Version classiqueVersion mobile

La Cappadoce méridionale de la Préhistoire à l'époque byzantine

 | 
Aksel Tibet
, 
Olivier Henry
, 
Dominique Beyer

II. De la Préhistoire à l'Âge du Fer

A Discussion of the origin and the Distribution Patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware in Anatolia: Cultural Connections across the Taurus and Amanus Mountains

Ekin Kozal

Résumé

Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware is a widely distributed ware and shows cultural connections between different regions and sites of the Eastern Mediterranean. Its origin being not clarified, the overall analysis cannot be elucidated fully in its Eastern Mediterranean context. Recent studies at Kilise Tepe in Rough Cilicia, Kinet Höyük in Plain Cilicia and Alalakh in the Amuq Valley by the author yielded new results, which open a new perspective in understanding the distribution of the ware in Anatolia and in the Amuq Valley. In this article different cultural regions of Anatolia (Central Anatolia, Rough Cilicia and Plain Cilicia) and the Amuq Valley will be compared in terms of typology. An updated examination of the shapes in Anatolia and the Amuq Valley will be a step forward in contributing to the solution of the problems concerning the origin of this very specific ware.

Texte intégral

I would like to thank M.-H. Gates, K. Aslıhan Yener, J.N. Postgate and M. Novák for supporting my studies of pottery from Kinet Höyük, Alalakh, Kilise Tepe and Sirkeli Höyük. I am also indebted to Caroline Steele for improving the English. I am also grateful to Jürgen Seeher, who allowed me to publish photos from Boğazköy.

  • 1 Åström 1972a; 1972b.
  • 2 Eriksson 1993; 2007.
  • 3 Kozal 2003; 2007.
  • 4 Hein 2007.
  • 5 For Kilise Tepe see Postgate/Thomas 2007; Symington 2001.
  • 6 For Kinet Höyük see Gates 2001; 2006.
  • 7 For Alalakh see Yener 2010.

1Although its origin has always been a matter of debate, Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware (RL hereafter) is a widely distributed Late Bronze Age ware that shows the cultural connections between different regions and sites of the Eastern Mediterranean. In 1972, P. Åström included RL in the corpus of Late Cypriot wares1. In 1993, K.O. Eriksson proposed that Cyprus was where RL originated2. More discussions on the distribution of the ware in Anatolia were published in 2003 and 2007 by the author3. In 2007, the proceedings of a conference in Vienna on RL were published under the editorship of I. Hein4. Since that conference more recent evidence from Anatolia has produced new insights for the origin of RL and its role in interregional connections. Current and recent studies by the author of material from Kilise Tepe in Rough Cilicia5, Kinet Höyük in Plain Cilicia6 and Alalakh in the Amuq Valley7 have produced new perspectives for the origin and the distribution of the ware in Anatolia and in the Amuq Valley (fig. 1). In this article different cultural regions of Anatolia (Central Anatolia, Rough Cilicia and Plain Cilicia) and the Amuq Valley will be compared in terms of form typology. And, contrary to Eriksson’s argument, Anatolia is proposed as the origin of the ware. RL forms will also be compared with Anatolian local forms, a topic that Eriksson did not cover in her work.

Fig. 1: Distribution of RL in Anatolia

Fig. 1: Distribution of RL in Anatolia

Background map created by Richard Szydlak. Main shapes of RL by Åström 1972a, figs. 54-55. No scale

2For any discussion of RL it should be noted that the following points play an important role in defining the origin of the ware:

  • Earliest production of the ware in the Eastern Mediterranean

  • Largest represented amount of the ware

  • Representation of forms

  • Resemblance to any type of script

  • Comparisons between RL and local pottery traditions

  • Distribution pattern of RL

Earliest Production of RL in the Eastern Mediterranean

  • 8 Mielke 2007.

3In her abovementioned work, Eriksson states that the earliest production of RL is attested in Cyprus during the LCIA2 phase. In Anatolia, RL is found in three regions: Central Anatolia, Rough and Plain Cilicia. D.P. Mielke examined RL from Central Anatolia in stratigraphic and chronological contexts and proposed that RL appears at some point in the Old Hittite Period8. However, there is no direct chronological connection with Cyprus that would establish the chronological relation of this Period to LCIA2. In other words, it is not possible to compare Cyprus and Central Anatolia to determine whether Central Anatolian RL appears earlier, later or is contemporary with RL in Cyprus.

  • 9 The pottery studies of Kinet material by M.-H. Gates, A. Gunter, E. Kozal and G. Lehmann are ongoin (...)

4In Plain Cilicia, Kinet Höyük is to date the only site that provides a stratigraphical sequence from MBII - LBII that yields Cypriot imports and RL. Kinet Höyük Period 16 dating to MB II is the earliest layer with Cypriot pottery. This period has Red-on-Black, Bichrome, Base-ring I and Monochrome. Base-ring I and Monochrome make their first appearance in the LCIA2 period in Cyprus and thus provide a terminus post quem for period 16. RL occurs in Kinet Höyük in Period 15, where it is associated with White Slip I, Base-ring I, Base-ring II, Bichrome and White Painted V. This period may coincide with LCIA2 or LCIB but again LCIA2 is provided as a terminus post quem9.

5A large amount of RL is found in Western Cilicia at Kilise Tepe. Current research on Kilise Tepe material demonstrates the significance of levels IVb-IIIa (Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu and Ekin Kozal respectively) for defining the earliest appearance of the ware. The study of ceramics from these levels is not completed and therefore the earliest appearance of RL at the site cannot be absolutely determined. In addition, the absence of direct chronological links with Cyprus also complicates the stratigraphic comparisons between the regions.

