The Anatolian Context of Philia Material Culture in Cyprus

19 Pages·2016·4.68 MB·English

by  Bachhuber C.

The Cambridge Prehistory
of the Bronze and Iron
Age Mediterranean
Edited by
A. BERNARD KNAPP
University of Glasgow, Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute
and
PETER VAN DOMMELEN
Brown University
C a m br id g e
UNIVERSITY PRESS
8 THE ANATOLIAN CONTEXT OF PHILIA
MATERIAL CULTURE IN CYPRUS
CHRISTOPH BACHHUBER
Abstract Interactionist debates continue to be dominated by
practitioners in the Mediterranean basin, with rare efforts
Archaeologists working in Anatolia have been underrepresented by archaeologists working in the Levant or on Cyprus to
in the debates on the so-called Anatolianising of Philia material consult in a substantial way the archaeology of the tec­
culture that marks the beginning of the Bronze Age in Cyprus. tonic arc. Here, I draw Early Bronze Age (EBA) Anatolia
In this chapter, I outline how this phenomenon in Cyprus was into the mainstream of Mediterranean prehistory by
related to changes across the western and southern regions of the discussing the peninsula in relation to Philia material
Anatolian peninsula. I examine settlement patterns and related
culture.
interactions with the landscape, and those aspects of Early For the past 50 years, Anglo-American trained archae­
Bronze Age material culture in Anatolia that have most informed ologists working in the Mediterranean have been depen­
the Philia debates. These same features of Anatolian societies are dent on one of two pioneers as the voices for Bronze
aho the most informative for studying a transitional period on Age Anatolia. The great archaeological legacies of James
the peninsula near the middle of the third millennium BC. My Mellaart and Machteld Mellink include a kind of diplo­
analysis of these transformations leads me to revisit the various macy in a country that continues to be exotic to the meth­
models used to explain social change on Cyprus. odological mainstream of the Mediterranean Bronze Age.
Nevertheless, Mellaart never entered the Philia debates,
Introduction and Mellink offered only one foray (Mellink 1991).
Subsequently, few Anatolian prehistorians have addressed
In the past decade, interrelationships in the third millen­ this problem (cf. C. Eslick, in Frankel et al. 1996; Kouka
nium BC between the tectonic arc regions of Anatolia and 2009: 36-40).
the Caucasus, and regions in the eastern Mediterranean It has long been noted that the greatest affinity between
basin including the Levant and Cyprus, have re-emerged Philia material culture and EBA Anatolia is with the period
as a vital dialogue in Mediterranean prehistory. For termed ‘Early Bronze (EB) IT in the western and south­
almost a century, interpretations of material culture and ern regions of the peninsula (Table 8.1, Figure 8.1a).
social change in the Mediterranean basin have looked to Originally, I began this chapter by considering whether
these tectonic arc regions for the origins of such devel­ ЕВ II is a meaningful chronological distinction, and chose
opments. Philia material culture in Cyprus and the Early instead ЕВ I—II as a more appropriate (but ultimately unsat­
Transcaucasian influences in the Levant are parallel devel­ isfactory) chronological marker. In western and southern
opments in the third millennium BC and mark the begin­ Anatolia, at least, enough survey and settlement data exist
ning of the Bronze Age in both regions. to inform the meaning of ЕВ I—II. The transition to EB III
Social change in the Levant and in Cyprus has been is also salient for understanding the Anatolian context of
studied within migratory cultural-historical, autonomist Philia material culture.
processual and migratory postprocessual paradigms that I address those aspects of Anatolian societies that have
reflect theoretical developments within the larger discipline most informed or otherwise, influenced the debates, includ­
of archaeology as practiced in the Anglo-American tradi­ ing pottery and related concerns with food and drink con­
tion. The most recent dialogue on Philia material culture in sumption; the production, exchange and consumption of
Cyprus and the corresponding Early Transcaucasian devel­ metal; and reconstructions of secondary products' indus­
opments in the Levant has been reinvigorated by renewed tries and economies. Each of these thematic sections is
consideration of migration (for the Levant, see Greenberg divided into three parts: (1) Philia significance; (2) ЕВ I—II;
and Goren 2009; Greenberg and Palumbi, this volume; for and (3) transition to EB III. These themes are also among
