-e). These consist of leaf-shaped blades, a butt with round or
angled section and a tang with generally square cross section. Their lengths and weights vary
approximately between 20-60 cm and 130-675 gr. The spearheads of Başur Höyük are similar
to the examples of Arslantepe in terms of form, there are also some similarities in technical and
ornamental styles. It appears that there might be a similar practice to the inlay technique seen
on the weapons of both the Late Chalcolithic Period and the ‘Royal Tomb’ at Arslantepe
(Frangipane 2007/2008: fig. 10, f ; 2017: fig. 15.2, f, g ; 15.3, b), for some of the spearheads of
Başur Höyük. This technique was generally applied between the blade and butt of spearheads
at Arslantepe (fig. 2: o), was differently applied between the butt and tang of spearheads at
Başur Höyük. We do not know which sort of metal was used in the inlay technique due to the
fact that the metal in question has not been detected, however it is seen that there are thin
triangle and lozenge shaped hollows (fig. 2: e). While it is seen that this type of inlayed example
is indigenous in Arslantepe and Başur, we see that tripartite spearheads are encountered over
a very wide geography. This type of spearhead generally found in burial contexts in the Early
Bronze Age in the Euphrates Region, is known from Northern Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia-
Transcaucasia and Mesopotamia in the Late Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age
(Frangipane 1985; Hauptmann, Pernicka eds. 2004; Bilgi 1998; Di Nocera 2010: 259; 2013:
117; Courcier 2010; Batıhan 2014: 52-62, map 8, a; Gernez 2018: fig. 21). This type of
spearhead has been detected at two more settlements in the Upper Tigris Region, apart from
Başur Höyük. A broken example detected at the settlement of Giricano has been found to the
southwest of ‘Building J’ dated to the second half of the 4th millennium BC, and is suggested
typologically to belong to a tripartite spearhead (Schachner 2019 in press). During the surface
surveys carried out in the Botan Valley, a tripartite spearhead was found at Botan-Tal
(Eğlence-Çamper Tepe), approximately 20 km as the crow flies from the settlement of Başur
Höyük (Velibeyoğlu et alii 2002: fig. 16, 8). The spearhead of copper alloy which was found by
villagers, has been chronologically defined as of the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC (Velibeyoğu et
alii 2002: 786). Apart from these examples, this type of spearhead has not been detected
during archeological research carried out so far in the region. At Arslantepe, 23 spearheads
have been found, 12 of them were inside Building III (room A113) in layer VIA of the Late
Chalcolithic Period and 9 of them were inside the ‘Royal Tomb’ in the Early Bronze Age I phase
and 2 of them were inside Building 36 (VI B1) (Palmieri 1981: 109; Frangipane et alii 2001: fig.
18; Frangipane 2014: fig. 10, d). Due to the fact that in the graves of Başur Höyük they number
close to two hundred, we can say that it is the most crowded group of tripartite spearheads yet
to be detected in the geography of Greater Mesopotamia and neighboring regions.
One cylinder seal or pendant (?) was found in the non-burial context at Arslantepe (fig.
2: p), while they abound in the graves of Başur Höyük (fig. 2: f-i). Metal cylinder seals in the
graves of Başur Höyük, can be studied in two groups – those with a handle and those without.
In the first group, it consists of two parts: a handle part, sometimes with a hole, and cylinder
part without hole. The examples of this group have generally various animal figures, such as
birds, goats and bulls, or undecorated handle. In the second group, it consists of a just cylinder
part which has a hole going across. Similar artefacts are known, especially from the Euphrates
Region. The only example from non-burial context, has been found in a niche inside the wall
structure in the Arslantepe VI B2 settlement (Di Nocera 2013: fig. 10, 1). At Birecik (Sertok
1999: fig. 9, H), Hassek Höyük (Behm-Blancke 1984: 62, fig. 12.4) and Karkamış (Woolley,
Barnet 1952, fig. 60, b.2) were found in a burial context. We again encounter a headless
cylinder copper-lead example in a burial context at the settlement of Tell Karrana 3 (Stein
1993: 137, fig. XLV, 3; CI, b.1.c).