  • 10 Bergoffen 2005, 47, 95-97.
  • 11 Pottery studies at the site are conducted by M. Horowitz, M. Bulu, R. Koehl and E. Kozal.

6C.J. Bergoffen’s re-analysis of the Woolley excavations at Alalakh in the Amuq Valley indicates that the earliest RL is found in Woolley level V10. This level is dated to after the destruction of Alalakh by Hattusili I. Investigation of the earliest appearance of RL in Alalakh is also part of the recent excavations under the directorship of A. Yener which have demonstrated that RL appears together with Bichrome, Monochrome and White Slip I, again providing LCIA2 as terminus post quem. As with Kilise Tepe, research in Alalakh is also still in process. However, Alalakh is a site that can yield chronological links with Cyprus, Cilicia and Central Anatolia. Therefore investigations at this site are crucial to not only defining the first appearance of RL but also to establishing links between Anatolia and Cyprus11.

  • 12 Mielke 2007, 161-162.

7Eriksson’s proposal that the earliest appearance of RL in the Eastern Mediterranean occurred in Cyprus is questionable, as there have now been crucial new developments in pottery studies. Mielke’s work has shown that Eriksson’s dating of RL at Central Anatolian sites between Suppiluliuma I and Suppiluliuma II is no longer valid12. Kinet Höyük provides a LCIA2 as terminus post quem for the first appearance of the ware at the site in terms of associations with Cypriot wares. Furthermore, chronological correlations between Cyprus and Central Anatolia are difficult to establish since there are not enough datable finds that can link both regions chronologically. Cilicia and Alalakh are the only possibilities for providing data that would connect Central Anatolia, Cyprus and northern Levant while research in Cilician sites such as Kilise Tepe, Soli, Yumuktepe, Tarsus-Gözlükule, Sirkeli Höyük, Tatarlı Höyük and Kinet Höyük is expected to contribute to the chronological assessments.

Largest represented Amount

  • 13 Seeher 2002; Mielke 2007, 158.
  • 14 Seeher 2002.
  • 15 Kıymet/Süel 2010.
  • 16 Omura 2000.
  • 17 Omura 2004.
  • 18 Müller-Karpe 1995; 1996; Mielke 2006.
  • 19 Mühlenbruch 2011.
  • 20 Üyümez et al. 2010, 949, fig. 2-3.
  • 21 Umurtak 1996.
  • 22 Symington 2001; Hansen/Postgate 2007a; 2007b.
  • 23 Yağcı 2001; 2008.
  • 24 Manuelli 2009.
  • 25 RL from Sirkeli Höyük is studied by the author.
  • 26 RL from Kinet Höyük is being studied by the author and Ann Gunther.
  • 27 Recke 2006.

8Eriksson stated in 1993 that the largest amount of RL was in Cyprus. However, in the last two decades the quantity of the RL recovered from Anatolian sites has greatly increased. Excavation at one of the southern ponds in the upper city in Boğazköy under the directorship of J. Seeher yielded rich assemblages of RL. According to the archaeologist, the excavated fill from the pool may represent a discarded temple inventory (figs. 2-4)13. Kilise Tepe 2007-2011 excavations have also yielded a good quantity of RL which is present in almost all assemblages of level III. With these new discoveries it can no longer be stated that the largest amount of RL comes from Cyprus. Anatolian sites that yielded RL after the publication of Eriksson’s study are: Boğazköy14, Ortaköy15, Kaman-Kalehöyük16, Büyük Höyük17, Sivas-Kuşaklı18, Kayalıpınar19, Dede Mezarı20 in Central Anatolia; Korucutepe in East Central Anatolia21; Kilise Tepe22, Soli23, Yumuktepe24, Sirkeli Höyük25, Kinet Höyük26 in Cilicia and Perge27 on the western border of Cilicia (see fig. 1).

Figs. 2-4: A group of RL fragments found at the excavations of southern ponds in the upper city of Boğazköy

Courtesy of German Archaeological Institute, Boğazköy-Archive

  • 28 Eriksson 1993, 148, 138, fig. 39.

9Furthermore, Eriksson’s comparison of different regions of the Eastern Mediterranean based on RL quantification is not reliable28 considering the variation of the scale of excavations in each site and therefore of the volume of earth removed. In addition, the number of RL can vary according to the context of the excavation areas. Therefore, sites or regions cannot be compared with each other by means of basic counting of vessels, nor can percentages be used because they depend on counting. Neither method provides useful statistics.

Representations of forms

  • 29 Ibid., 18-30.
  • 30 See Eriksson 1993 with further literature and Seeher 2002.
  • 31 Studied by the author.
  • 32 Kozal in Postgate forthcoming.

10Eriksson argued that the greatest variety of forms is found in Cyprus, where seven main forms with subgroups are attested29. In Anatolia, Boğazköy representing North Central Anatolia has four forms. These are spindle bottles, arm-shaped vessels, lentoid flasks and bowls. Porsuk, representing South Central Anatolia yielded only two forms (spindle bottles and the arm-shaped vessels)30. Kinet Höyük representing Plain Cilicia and Alalakh representing the Amuq Plain have three forms (spindle bottles, arm shaped vessels and bowls)31. The most significant findings are from Kilise Tepe, where all seven main forms are represented in addition to four new types of krater32. This new evidence suggests that the greatest number of forms is from Kilise Tepe and not from Cyprus.

