Table Of ContentEXCAVATIONS
.. ..
AT GOZLU KULE, TARSUS
VOLUME II · TEXT
From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age
BY HETTY GOLDMAN
With Chapters by Machteld J. Mellink and I. J. Gelb
and an Appendix by Frederick R. Matson
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
©
COPYRIGHT 1956 BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON; GEOFFREY CUMBERLEGE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
L.C. CARD: 50-7066
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
ILLUSTRATIONS BY THE MERIDEN GRAVURE COMPANY, MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT
FOREWORD
THIS volume presents the complete record of the prehistoric levels of the mound of Gozlii Kule
at Tarsus from Neolithic times through the Bronze Age in the form of a synthesis of the work
accomplished without reference to individual campaigns or the actual order in which the rna~
terial was recovered. This information may be found in the reports issued in the American
Journal of Archaeology while the work was in progress. To the pre~war campaigns, which
covered the years from the spring of 1934 to the early months of 1939, were added one of much
smaller scope in 1947 and another and even briefer one in the spring of 1948. A study period
on the spot followed in 1949.
The excavators of Gozlii Kule encountered the same difficulties which finally defeat in vary~
ing degree the efforts of all who work at a site which has seen long and continuous occupation:
too many habitation levels, too great an accumulation of earth. Since the highest point of the
mound is also the one underneath which lies the oldest settlement, the necessary stepping out
of the trenches in order to safeguard the workers from falling earth and stone, no matter how
conservatively done, brings the excavation, if not outside the area of habitation, at least to its
periphery. Ground water surges up in the trenches, which are finally reduced to pits from
whose muddy depth the last evidence is painstakingly dredged. Without adequate and expen~
sive machinery the continuation of the work becomes impossible and is abandoned before all
habitation levels have been penetrated. There was every reason to believe on the analogy of
Mersin that the beginnings of the Neolithic period lay at a much greater depth than the 32.00 m.
below the datum reached at Tarsus. But to quote from the foreword to Volume I, "the initial
intention, however, of making an excavation in depth of sufficient size to gain a preliminary
knowledge of the successive material cultures of the Cilician plain has been in great part
achieved.'' This does not mean that, had funds been available, excavation over a larger area
might not with luck have led to important discoveries, such as the archives both of the local
and of the Hittite rulers of the country.
Once more it is a pleasant duty to remember with gratitude those institutions and individuals
who made the work possible. Bryn Mawr College, fired by the vision and unflagging enthusiasm
of Professor Mary H. Swindler, initiated and supported the work throughout the pre~war years.
The Archaeological Institute of America, The Fogg Museum of Harvard University, and The
Institute for Advanced Study furthered the undertaking, either by direct financial support for
field work and publication or by supplying personnel and giving the authors opportunity to
carry on special studies between the periods of activity in the field. In addition there were a
number of private donors who are remembered with equal gratitude although they must, by
their own request, remain anonymous.
It is not possible to mention individually all those who at different times took part not only
in the field work but in those casual discussions and conversations on the site which, in a
harmonious group engaged in a common task, often lead to new and fruitful interpretations.
They are listed in the annual reports. But among them the names of Mr. and Mrs. Robert W.
( v )
FOREWORD
Ehrich must be singled out. From 1934 through 1938, with the exception of a single campaign
in the case of Mrs. Ehrich, they were in charge of the daily supervision of the excavation
trenches. It was largely due to the fullness, intelligence, and integrity of their field records that
publication after the lapse of so many years was possible. They, too, placed the boxes of ex
cavated material in a large storeroom in such excellent order and so well labelled in 1938 that
they could be taken out once more in 1948 and their study resumed where it had been left off
ten years previously. According to the original plan Mr. Ehrich was to have collaborated in the
publication of the Bronze Age pottery, but his duties as Professor of Anthropology and Archae
ology at Brooklyn College made this impossible. Among the post-war staff, Miss Theresa Goell,
now excavating Nimrud Dagh in Turkey under the auspices of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, rendered invaluable service by taking charge of the excavation in the spring
of 1948 when the director was detained by illness, and bringing it to a successful conclusion
under particularly trying circumstances; for this was for the most part the final digging in the
restricted area of an ever-narrowing pit. Miss Machteld Mellink, now Professor of Archaeology
at Bryn Mawr, shared the responsibilities of excavation, undertaking the daily sorting and study
of the pottery, and finally contributed the chapter on the neolithic and chalcolithic pottery to
the present volume. The plans of the building levels uncovered in 1935-1938 were made by our
several architects: Miss Dorothy Hannah Cox; the late M. T. Fagard, who came to us from
the French excavations in Syria; and Mr. Piet de Jong. Miss Theresa Goell made the plans of
1947 and 1948 building levels and profile drawings of pottery; she also carried out the final
coordination of all the plans and made the section through the mound, Plan 26. Mr. de Jong
drew all the pottery profiles made before 1947 and contributed the beautiful drawings of seals
accompanying the chapter on the Hittite hieroglyphic material, as well as those of Figs. 399,
400. The drawings of Figs. 409, 410 were made by Mrs. Petronella Crouch Cook when she
visited Tarsus in I949· The excavation happily found a willing and enthusiastic author for the
chapter on the Hittite hieroglyphic material in Dr. Ignace J. Gelb of the Oriental Institute of
Chicago.