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe The Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs…
207
Fig 2. Similar metal objects from the graves of Başur Höyük (a-n) and Arslantepe (o-s): (a, b) flat-axes; (c-e)
tripartite spearheads; (f-i) cylinder seals and its impressions; (j) a chisel; (k) a spiral copper-silver (?) ring; (l-n)
various pins; (o) an arsenical-copper tripartite spearhead with inlay (from Frangipane ed. 2004: 132); (p) a
copper pendant/cylinder seal (?) from non-burial context of Arslantepe VI B2 (from Di Nocera 2013: fig. 10, 1);
(q) arsenical-copper and copper-nickel flat-axes (from Frangipane ed. 2004: 136); (r, s) various pins and spiral
rings (from Frangipane ed. 2004: 131).
208
Haluk Sağlamtimur- Metin Batıhan -İnan Aydoğan
Two metal cylinder seals found during work on the Kirkuk Pipeline and dated to the last
quarter of the 4th millennium BC (Late Uruk Period), can be shown as examples of an early
period (Hauptmann, Pernicka eds. 2004: fig. 28, 440- 441). The fact that there are no parallel
examples in the settlements of Eastern Anatolia or Transcaucasia, shows that these objects
belong to a southern tradition. These objects of the above settlements, have been defined by
various researchers variously as pendants, ornamental objects or cylinder seals. Due to the fact
that metal examples have been found in the same contexts as stone seals at Başur Höyük and
that there are some rich and various symbolic depictions on their impressions, it might be
suggested that these objects were probably used as cylinder seals with their protective
properties. Although there are a great number of weapons such as spearheads and axes at
Başur Höyük, it has been observed that there is no scenario which would indicate a conflict or
warfare within the seal iconography. Generally scenes consisting of human and animal figures
(goat, bull, bird etc.) have been depicted in addition to geometric and non-figurative patterns.
In addition to the local style, it is notable that the ‘Jemdet Nasr style’ was stylistically continued
on the cylinder seals or that its effects were still continuing at this time.
In addition to the existence of similar types of pins with loop-shaped and conical head
with engraving lines to those of the Arslantepe ‘Royal Tomb’ and VI B2 settlement (fig. 2: r, s),
there is a repertoire of different types and variety in the graves of Başur Höyük (fig. 2: l-n). Pins
were found in almost all graves, as multiple examples and covered with textile and more
generally as single artefacts on the head or neck of bodies or independent from them within
the burial context. There is a pin assemblage of over a hundred artefacts including types such
as disc-headed, conical-headed, round-headed, spiral-headed and double-headed. Among
these, pins with a length of approximately 70 cm are outstanding. Some of them have
decorated shafts with horizontal multiple grooves or other complex decoration. These were
probably the pins used to fix the shroud of the dead. If we consider that some of them have
been found deliberately wrapped with textile in a group, pins also could have been valued as
prestige objects.
In addition to the finds of Arslantepe and Başur Höyük, spearheads, flat-axes, pins and
chisels found in burial contexts in neighboring regions, indicate standardized production.
Although these standardized metal objects are spread over a wide geography, the number of
unique objects cannot be underestimated in both the Arslantepe ‘Royal Tomb’ and at Başur
Höyük. Whereas we especially encounter the unique objects in the weapons of the ‘Royal
Tomb’ of Arslantepe such as daggers and swords (fig. 3: j-o), at Başur Höyük consist of objects
such as metal vessels, ornaments, ritual objects and scepters (fig. 3: a-i). Because work is still
being carried out the unique objects from the graves of Başur Höyük, we focus on their general
features below.
Metal objects generally found in the stone cist graves and resembling a small spoon, of
which the length and weight varies between 3-10 cm and 10-150 gr, form the biggest group in
terms of number. There are various animal and naturalistic decorations on the outer faces of
these artefacts in the manner of relief or appliqued decoration. In previous publications,
examples typologically resembling these spoon-like metal objects (Sağlamtimur, Massiminio
2018), but functionally showing differences due to having a hole, have been considered as
medallions (fig. 3: h, i). These objects we divide into two parts, the first is a tang and the second
a concave ‘spoon’. In some examples, the tang consists of animals such as birds, bulls and goats.