11An aspect that has to be considered about forms is the representation of the complete profile due to the state of preservation. Vessels from undisturbed graves are always better preserved than those from the settlement contexts. In Cyprus, RL is found in Late Cypriot graves as well as other contexts. However, in Anatolia the situation is totally different as there are almost no complete RL vessels. All the material recovered are sherds from settlement contexts. Therefore, in most cases it is only possible to define the main form, while the subgroup remains unknown. Thus subforms in Anatolia are very difficult to define complicating comparison between Anatolia and Cyprus.

Incised signs on RL

  • 33 Eriksson 1993, 145-148. For potmarks on Cypriot pottery see Hirschfeld 2008 with further literature
  • 34 Seidl 1972; Gates 2001; Glatz 2012.

12The potmarks on RL incised before firing and generally under the base or on the lower part of the vertical handle have been compared by Eriksson with the Cypro-minoan script33. However, this comparison does not reflect the percentage of the signs that actually match the script or not. It is not clear how similar the signs are or even whether they match exactly. Moreover, potmarks are a known feature of Anatolian Late Bronze Age pottery traditions especially in Central Anatolia and Cilicia34. Potmarks of RL should be compared to Anatolian counterparts in order to understand whether a connection could be established. A systematic study is necessary comparing Cypriot ‘potmarks’ with Central Anatolian and Cilician ones.

Comparisons between RL and Local Anatolian Pottery traditions (figs. 5-6)

13In order to contribute to the understanding of the origin of RL, its shapes should be compared with those of other local wares of Cyprus and Anatolia. RL forms do not have counterparts in Late Cypriot pottery repertoire, whereas Late Bronze Age Anatolian counterparts in local Anatolian wares are evident.

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

1. RL bowls and kraters classified by Eriksson (1993, 18, fig. 3). 2-5. Anatolian counterparts or forerunners of RL shapes that are produced from local clays, dating to the Old Assyrian Colony Period (2-3) and Old Hittite Period (4-5). (2. Kültepe: Özgüç 1999, figs. A6-11; 3. Kültepe: Emre 1963, fig. 13: Kt. a/k 723; 4. Boğazköy: Fischer 1963, pl. 52:520; 5. Korucutepe: Umurtak 1996, pl. 8:2). No scale

Fig. 6

Fig. 6

1. Selected RL jugs classified by Eriksson (after Eriksson 1993, 20, fig. 20). 2-6. Anatolian counterparts of RL shapes from İnandık that are produced from local clays, dating to the Old Hittite Period. (Özgüç 1988, pl. 26:1-2, 155, fig. 13-14; 156, fig. 16). No scale

Bowls

  • 35 Hansen/Postgate 2007a, 329-341, fig. 388.
  • 36 Fischer 1963, pl. 83-84; Müller-Karpe 1988, 106, pl. 34-37; 2002, fig. 3.

14RL bowls reflect Anatolian local forms. Eriksson defined two main groups that she numbered as I (internal rim bowls) and II (hemispherical bowls). These designations have variations at the rim or the base. Type I bowls are defined as ‘internal rim bowls’ in Kilise Tepe publications35 and as ‘Schwapprandschalen’ in Boğazköy publications36.

  • 37 Hansen/Postagte 2007a, 334.
  • 38 This material from level III is studied by the author.

15At Kilise Tepe this form is the most common shape in level III37. Complete profiles found at Kilise Tepe show that this form can have slight variations at the rim. The base can be rounded or ring base38.

  • 39 Müller--Karpe 2002, fig. 3.
  • 40 Özgüç 1999, fig. A.1-11, pl. 79.
  • 41 Konyar 2006, 338, fig. 5.

16Hemispherical bowl (Eriksson’s type IIa) is a typical Anatolian form – defined as ‘Trinkschalen’ by A. Müller-Karpe39 – that is represented beginning in the Old Assyrian Colony Period at Kültepe40, and in the Old Hittite Period at İmikuşağı41, Sivas-Kuşaklı and Boğazköy.

Kraters / Jars

  • 42 Goldman 1956, fig. 371, fig. 379:1038, fig. 382. 1040.
  • 43 Garstang 1953, fig. 147: 22.
  • 44 Fischer 1963, 129, 132, pl. 52.
  • 45 Umurtak 1996, 41, pl. 8:2.
  • 46 Özgüç 1999, 39, Pl. 96:3, fig. C16; 2005, figs. 138, 188; Emre 1963, fig. 13: Kt. a/k 723.

17Eriksson’s type III is defined as a krater or jar. Form IIIa is a form with everted rim, ring base and two vertical handles on the shoulders. Similar rims are found at Tarsus-Gözlükule (MB and LBI layers)42, Mersin-Yumuktepe (level XI)43 and Boğazköy (beginning in the Old Assyrian Colony Period)44, but the vessel has here a flat bottom. An exact parallel is known from the Hittite 2 level of Korucutepe (Old Hittite Period)45. A similar group of forms that do not match exactly but certainly relate are found in Kültepe, belonging to the Old Assyrian Colony Period46. Type III obviously has its roots in Anatolia. Types IIIb and IIIc are also related to this form, which have upright rims.

Jugs

  • 47 Özgüç 1988, pl. 26, 11-12; Mielke 2006, fig. 2: 14, 15, 20-21.
  • 48 Bittel 1958, fig. 13; Seidl 1975, 94, 107, fig. 61-62.
  • 49 Süel 1998, 55, fig. 13-14.
  • 50 Müller-Karpe 1988, 31-41, pl. 3-7; 2002, 259, fig. 3.
  • 51 Goldman 1956, 214, fig. 385:1191.