To those Turkish authorities to whom we expressed our heartfelt gratitude in Volume I
Dr. Hamit Ko~ay, Director of the Department of Antiquities, and the directors of the Adana
Museum, Bay R. Yalgin, and the late Naci Kum-must now be added the name of Bay Necati
Dolunay. The Tarsus excavators are deeply indebted to him for having volunteered to add to
his duties as Turkish Commissioner the supervision of an excavation trench in I947· Bay
Ahmet Donmez was our helpful commissioner in the brief campaign of 1948.
In the study of material we were fortunate in being able to consult Mrs. Linda Braidwood
about flint and obsidian artifacts, Professor Robert Braidwood and Mr. Gustavus Swift, Jr.
about pottery of the Amuq region, Professor Mabel Lang about weights. To mention the name
of Dr. Edith Porada in connection with seal stones is to acknowledge an obligation before it
has been stated. She has given help generously and patiently. Since no one, however, has seen
more than a small portion of any of the material nor even a full set of photographs, except the
authors of the book, it is by no means merely a conventional phrase to say that the responsibility
for its content rests where it should and must, squarely upon their shoulders.
( vi )
FOREWORD
Because of the pleasure and profit derived from the association, I should like to mention my
three assistants during the years of preparing the manuscript. Mrs. Charlotte Rider Long was
with me for two years and did substantial and basic work on the so-called minor antiquities.
Mrs. Patricia Neils Boulter continued where she left off, and Mrs. Margaret Dow Gell-Mann
was responsible for a variety of work. Her most valuable contribution was in helping to com
plete and in making tracings of all plans, as well as the line drawings of figures 459 and 460.
To the Meriden Gravure Company goes heartfelt appreciation for their careful and patient
work, as well as to the Princeton University Press, where Miss Miriam Brokaw did much to
improve the consistency of the format.
Such previous publications as dealt with the Bronze Age are listed below:
Ehrich, R. W., "Preliminary Notes on Tarsus Crania," A.J.A. XLIV, 1940, pp. 87-92.
Gelb, I. J., "Queen Pudu-1j:epa," A.J.A. XLI, 1937, pp. 289-291.
Goetze, A., "Philological Remarks on the Bilingual Bulla from Tarsus," A.J.A. XL, 1936, pp. 210-214; "Re
marks on the Epigraphical Material Found at Tarsus in 1936," A.J.A. XLI, 1937, pp. 287-288; "Cuneiform
Inscriptions from Tarsus," J.A.O.S. Lix, 1939, pp. 1-16.
Goldman, H., "Preliminary Expedition to Cilicia, 1934 and Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus, 1935," A.J.A.
xxxrx, 1935, pp. 526-549· "Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus, 1936," A.J.A. XLI, 1937, pp. 262-286; "Excava
tions at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus, 1937," A.J.A. XLII, 1938, pp. 30-54; "Excavations at GOzlii Kule, Tarsus, 1938,"
A.J.A. XLIV, 1940, pp. 6o-86; "Archaeological News," A.J.A. LUI, 1949, pp. 47-49; "A Note on Two Painted
Sherds from Tarsus with Representations of Birds," B.A.S.O.R. 76, 1939, pp. 2-55; "Mound of Tarsus," Asia,
1939, pp. 413-418; with John Garstang, "A Conspectus of Early Cilician Pottery," A.J.A. LI, 1947, pp. 370-388;
"A Crystal Statuette from Tarsus," Archeologica Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld, pp. 129-133;
"Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology," pp. 69-79.