Unlike the spoon-like objects, there is a hole going across the inner side of the tang in the
‘medallions’. The remains of textile going across this hole, reaching the concave ‘spoon’ part
and then being knotted have been detected in situ. Considering the existence of textile at the
hole in almost all of these objects, it might be suggested that these do not have any function in
the transference of liquids.
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe The Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs…
209
Fig 3. Different metal objects from the graves of Başur Höyük (a-i) and Arslantepe (j-o): (a-c) libation offering
cups (?); (d, e) scepters; (f, g) libation vessels (?); (h, i) medallions (?); (j) an arsenical-copper diadem (from
Frangipane ed. 2004: 130); (k) an arsenical-copper sword (from Frangipane 2017: fig. 15.3, a); (l) two copper-
silver pins (from Frangipane ed. 2004: 139); (m) an arsenical-copper dagger (from Frangipane 2007/2008: fig.
10, c); (n) a copper-silver dagger (from Frangipane 2007/2008: fig. 10, e); arsenical-copper-nickel two vessels
(from Frangipane ed. 2004: 137).
210
Haluk Sağlamtimur- Metin Batıhan -İnan Aydoğan
We might think that there were beads in the inner parts of some examples, and thus they
were medallions used to make noise but at the same time attached to clothing or worn on
the neck. Parallels of objects like these have not been encountered in contemporary
settlements. A stone mould acquired by Istanbul Museum, the find location of which is not
known, presents some important information about the production technique of these
objects. In this mould dated to the 2nd millennium BC, there is the negative of a similar form
to the Başur Höyük medallions (Müller-Karpe 1994: fig. 59, 2).
The sceptres and libation offering cups (?) generally have goats, bulls or birds figures
on top of them are the other unique objects (fig. 3: a-e). Additionally, it should be mentioned
that the symbolic depictions on metals found in the Başur Höyük graves, do not exist on the
metal objects of Arslantepe. Other metal objects from the ‘Kingless Thrones’ of Başur Höyük
are not standardized types, but highly embellished individualized creations, possibly
manufactured locally for the single funerary event during which they were displayed and
ritually deposited/sacrificed as mentioned before by Bachhuber for the ‘Royal Tombs’ of
Alacahöyük (Bachhuber 2011: 168; Wengrow 2011: 137).
Discussion
In the light of the evidence presented up to this point, the ‘Kingless Thrones’ of Başur
Höyük and the other contemporary burial contexts along the Euphrates and Upper Tigris
Region suggest that a remarkable change occurred in the role that metal wealth played in
the economy and social dynamics of east and south-eastern Anatolia and northern Syria in
the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the beginning of the EBA (Stork 2015). At the
transition of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, the first phase of the usage of metal became
widespread. It has been stated that metal was valued for the purposes of prestige, display
and elitism attributed it social and symbolic importance (Frangipane 2017: 174). The
demand for metal at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC is associated with the desire of
elites to express their power through prestige objects (Frangipane 2007/2008: 188).
Wengrow and Bachhuber (2011; 2011) state that non-standardized metal objects withdraw
consciously from a circulation of trade network had a ‘sacrificial’ value and this value
originated from use in limited contexts such as special areas and graves. It is thus proper to
consider the metal wealth of the graves of both Arslantepe and Başur Höyük as ‘sacrificial’
values. Besides the standardized objects of communities with different models of
organization in a wide geography that we generally encounter in the burial context, the
existence of unique metal objects and consumption of these as grave goods rather than being
daily-life objects or having a commodity value in a trade network, show that these gained a
‘sacrificial’ value in deposition. Just like the situation suggested for the graves of Alacahöyük
(Bachhuber 2011: 171), the graves of Arslantepe and Başur Höyük with rich and exotic
objects, might be also considered as examples of ‘sacrificial value’ displayed, circulated and
consumed by the self-aggrandizing elites.