18Eriksson’s type IV comprises three types of jugs that are subdivided into sub-groups. As the parallels from different sites demonstrate, these forms certainly belong to the Anatolian pottery tradition. Types IV A, B, C are different variants of jugs with simple, everted or trefoil rim. The body is oval, round, squat or carinated. The handle is attached either from the rim or the neck. The jugs can have a rounded, pointed or ring base. Parallels of type IVA and IVB2a-c are found in İnandık Level IV, which belongs to the Old Hittite Period47, Boğazköy48 and Ortaköy49. In defining main Hittite forms, Müller-Karpe illustrates that these bottles and pitchers are part of the Hittite repertoire in the Middle Hittite and Hittite Imperial periods50. Local versions of type IVB2a are represented in Tarsus- Gözlükule from the Hittite Level (LBII) as well51.

  • 52 Gates 2001, fig. 2:12.
  • 53 Garstang 1953, fig. 157: 16-17.
  • 54 Özgüç 1999, 13, 49, 54, figs. A17, D3, E10.
  • 55 Goldman 1956, 173-174, fig. 369:849-852.

19A Period 15 (LBI) bottle from Kinet Höyük52 and other examples from Mersin-Yumuktepe level V (LBII)53 also resemble RL jugs type IVB2a-c. Local Anatolian counterparts for Type IVB2d date back to the Old Assyrian Colony Period. Parallels from Kültepe excavations have also been published54. Comparable forms (esp. mouth) to type IVC are evident in Tarsus-Gözlükule levels dating to the Middle Bronze Age55.

Spindle bottles

  • 56 Müler-Karpe 1988, 31-41, pl. 3-7.
  • 57 Eriksson mentions the presence of Base-ring spindle bottles (Eriksson 1993, 23). See also Artzy 200 (...)
  • 58 Özgüç 1988, 11, pl. 26.
  • 59 Ibid., pl. 27:1.
  • 60 Fischer 1963 pl. 44:451, 126, pl. 43: 434, 438.

20Eriksson defines five types for spindle bottles. The predecessor of the spindle bottle is the Old Hittite bottle type that is also defined as RL type IVB2a by Eriksson and K2 by Müller-Karpe56. This shape does not have any forerunners in Cyprus. Similar shapes in Base-ring might imitate the RL forms57. There is no similar Middle Cypriot form in Cyprus that can be related to the spindle forms. However, RL spindle bottles can be related to a bottle shape dating to the Old Hittite and even Old Assyrian Colony Period. İnandık bottles from the Old and Middle Hittite Period are affiliated with the spindle bottles58. Another İnandık bottle is a good parallel of Eriksson’s Type VIA1d59. A spindle in local clay from Boğazköy Unterstadt level 1 and other neck fragments are definitely related with RL spindle bottles60. In addition, Müller-Karpe’s type K8 is the same shape as the RL spindle bottles – Müller- Karpe’s type K9 –, which are produced from local clays. He describes these bottles as:

  • 61 Müler-Karpe 1988, 47.

“Feintönige, enghalsige Krüge mit hohem Hals (soweit erkennbar), und ausbiegender Randlippe, z.T. wohl als Nachbildungen der sog. ‚spindle bottles’ (Type K9) anzusehen”.61

Lentoid flasks

  • 62 Emre 1994.

21Lentoid flasks are common in Anatolia since the Old Assyrian Colony Period, but these particular examples reflect Syrian types and must be imports.62

  • 63 Türkteki 2012, 58-59, fig. 4.

22However, a lentoid flask has been found from an Early Bronze Age level at Küllüoba in West Central Anatolia63. In the Late Bronze Age, lentoid flask is a common type of vessel. There are examples in local wares representing the two variations featured by Eriksson. Eriksson also states that

  • 64 Eriksson 1993, 25.

“The pilgrim flask form generally seems to have been a later introduction into the ware’s repertoire and was probably influenced by similar vessels of Anatolian origin, although the form was becoming widespread over the eastern Mediterranean during LB II”64.

  • 65 Gates 2001, fig. 3:16, 5:10.
  • 66 Goldman 1956, fig. 322: 1193, 1194, 1196.
  • 67 Hansen/Postgate 2007b, fig. 392:693-695.
  • 68 Garstang 1953, fig. 157:15.
  • 69 Bittel 1958, pl. 18:4-6, pl. 19:1-3; Fischer 1963, 128-29, pl. 46-50; Parzinger/Sanz 1992, 102, Pl. (...)
  • 70 Umurtak 1996, fig. 26:6-7.
  • 71 Bilgi 1982.
  • 72 Müler-Karpe 1988, 29-31, pl. 1-2.

23Some examples of locally produced pilgrim flasks are known from Kinet Höyük periods 14-13.165, Tarsus-Gözlükule LBII level66, Kilise Tepe level II67, Yumuktepe V68, Boğazköy (since the Old Hittite Period)69 and Korucutepe level Hitit 4 (Hittite Imperial Period)70. A general examination of the lentoid flasks in Anatolia conducted by Ö. Bilgi proposes that pilgrim flasks made of local clays are found since the Old Hittite Period71. Another detailed study was done by Müller-Karpe in which he defines two types according to the production technique (LF 1 and 2). In his list of lentoid flasks from the Upper City of Boğazköy, the majority of the flasks were produced from local clays with only two flasks made of RL-clay (C3)72.

  • 73 Hansen/Postgate 2007b, 368-370.
  • 74 Goldman 1956, 204, fig. 329, 1232-34.