( vii )
CONTENTS
FOREWORD v
INTRODUCTION 3
I. BUILDINGS AND HABITATION LEVELS 5
II. CHRONOLOGY 6o
III. NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY
BY MACHTELD J. MELLINK
IV. BRONZE AGE POTTERY
General Introduction
Early Bronze Age I
Early Bronze Age II
Early Bronze Age III
Middle Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age I
Late Bronze Age II, a-b
V. NON-HIEROGLYPHIC SEALS AND
SEAL IMPRESSIONS
VI. HITTITE HIEROGLYPHIC SEALS AND
SEAL IMPRESSIONS
BY I. J· GELB
VII. FLINT, CHERT, AND OBSIDIAN 255
VIII. STONE
IX. BRONZE
X. GOLD AND LEAD
XI. MOLDS
XII. BONE
CONTENTS
XIII. CLAY
Miscellaneous Objects
3!9
Whorls 328
Figurines 334
XIV. FAIENCE, SHELL, AND WOOD
XV. A CRYSTAL STATUETTE 342
XVI. SUMMARY AND GENERAL PERSPECTIVE 345
APPENDIX 352
BY FREDERICK R. MATSON
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX
FROM THE NEOLITHIC
THROUGH THE BRONZE AGE
TEXT
INTRODUCTION
THE mound of Gozlii Kule lies on the southwest edge of modern Tarsus and in its present form
consists of two elevations, of which the eastern one is conspicuously higher, and of an inter
vening saddle. The contour plan of the site (Plan 25) is the same with slight alterations and
some additions as the one (Plan r) already shown in Volume I. The return to the site after
World War II enabled a more accurate survey and study to be made of the two sections
excavated, A and B. This resulted in a needed correction of their relative orientation. To Section
A the outlines of the excavations of 1947 and 1948 have been added. No wholly new section
was opened, but Section A was extended in a southerly direction and carried from Early
Bronze II to Neolithic in order to get what evidence could be recovered for the earlier periods
of habitation. Section B remained at the Hittite level L. B. IIa, and the buildings of this period
are given on the contour plan. It may be well to remind the reader that all measurements of
depth in both sections were taken from a single datum which lay at the highest point of Trench
A and that they, therefore, correctly mirror the relation of the two sections at the time of the
Hittite occupation. Undoubtedly the greater height of A is due to the fact that, since the mound
is an entirely artificial accumulation, the earliest settlement underlay this section. In the
catalogue all references to depth are preceded by an asterisk.
The closeness of the southern edge of Trench A to Trenches 8 and 9, which contained the
late Chalcolithic graves, showed that in seeking evidence for this period, the excavation had
reached the very periphery of the settlement. There is no reason to believe that this is true
of Neolithic times, but on account of the freshet of water which inundated the trench as soon
as an attempt was made to reach the levels underlying Chalcolithic, it became impossible to
penetrate the Neolithic settlement in an extended area or to any great depth.
The cut through the mound in Section A (shown on Plan 26 and marked A-A on all in
dividual plans) shows the great number of the successive habitation levels/ and if one remem
bers the depth of Neolithic deposit found at Yiimiik, Tepe, Mersin2 without reaching the very
beginnings of that settlement, one may with some assurance surmise that at Tarsus, too, there
were deeper levels. Whether the Neolithic accumulation of Tarsus once equalled that of
Mersin may be doubted in view of the closeness of Gozlii Kule to the sea in ancient times and
the swampy nature of the ground to the south of the mound even in present times. Plan 26
gives an instructive visual image of the constant rebuildings which took place and the lack of
evidence for any major desertion of the site. The greater spacing of floor levels in Early Bronze
II was due to the fill of fresh earth laid down between them and not to gradual accumulation.
The presentation of the material is much the same as in Volume I, which dealt with Hellenis
tic and Roman times. A chapter on the successive building levels is followed by one on chro
nology. In the chapters on pottery a general discussion of each period precedes a catalogue,
1 Of course, a certain selective judgment was perforce used in illustrating the building levels, since it was
impossible to record visually all minor changes over so long a period of habitation. These are mentioned for
the most part in the text.
2 Mersin, stratigraphic table, p. 2.
( 3 )
INTRODUCTION
which is arranged either according to fabric where the material is fragmentary, or according
to shapes, with subsidiary groupings by fabric, where it is better preserved. Two chapters on
seals are followed by separate discussions and catalogues of stone, metal, bone, clay, and such
miscellaneous antiquities as were represented by only a few objects. A more general chapter
attempts to sum up what has been learned about prehistoric Tarsus, to state what problems
the excavation has suggested and what solutions and conclusions could reasonably be drawn
from the evidence.
Since this volume offers the first full discussion of the Bronze Age of the Cilician plain, the
material is presented as completely as possible, with particular emphasis on description and
illustration. As far as they were known, the exact find-spots are given in the hope that when
our knowledge of prehistoric Cilicia has been increased and refined upon, as it doubtless will
be by future excavations, the account of the Bronze Age of Gozlii Kule may be found suf
ficiently precise to serve as a reference book for coming excavators. Because of the fullness of
the catalogue, where most inventoried pieces and numerous fragments are listed/ the material
as a whole has not been synthesized in tables of depth and frequency. The same information
can be gleaned easily and perhaps more accurately from the catalogues themselves. Parallels
from other ancient sites are given chiefly in the catalogues and are meant as arrows pointing
towards significant connections. There has been no attempt to present a full quiver. The
depths, all taken as has already been said, from the single datum with a theodolite, are given
as recorded. They have not been reduced to more general terms, chiefly on account of the
extra work this would have entailed, though it might have been done without harm to the
accuracy of the report. Literature after 1954 is considered only in Chapter XVI.
3 On the pottery profile figures, numbers refer to pieces described in the catalogue; capital letters to pieces
mentioned but without description.
( 4 )