M. Frangipane (2017: 178) associates the stone cist graves and metal wealth seen in
the Euphrates and Upper Tigris at the beginnings of 3rd millennium, with the communities
of Kura-Arax, and indicates that these were brought or inspired by the elites’ demands, and
after the Late Uruk Period, there were some cultural features easily adapted due to the new
demands of clan and tribal communities. According to Frangipane, this situation can be
evaluated as the people living in the Upper Tigris Region located at the northern border of
the urban region and having structural similarities with their northern and western
neighbors, having experienced a pastoralist-oriented reconversion at the beginning of the
3rd millennium BC, and the communities here providing the necessities of their new social
order and symbolic depiction by keeping in touch with the communities of Kura-Arax and
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe The Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs…
211
obtaining their technologies and symbols (Frangipane 2017: 181). In this respect, we think
that there are some differences in the dynamics of the interaction with the Kura-Arax
pastoral-nomad communities at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC between Arslantepe
and Başur. Although there were some deep changes in socio-political character in both
settlements after the Late Chalcolithic 5, they witnessed developments in different
dimensions probably because of their geographical locations and structural alterations
within local communities. Whereas the Arslantepe VI A came to an end with a big fire and
conflict resulting in the collapse of the palace system at the end of the 4th millennium BC, no
traces of fire or collapse have been encountered in the Late Chalcolithic 5 layers of Başur
Höyük. It is thought that this situation was based on an inner conflict among elites and
various ethnic, social and cultural groups at Arslantepe, and one of the components of these
groups, even though they are various, was formed by sedentary communities while mobile
pastoral communities constitute the other component (Frangipane 2012: 237). Whereas the
power relations among different social groups have been characterized with a conflict at
Arslantepe, we think that this situation developed in a more complex fashion at Başur
Höyük. After the collapse of the Uruk system, Arslantepe had witnessed the settling of
pastoral-nomads, however the domestic architecture and pottery repertoire detected in a
limited area at Başur Höyük, have revealed a different result. When we make a similar
consideration at the regional level, the Upper Euphrates Region comes under the influence of
Kura-Arax communities, however the situation is not the same for the Upper Tigris Region.
We think there are three significant dynamics among the causes of the metal wealth that we
see in the graves of Başur Höyük at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age:
- The First is that the people of Başur Höyük rested on the cultural and economic
heritage of the interaction that they established during the previous period within the
Uruk system. The interaction of the Başur Höyük communities with the Uruk system
in the Late Chalcolithic 5 phase, must have eased the integration of the local
communities into the regional trade networks in the following period. We think that
the heritage of this relationship should not be limited only to the advantages of the
trade system, but should be handled in a wider perspective in which dynamics such as
social organization, cultural and ideological structures are implicit.
- The second is that the people were in a region with metal wealth. Siirt province
(also Bitlis and Van) is an important source of copper and copper-nickel (Çağatay
1987) and this could support the development of metallurgy in the area. Although we
do not have any data about the usage of these copper and nickel-copper deposits in
Siirt and its vicinity in ancient periods, it is not a remote possibility to think that the
local communities of the period were awake to this richness.
- Lastly, we can suggest that people living at Başur Höyük and in neighboring areas in
the phase following the Late Chalcolithic 5, achieved a social organization with multi-
component character. Considering the graves of Başur Höyük, a dimorphic structure
(sedentary and pastoral-nomad communities) might be used to develop a social
model of organization that included many different ethnic and cultural social units
within this region.
We think that the metal wealth of the graves of Başur Höyük should be handled
within the frame of these dynamics. Within this framework, the suggestion of M. Frangipane
(2017: 173) regarding the evaluation of communities which were in different geographies in
the periods in question, by considering different models of organization, is important. If this
scenario is true, sedentary and pastoral-nomad communities forming the two sides of the
conflict at Arslantepe in the phase following the Late Uruk Period and having different
subsistence economies, should have been the partners of the ‘association’ at Başur Höyük.