24Lentoid flasks with stands (or similar shapes with stands) are found only in Cilicia, in Anatolia. The largest group among the Eastern Mediterranean sites is known from Kilise Tepe level II, where a total of 87 sherds were recognized. These are produced from local clays except for one example from level III that shows RL clay.73 There are three examples from Tarsus-Gözlükule LB II level, produced from local clays.74

Arm-shaped Vessels

  • 75 Mielke 2007, 158.
  • 76 Hansen/Postgate 2007b, 340.
  • 77 Manuelli 2009, 260, 263.

25Arm-shaped vessels are unique forms that do not have any forerunners in Anatolia or elsewhere. Examples made of local clays are found at Boğazköy (see fig. 3), Alacahöyük75, Kilise Tepe76, and Yumuktepe77.

Distribution Pattern of RL in Anatolia (see fig. 1)

26RL is found in Cyprus, Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia but is extremely rare in the Aegean. In Anatolia the ware is associated with Late Bronze Age/Hittite centers in Cilicia and Central Anatolia and has been used to connect Cyprus with Anatolia. However, the main problem concerning this ware is the identification of where it was produced. Based on the archaeological and scientific evidence it is assumed that the ware has a single production center or region, excluding the possibility of multiple production regions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

  • 78 Kozal 2003; 2007. For Uluburun see Yalçın et al. 2005.
  • 79 Knappett/Kilikoglou 2007a; 2007b.
  • 80 Personal communication N. Postgate.

27There is a clear distinction between the distribution of Late Cypriot wares and RL imported to Anatolia. RL is most common in Rough Cilicia and Central Anatolia, whereas other Late Cypriot wares are rarely found in these areas. The same phenomenon, although reverse, is found in the Aegean, where Late Cypriot wares are commonly recovered, while RL is extremely scarce. Moreover, RL is completely absent in the Uluburun shipwreck, which was transporting a large assemblage of Late Cypriot wares. The difference in the distribution patterns of Late Cypriot wares and RL have been detailed previously by the author78. The reasons for these differences are not clear but new evidence suggests that the origin of the ware cannot be Cyprus. The greatest variety of shapes is evident at Kilise Tepe, indicating that the ware was produced at Kilise Tepe or in that region. In addition, the petrography of the medium and coarser red fabrics at Kilise Tepe is the same as the RL79. According to N. Postgate the clay source must be fairly close to Kilise Tepe because less fine pottery would not be exported over long distances80.

  • 81 Artzy 2007; Knappett et al. 2005; Knappett/Kilikoglou 2007b; Schubert/Kozal 2007.
  • 82 Knappett/Kilikoglou 2007a; Knappett et al. 2005.

28Chemical and petrographic analysis of RL, conducted by several scholars, indicate that the unique chemical composition of the ware is the same, although the samples were from different geographical areas (i.e. Anatolia, Cyprus, Egypt, the Levant)81. C. Knappett and V. Kilikoglou came to the conclusion that the best geological matches are located in southern Anatolia near Anamur, Aydıncık, Ovacık or northern Cyprus82. Further research in other locales should be able to elaborate the existing results.

29Assuming that RL is of Anatolian origin opens a way to trade scenarios other than those proposed heretofore. Were RL manufactured in Anatolia then it would be the only Anatolian pottery found in large amounts outside Anatolia and the most prolific importer of this ware would be Cyprus.

30This proposal would also explain the reason for differences between the distribution patterns of Late Cypriot wares and RL in Anatolia. Even taking RL as of Anatolian origin out of consideration, the distribution patterns of RL and Late Cypriot ware remain problematic because as exchanged wares one would expect to find them together. However, this is not the case, indicating that Late Cypriot wares are not exchanged for RL. This phenomenon must be a reflection of the influence of the prevailing Anatolian Late Bronze political structure which would have had an impact on the trade or the influx of the goods.

Conclusions

  • 83 Akyurt 1998.

31Re-evaluation of the past evidence along with recently excavated material indicates that there is no solid evidence to identify Cyprus as the origin of the RL ware. Due to the fact that there is no chronological link between Anatolia and Cyprus for RL, it is not possible to determine whether RL appears first in Cyprus or Anatolia. The largest amount of RL is in Anatolia rather than Cyprus, although RL is found only as sherd material in Anatolia because Late Bronze Age graves are extremely rare in Central Anatolia and Cilicia83. In contrast to Anatolia, the large number of RL found in graves in Cyprus provide better information on the forms. Therefore, the form repertoire of Anatolia seems to be limited; however, all the main forms and additional new forms, not represented in Cyprus, have been recovered at Kilise Tepe. Most significant is the comparison of the RL forms with local pottery traditions, which Eriksson did not investigate. This demonstrates clearly that most of the RL forms have Anatolian counterparts that are rooted in the Old Hittite Period and in some cases in the Old Assyrian Period and Early Bronze Age III.

Bibliographie

Akyurt, M., M.Ö. 2. Binde Anadolu’da Ölü Gömme Adetleri, Ankara, 1998.

Artzy, M., “On the Origin(s) of the Red and White Lustrous Wheel-made Ware”, in I. Hein (éd.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th November 2004, Vienne, 2007, 12-18.

Åström, P., The Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Architecture and Pottery [The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV/1C], Lund, 1972.

Åström, P., “Relative and Absolute Chronology, Foreign Relations, Historical Conclusions”, in P. Åström / L. Åström (éds.), The Late Cypriot Bronze Age Other Arts and Crafts, Relative and Absolute Chronology, Foreign Relations, Historical Conclusions [The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV/1D], Lund, 1972, 675-781.