212
Haluk Sağlamtimur- Metin Batıhan -İnan Aydoğan
The metal wealth of the graves must be related with the elites of society of a
multicomponent community formed from many different social groups with an effective
control mechanism on local resources in a region rich in terms of mineral deposits. Thus, we
consider that these tombs are the adorned graves with rich goods of the partners of a
‘kingless power’, rather than representing a king or a royal family.
Just as in the Arslantepe ‘Royal Tomb’ (Frangipane et alii 2001: 109), in the graves of
Başur Höyük, metal objects (especially spearheads, ritual objects etc.), as well as personal
ornaments, have been seen to be placed somewhere in grave without a direct relation with
dead body. It is suggested that this practice might not only be associated with the individual
but also a social strategy based on an apparent consumption of valuable materials during
burial ceremonies (Philip 2007: 189). Within this point of view, it can be suggested that the
metal objects generally found deposited in the graves of Başur Höyük, might be symbols
related with the socio-cultural belonging of individual as well as the relationship with the
person in the grave. Various metal objects in large numbers in the graves of Başur Höyük can
also be evaluated as objects symbolizing clan affiliation, settlement or mobile community,
identity, statute and ideological features (Cooper 2006: 202-256; Stork 2013: 27) of the
social groups living the area after the Uruk Period. The metal wealth of the graves of Başur
Höyük can be also seen as gifts given to dead by the different components of the power
mechanism, rather than possessions of the individual. The aim of this might have been to
strengthen the connection among the social components and to have a voice in the power
mechanism or to continue it and protect and reinforce their social status. Parallel with the
city-states appearing from the middle of the 3rd millennium in Northern Mesopotamia, we
see that metal becomes one of the most desired products as a trade good and becomes an
irreplaceable instrument of powerful class and wars. With regard to the graves of Arslantepe
and Başur Höyük at the transition of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC we might interpret the
metal, besides its economic value, in terms of value as objects of prestige of which the social
and symbolic meaning had a strong influence.
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe The Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs…
213
References
ABAY E., 2006. Geç Uruk ‘Çöküşünden’ Sonra Güneydoğu Anadolu’da Siyasi Yapılanma Ve
Bölgeselleşme Eğilimleri, in A. Erkanal Öktü, E. Özgen, S. Günel, T. Ökse, H. Tekin eds.,
Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan Kültürlerin Yansıması, Homer Kitabevi, İstanbul: 25-34.
AKKERMANS P.M.M.G., Schwartz G.M., 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-
Gatheres to Early Urban Societies (C. 16,000-300 BC), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
BACHHUBER C., 2011. Negotiating metal and the metal form in the royal tombs of
Alacahöyük in North-central Anatolia, in T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, J. Bennet eds.,
Interweaving Worlds. Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millnnia BC, What
Would a Bronze Age World systmen look like? World system approaches to Europe
and western Asia 4th to 1st millennia BC, Oxbow Books, Oxford: 158-174.
BATIHAN M., 2014. Başur Höyük Eski Tunç Çağı Mezarları ve Buluntuları, Ankara University
Faculty of Languages History and Geography Department of Protohistoria and Pre-
Asia Archaeology, Unpublished Master Thesis, Ankara.
BEHM-BLANCKE M. 1984. Hassek Höyük, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34: 31-149.
BİLGİ Ö., 1998. Boğumlu mızrakuçlarının dağılışının altında Anadolu Mezopotamya ilişkileri,
XXXIV. Uluslararası Assiriyoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, (6-10 Temmuz 1987, Ankara),
Ankara: 377-382.
ÇAĞATAY N., 1987. The Pancarli nickel-copper sulfide mineralization, eastern Turkey,
Mineralium Deposita 22: 163-171.
COOPER L., 2006. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. Routledge, London & New York.
COURCIER A., 2010. Metalliferous potential, metallogenous particularities and extractive
metallurgy: Interdisciplinary research on understanding the ancient metallurgy in the
Caucasus during the Early Bronze Age, in S. Hansen, A. Hauptmann, I. Motzenbäcker,
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 Syposiums in Berlin
vom 1.-3.Juni 2006.
DI NOCERA G. M., 2010. Metals and metallurgy: Their place in the Arslantepe society
between the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. in M. Frangipane
ed., Economic Centralisation in Formative States. The Archeological Reconstruction of
the Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, Studi di Preishoria Orientale vol. 3,
Roma: 255-330.
DI NOCERA G. M., 2013. Organization of production and social role of metallurgy in the
prehistoric sequence of Arslantepe (Turkey), Origini XXXV: 111-142.
DI NOCERA G. M., PALMIERI A. M., 1999. The metal objects from the royal tomb at
Arslantepe (Malatya – Turkey) and the metalwork development in the Early Bronze
Age, in L. Milano, S. De Martino, F. M. Fales, G. B. Lanfranchi eds., Landscapes.
Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East, XLIV Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia 7-11 July 1997, Volume III, Sargon, Padova:
179-190.
FRANGIPANE M. (ed.), 2004. Alle Origi del Potere. Arslantepe, la Collina dei Leoni, Electa,
Milano.
FRANGIPANE M., 1985. Early developments of metalurgy in the Near East, in M. Liverani, A.
Palmieri, R. Peroni eds., Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi,
Universitâ di Roma La Sapienza, Rome: 215-228.
214
Haluk Sağlamtimur- Metin Batıhan -İnan Aydoğan
FRANGIPANE M., 2001. The transition between two opposing forms of power at Arslantepe
(Malatya) at the beginning of the 3rd millennium, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeloji
Dergisi (TÜBA-AR) 4: 1-24.
FRANGIPANE M., 2007/2008. The Arslantepe ‘royal tomb’: New funerary customs and
political changes in the upper Euphrates valley at the beginning of the third
minnennium BC, in G. Bartoloni, M. G. Benedettini eds., Sepolti tra i vivi. Evidenza ed
interpretazione di contesti funarari in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale
(Universitâ degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza 26-29 Aprile 2006). Scienza Dell’Antichita.
Storia Archeologica Antropologia 14/1: 169-193.
FRANGIPANE M., 2009. Rise and collapse of the late Uruk centres in upper Mesopotamia and
eastern Anatolia, Scienze dell’Antichità Storia Archeologia Antropologia 15: 25-42.
FRANGIPANE M., 2012. The collapse of the 4th millennium centralised system at Arslantepe
and the far-reaching changes in 3rd millennium societies, Origini 34: 237-260.
FRANGIPANE M., 2014. After collapse: Continuity and disruption in the settlement by Kura-
Araxes-Linkes pastoral groups at Arslantepe-Malatya (Turkey). New Data, Palêorient
40/2: 169-182.
FRANGIPANE M., 2017. The role of metallurgy in different types of early hierarchical society
in Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia, in P. W. Stockhammer, J. Maran eds.,
Appropriating Innovations. Entangled Knowledge in Eurasia, 5000-1500 BCE, Oxbow
Books, Oxford: 171-183.
FRANGIPANE M., DI NOCERA G. M., HAUPTMANN A., MORDIBELLİ P., PALMIERI A., SADORI
L., SCHULTZ M., SCHMIDT-SCHULTZ T., 2001. New symbols of a new power in a ‘royal’
tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey), Palêorient 27/2: 105-139.
GERNEZ G., 2018. Metal weapons, in M. Lebeau, Associated Regional Chronologies for the
Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE) Artefacts, Interregional
vol. II, Brepols Publishers, Turnhout: 39-76.
HASSETT B., SAĞLAMTİMUR H., 2018, Radical ‘royals’? Burial practices at Başur Höyük and
the emergence of early states in Mesopotamia, Antiquity 92/363: 642-654.
HAUPTMANN H., PERNICKA E. eds., 2004. Die metalindustrie Mesopotamiens von den
anfagen bis zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Katalog, Tabellen, Tafeln, Verlag Marie Leidorf
GmbH, Rahden/Westf.
MÜLLER-KARPE A. 1994. Altanatolisches Metallhandwerk, Offa-Bücher Band 75, Wachholtz
Verlag, Neumünster.
ÖKSE A.T., 2011. The Early Bronze Age in southeastern Anatolia, in R. S. Sharon, G. McMahon
eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10,000-323 B.C.E., Oxford University
Press, New York-Oxford: 260-289.