Bergoffen, C.J., The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana), Vienne, 2005.

Bilgi, Ö., M.Ö. II. Binyılında Anadolu’da Bulunmuş olan Matara Biçimli Kaplar, Istanbul, 1982.

Bittel, K., Die Hethitischen Grabfunde von Osmankayası, Berlin, 1958.

Emre, K., “The Pottery of Assyrian Colony Period According to the Building Levels of the Kaniş Karum”, Anadolu (Anatolia) 7, 1963, 87-99.

Emre, K., “A Type of Syrian Pottery from Kültepe/Kanis”, in P. Calmeyer / K. Hecker / L. Jakob-Rost / C.B.F. Walker (éds.), Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archäologie und Altertmskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburstag, Wiesbaden, 1994, 91-96.

Eriksson, K.O., Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware [SIMA 103], Jonsered, 1993.

Eriksson, K.O., The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. An Account of the Archaeological Importance of White Slip Ware, Vienne, 2007.

Fischer, F., Die Hethitische Keramik von Boğazköy, Berlin, 1963.

Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin-Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey, Oxford, 1953.

Gates, M.-H., “Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite Ceramic Industry”, in E. Jean / A.M. Dinçol / S. Durugönül (éds.), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C.-4e siècle ap. J.-C.) [Varia Anatolica XIII], Istanbul/Paris, 2001, 137-56.

Gates, M.-H., “Dating the Hittite Levels at Kinet Höyük: A Revised Chronology”, in D.P. Mielke / U.-D. Schoop / J. Seeher (éds.), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie [BYZAS 4], Istanbul, 2006, 293-309.

Glatz, C., “Bearing the Marks of Control? Reassesing Potmarks in the Late Bronze Age Anatolia”, AJA 116, 2012, 5-38.

Goldman, H., Excavations at Gözlü-Kule, Tarsus II: From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, Princeton, 1956.

Hansen, C. / Postgate, N., “Pottery from Level III”, in N. Postgate / D. Thomas (éds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, Londres/Cambridge, 2007, 329-41.

Hansen, C. / Postgate, N., “Pottery from Level II”, in N. Postgate / D. Thomas (éds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, Londres/Cambridge, 2007, 343-70.

Hein, I. (éd.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th November 2004, Vienne, 2007.

Hirschfeld, N., “How and Why Potmarks Matter”, Near Eastern Archaeology 71.1-2, 120-29.

Kıymet, K. / Süel, M., “Ortaköy-Şapinuva Kazısı’nda Ele Geçen Kol Biçimli Kaplar”, in A. Süel (éd.), Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology [Çorum, August 25-31, 2008], Ankara, 2010, 457-78.

Knappett, C., “Detailed Fabric Descriptions”, in N. Postgate / D. Thomas (éds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, Londres/Cambridge, 2007, 273-93.

Knappett, C. / Kilikoglou, V. / Steele, V. / Stern, B., “The Circulation and Consumption of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: Petrographic, Chemical and Residue Analysis”, Anatolian Studies 55, 25-59.

Knappett, C. / Kilikoglou, V., “Provenancing Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: Scales of Analysis and Floating Fabrics”, in I. Hein (éd.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th November 2004, Vienne, 2007, 115-140.

Knappett, C. / Kilikoglou, V., “Pottery Fabrics and Technology”, in N. Postgate / D. Thomas (éds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, Londres/Cambridge, 2007, 241-72.

Konyar, E., “Old Hittite Presence in the East of the Euphrates in the Light of the Stratigraphical Data from İmikuşağı (Elazığ)”, in D.P. Mielke / U.-D. Schoop / J. Seeher (éds.), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie [BYZAS 4], Istanbul, 2006, 333-48.

Kozal, E., “Analysis of the Distribution Patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, Mycenaean and Cypriot Pottery in Anatolia in the 15th-13th centuries B.C.”, in B. Fischer / H. Genz / E. Jean / K. Köroğlu (éds.), Identifying Changes from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Symposium, İstanbul Kasım 2002, Istanbul, 2003, 65-77.

Kozal, E., “Regionality in Anatolia between 15th and 13th centuries BC: Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware versus Mycenaean Pottery”, in I. Hein (éd.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th November 2004, Vienne, 2007, 141-48.

Manuelli, F., “Local Imitations and Foreign Imported Goods. Some Problems and New Questions on Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware in the light of New Excavations of the Southern Step Trench at Yumuktepe/ Mersin”, Altorientalische Forschungen 36/2, 2009, 251-67.

Mielke, D.P., “İnandıktepe and Sarissa. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung althethitischer Fundkomplexe”, in D.P. Mielke / U.-D. Schoop / J. Seeher (éds.), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie [BYZAS 4], Istanbul, 2006, 251-76.

Mielke, D.P., “Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware from Hittite Contexts”, in I. Hein (éd.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th November 2004, Vienne, 2007, 155-68.

Mühlenbruch, T., “Kayalıpınar – Ein Hethitisches Zentrum mit ‘Palastbezirk’. Die Red Lustrous Wheelmade-Ware aus ‘Gebäude B’ und ein Ansatz für die ‘soziale Deutung’ der ‘Libationsarme’”, Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 21, 2011, 292-303.

Müller-Karpe, A., Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattusa: ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis spät-großreichszeitlicher Keramik und Töpfereibetriebe unter Zugrundelegung der Grabungsergebnisse 1979-82 in Boğazköy [Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10], Marburg/Lahn, Hitzeroth, 1988.