PALMIERI A., 1981. Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya), Anatolian Studies 31: 101-120.
PALUMBI G., 2011. The Arslantepe royal tomb and the ‘manipulation’ of the kurgan ideology
in eastern Anatolia at the beginning of the third millennium, in E. Borgna, S. M. Celka
eds., Ancestral Landscapes Burials Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages, Proceedings
of the International Conference held in Udine, Maison de l’Orient et de la
Mêditerranêe, Lyon: 47-59.
PHILIP G., 2007. The metalwork of the Carchemish region and the development of grave
repertories during the third millennium BC, in E. Peltenburg ed., Euphrates River
Valley Setlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, Levant
Supplementary Series 5, Oxbow Books, Oxford: 187-197.
SAĞLAMTİMUR H. 2017. Siirt-Başur Höyük Erken Tunç Çağı I mezarları: Ön rapor, Ege
Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Dergisi 22: 1-18.
Başur Höyük & Arslantepe The Role of Metal Wealth in Funerary Customs…
215
SAĞLAMTİMUR H., MASSIMINO M. G. M., 2018. Wealth sacrifice and legitimacy: The case of
the early bronze age Başur Höyük cemetery (south-eastern Turkey), in B. Horejs, C.
Schwall, V. Müller, M. Luciani, M. Ritter, M. Giudetti, R. B. Salisbury, F. Höflmayer, T.
Bürge eds., Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East vol 1, 25-29 April 2016 Vienna, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden:
329-342.
SAĞLAMTİMUR H., OZAN A., 2013. Siirt-Başur Höyük 2011 yılı çalışmaları, in Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 34/1, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayını, Çorum: 261-274.
SAĞLAMTİMUR H., OZAN A., 2014. Başur Höyük 2012 yılı kazı çalışmaları, in Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 35/3, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayını, Ankara: 514-529.
SCHACHNER A. 2019 (in press). Die chalkolitische siedlung von Giricano am oberen Tigris.
Ausgrabungen in Giricano II, Subartu XLIV, Brepols Publisher, Turnhout.
SERTOK K. 1999. A new Early Bronze Age cemetery: Excavations near the Birecik dam,
southeastern Turkey. Preliminary report (1997-98), Anatolica 25: 87-107.
STEIN D. 1993. Catalogue of small finds, in G. Wilhelm, C. Zaccagnini, Tell Karrana 3, Tell
Jigan, Tell Khirbet Salih, Baghdader Forschungen 15, Verlag Philip von Zabern, Mainz
am Rhein: 135-140.
STORK L. A., 2013. The social use of metal at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the
Upper Euphrates Valley, in L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, S.
Valentini eds., Identity and Connectivity, Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on
Mediterranean Archeology, Florance, Italy 1-3 March 2012 vol. I, Archaeopress,
Oxford: 25-32.
STORK L. A., 2015. Systems of value and changing perception of metal commodities, ca.
4000-2600 BC, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74/1: 115-132.
VELİBEYOĞLU J., SCHACHNER A., SCHACHNER Ş., 2002. Botan vadisi ve Çattepe (Tilli) yüzey
araştırmalarının ilk sonuçları/Erste ergebnisse eines surveys im Botan-Tal und
Çattepe (Tilli), in N. Tuna, J. Velibeyoğlu eds., Salvage Project of the Archaeological
Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2000, Middle Eastern
Technical University, Ankara: 783-857.
WENGROW D., 2011. ‘Archical’ and ‘Sacrificial’ economies in Bronze Age Eurasia: an
interactionist approach to the hoarding of metals, in T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, J.
Bennet eds., Interweaving Worlds. Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millnnia
BC, What Would a Bronze Age World system look like? World system approaches to
Europe and western Asia 4th to 1st millennia BC, Oxbow Books, Oxford: 135-144.
WOOLLEY L., BARNETT R. D., 1952. Carchemish: Report on the excavations at Jerablus on
behalf of the British Museum. Part III, The excavations in the inner town and the Hittite
inscriptions. Trustees of the British Museum, London.