Müller-Karpe, A., “Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1992-1994”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesselschaft 127, 1995, 5-36.

Müller-Karpe, A., “Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1995”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesselschaft 128, 1996, 69-94.

Müller-Karpe, A., “Die Keramik des Mittleren und Jüngeren Hethitischen Reiches. Die Entwicklung der anatolischen Keramik – ihre Formen und Funktionen”, in Die Hethiter und Ihr Reich [Kunst und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland], Bonn, 2002, 256-63.

Omura, S., “1998 Yılı Kaman-Kalehöyük Kazıları”, KST 21.1, Ankara, 2000, 217-28.

Omura, S., “Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (2003)”, Kaman-Kalehöyük 13, Ibaraki, 2004, 37-86.

Özgüç, T., İnandıktepe. An Important Cult Center in the Old Hittite Period, Ankara, 1988.

Özgüç, T., The Palaces and Temples of Kültepe Kanis/Nesa, Ankara, 1999.

Özgüç, T., Kültepe. Kaniš / Neša. İstanbul, 2005.

Parzinger, H. / Sanz, R., Die Oberstadt von Hattusa. Hethitische Keramik aus dem zentralen Tempelviertel, Berlin, 1992.

Postgate, N. (éd.), “Further work at Kilise Tepe, 2007-11”, Anatolian Studies, forthcoming.

Postgate, N. / Thomas, D. (éds.), Excavations at Kilise Tepe 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, Londres/Cambridge, 2007.

Recke, M., “Eine Trickvase von der Akropolis in Perge und andere Zeugnisse für kultische Aktivitäten während der Mittel- und Spätbronzezeit: Zur Rolle Pamphyliens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”, in A. Erkanal-Öktü et al. (éds.), Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections, Istanbul, 2006, 618-25.

Schubert, C. / Kozal, E., “Preliminary Results of Scientific and Petrographic Analysis on Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware and other LBA Pottery from Central Anatolia and Cyprus”, in I. Hein (éd.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th November 2004, Vienne, 2007, 169-177.

Seeher, J., “Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattusa 2001”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 2002, 59-78.

Seidl, U., Gefäßmarken von Boğazköy, Berlin, 1972.

Seidl, U., “Keramik aus Raum 4 des Hauses 4, westlich der Tempelterrasse”, in K. Bittel et al. (éds.), Boğazköy V. Funde aus den Grabungen 1970-71, Berlin, 1975, 85-113.

Süel, A., “Ortaköy-Shapinuwa: A Hittite Center”, Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology 1, 1998, 37-61.

Symington, D., “Hittites at Kilise Tepe”, in E. Jean / A.M. Dinçol / S. Durugönül (éds.), La Cilicie : espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C.-4e siècle ap. J.-C.) [Varia Anatolica XIII], Istanbul/Paris, 2001, 167-184.

Türkteki M., “Batı ve Orta Anadolu’da Çark Yapımı Çanak Çömleğin Ortaya Çıkışı ve Yayılımı”, in T. Efe (éd.), Küllüoba Kazıları ve Batı Anadolu Tunç Çağları Üzerine Yapılan Araştırmalar [Masrop e-dergi 7], 2012, 45-111.

Umurtak, G., Korucutepe II. 1973-1075 Dönemi Kazılarında Bulunmuş olan Hitit Çağı Çanak Çömleği, Ankara, 1996.

Üyümez, M. / Koçak Ö. / İlaslı, A., “Afyonkarahisar- Bayat’da Bir Orta Tunç Çağ Nekropolü: Dede Mezarı”, in A. Süel (éd.), Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology [Çorum, August 25-31, 2008], Ankara, 939-950.

Yağcı, R., “The Importance of Soli in the Archaeology of Cilicia in the Second Millennium B.C.”, in E. Jean / A.M. Dinçol / S. Durugönül (éds.), La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C.-4e siècle ap. J.-C.) [Varia Anatolica XIII], Istanbul/Paris, 2001, 159-65.

Yağcı, R., “A grave at Soli Höyük from the Hittite Imperial Period”, in İ. Delemen / S. Çokay-Kepçe / A. Özdibay / O. Turak (éds.), EUERGETES; Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu’na 65. Yaş Armağanı, Antalya, 2008. 1217-1226.

Yalçın, Ü. / Pulak, C. / Slotta, R. (éds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 2005.

Yener, K.A. (éd.), Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, Istanbul, 2010.

Notes

1 Åström 1972a; 1972b.

2 Eriksson 1993; 2007.

3 Kozal 2003; 2007.

4 Hein 2007.

5 For Kilise Tepe see Postgate/Thomas 2007; Symington 2001.

6 For Kinet Höyük see Gates 2001; 2006.

7 For Alalakh see Yener 2010.

8 Mielke 2007.

9 The pottery studies of Kinet material by M.-H. Gates, A. Gunter, E. Kozal and G. Lehmann are ongoing.

10 Bergoffen 2005, 47, 95-97.

11 Pottery studies at the site are conducted by M. Horowitz, M. Bulu, R. Koehl and E. Kozal.

12 Mielke 2007, 161-162.

13 Seeher 2002; Mielke 2007, 158.

14 Seeher 2002.

15 Kıymet/Süel 2010.

16 Omura 2000.

17 Omura 2004.

18 Müller-Karpe 1995; 1996; Mielke 2006.

19 Mühlenbruch 2011.

20 Üyümez et al. 2010, 949, fig. 2-3.

21 Umurtak 1996.

22 Symington 2001; Hansen/Postgate 2007a; 2007b.

23 Yağcı 2001; 2008.

24 Manuelli 2009.

25 RL from Sirkeli Höyük is studied by the author.

26 RL from Kinet Höyük is being studied by the author and Ann Gunther.

27 Recke 2006.

28 Eriksson 1993, 148, 138, fig. 39.

29 Ibid., 18-30.

30 See Eriksson 1993 with further literature and Seeher 2002.

31 Studied by the author.

32 Kozal in Postgate forthcoming.

33 Eriksson 1993, 145-148. For potmarks on Cypriot pottery see Hirschfeld 2008 with further literature.

34 Seidl 1972; Gates 2001; Glatz 2012.

35 Hansen/Postgate 2007a, 329-341, fig. 388.

36 Fischer 1963, pl. 83-84; Müller-Karpe 1988, 106, pl. 34-37; 2002, fig. 3.

37 Hansen/Postagte 2007a, 334.

38 This material from level III is studied by the author.

39 Müller--Karpe 2002, fig. 3.

40 Özgüç 1999, fig. A.1-11, pl. 79.

41 Konyar 2006, 338, fig. 5.

42 Goldman 1956, fig. 371, fig. 379:1038, fig. 382. 1040.

43 Garstang 1953, fig. 147: 22.

44 Fischer 1963, 129, 132, pl. 52.

45 Umurtak 1996, 41, pl. 8:2.

46 Özgüç 1999, 39, Pl. 96:3, fig. C16; 2005, figs. 138, 188; Emre 1963, fig. 13: Kt. a/k 723.

47 Özgüç 1988, pl. 26, 11-12; Mielke 2006, fig. 2: 14, 15, 20-21.

48 Bittel 1958, fig. 13; Seidl 1975, 94, 107, fig. 61-62.

49 Süel 1998, 55, fig. 13-14.

50 Müller-Karpe 1988, 31-41, pl. 3-7; 2002, 259, fig. 3.

51 Goldman 1956, 214, fig. 385:1191.

52 Gates 2001, fig. 2:12.

53 Garstang 1953, fig. 157: 16-17.

54 Özgüç 1999, 13, 49, 54, figs. A17, D3, E10.

55 Goldman 1956, 173-174, fig. 369:849-852.

56 Müler-Karpe 1988, 31-41, pl. 3-7.

57 Eriksson mentions the presence of Base-ring spindle bottles (Eriksson 1993, 23). See also Artzy 2007, 14, fig. 7.

58 Özgüç 1988, 11, pl. 26.

59 Ibid., pl. 27:1.

60 Fischer 1963 pl. 44:451, 126, pl. 43: 434, 438.

61 Müler-Karpe 1988, 47.

62 Emre 1994.

63 Türkteki 2012, 58-59, fig. 4.

64 Eriksson 1993, 25.

65 Gates 2001, fig. 3:16, 5:10.

66 Goldman 1956, fig. 322: 1193, 1194, 1196.

67 Hansen/Postgate 2007b, fig. 392:693-695.

68 Garstang 1953, fig. 157:15.

69 Bittel 1958, pl. 18:4-6, pl. 19:1-3; Fischer 1963, 128-29, pl. 46-50; Parzinger/Sanz 1992, 102, Pl. 16:5.

70 Umurtak 1996, fig. 26:6-7.

71 Bilgi 1982.

72 Müler-Karpe 1988, 29-31, pl. 1-2.

73 Hansen/Postgate 2007b, 368-370.

74 Goldman 1956, 204, fig. 329, 1232-34.

75 Mielke 2007, 158.

76 Hansen/Postgate 2007b, 340.

77 Manuelli 2009, 260, 263.

78 Kozal 2003; 2007. For Uluburun see Yalçın et al. 2005.

79 Knappett/Kilikoglou 2007a; 2007b.

80 Personal communication N. Postgate.

81 Artzy 2007; Knappett et al. 2005; Knappett/Kilikoglou 2007b; Schubert/Kozal 2007.

82 Knappett/Kilikoglou 2007a; Knappett et al. 2005.

83 Akyurt 1998.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1: Distribution of RL in Anatolia
Crédits Background map created by Richard Szydlak. Main shapes of RL by Åström 1972a, figs. 54-55. No scale
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3248/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 328k
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3248/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 241k
Crédits Courtesy of German Archaeological Institute, Boğazköy-Archive
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3248/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 2,6M
Titre Fig. 5
Légende 1. RL bowls and kraters classified by Eriksson (1993, 18, fig. 3). 2-5. Anatolian counterparts or forerunners of RL shapes that are produced from local clays, dating to the Old Assyrian Colony Period (2-3) and Old Hittite Period (4-5). (2. Kültepe: Özgüç 1999, figs. A6-11; 3. Kültepe: Emre 1963, fig. 13: Kt. a/k 723; 4. Boğazköy: Fischer 1963, pl. 52:520; 5. Korucutepe: Umurtak 1996, pl. 8:2). No scale
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3248/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 376k
Titre Fig. 6
Légende 1. Selected RL jugs classified by Eriksson (after Eriksson 1993, 20, fig. 20). 2-6. Anatolian counterparts of RL shapes from İnandık that are produced from local clays, dating to the Old Hittite Period. (Özgüç 1988, pl. 26:1-2, 155, fig. 13-14; 156, fig. 16). No scale
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/3248/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 440k

Auteur

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Department of Archaeology
ekozal08@gmail.com

© Institut français d’études anatoliennes, 2012

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Open access

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search