Cyprus, see Webb and Frankel 2007; 2013; Knapp 2008: the most consequential for understanding the Anatolian
47-53, 103-14; 2013: 264-77; Kouka 2009: 36). scene during the EBA.
139
CHRISTOPH BACHHUBER
table 8.1. Chronological chart for the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and adjacent regions.
Anatolian
Year (BCE) Cyprus peninsula Troia Demicihoyuk Karatas Tarsus Syro-Meso
2000
Transitional IV EB Illb Ur III
2100
EC I-II
Guti
zzuu
III Akkad
2300
EB III EB Ilia Markikh ПЫ
2400 BrakL
Philia II abandoned abandoned
2500 P-Q VI
M-N Mardikh Ha
2600 Late K-L V BrakK
Chalc. I-J ЕВ II
2700
H IV
EB I-II
2800 I
F III Ninevite V
E
2900
D II ЕВ I
3000 No stratigraphy
I
ЕВ I—II and EB III: Settlement generated a well-known migration hypothesis. He proposed
Patterns that the destruction and abandonment of ЕВ II settlements
were caused by the movements of Indo-European peoples
ЕВ II in central and western Anatolia can be differentiated who swept down from the eastern Balkans and destroyed the
from EB III by the identification of a repertoire of wheelmade settlement of Troy II. Subsequently, these people were pre­
pottery in the latter (see below), although the division between sumed responsible for the diffusion of northwest Anatolian
ЕВ I and ЕВ II is far from clear. Distinctions between ЕВ I and culture in their eastward migration (Mellaart 1966: 175-77).
ЕВ II normally have a site-specific chronological logic, which Currently, models of social change in the transition from
has yet to be observed or successfully applied regionally or ЕВ I—II to EB III have replaced a diffusionist agency of
pan-regionally. Most of the difficulty resides in the artificial migration with an agency of trade (e.g. §ahoglu 2005; Efe
construction of a tripartite chronological schema that follows 2007), particularly as evidence for long-distance exchange
the Aegean conventions of ЕВ I, II and III. An additional dif­ becomes more pronounced in the transition to EB III (see
ficulty involves the regionalised pottery traditions that char­ below). Few studies since, however, have offered an alter­
acterise the whole of the peninsula in the earlier half of the native explanation for the differences between ЕВ I—II
third millennium BC (Efe 2003: fig. 5), frustrating attempts to and EB III settlement patterns (i.e. the decrease in site
synthesise chronologies. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this frequency). The recent Konya Plain Surveys have prior­
study, I differentiate ЕВ I—II settlements (ca. 3000-2500 BC) itised geomorphology and mark a pendulum swing to a
from EB III setdements (ca. 2500-2200 BC; see Table 8.1). processual approach for interpreting the changes (Boyer
It has long been noted that the greatest affinity between et al. 2006). This project has explored the consequences
Philia material culture and Anatolia is with the western of alluviation during the EBA. Topographical troughs on
and southern regions of the peninsula (Frankel et al. 1996) the (Jar^amba Fan in the Konya Plain supported farming
(Figure 8.1a). Excavations and surveys in these regions are communities since the Neolithic, but alluviation and the
revealing a notable trend. From the Neolithic to the end of consequent infilling of these troughs during the EBA cre­
the EBA, the frequency of identified sites along Anatolia's ated a less arable landscape (Boyer et al. 2006: 693-95). The
arable alluvia is highest during ЕВ I—II (Figure 8.1b and alluviation corresponds with the dramatic decrease in the
Table 8.2). The masking of Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites number of EB III settlements on the £ar§amba fan from
by alluviation may account for some of this pattern (see the ЕВ I—II peak (Table 8.2) (Boyer et al. 2006: 689).
below), but settlement masking cannot explain the dramatic A recent palynological study in the Eski Acigol crater-
drop in the number of EB III sites from the ЕВ I—II peak. lake bed in the eastern environs of the Anatolian Plateau
The reduced number of EB III sites was first interpreted may illuminate the accelerated erosion (Roberts etal. 2001;
by Mellaart (1963) in his surveys of the Konya Plain and Boyer et al. 2006). During the Late Holocene, a significant
140
THE ANATOLIAN CONTEXT OF PHILIA MATERIAL CULTURE IN CYPRUS
figure 8.1. (a) Map showing sites mentioned in the text. Unpublished map prepared by Michele Massa, with permission and modified,
(b) Map showing late EB I—II settlement density in the region of Eskfsehir. Unpublished map prepared by Michele Massa, with permission
and modified.
141
iv»rn sauHHiBIrR
table 8.2. Numbers of sites identified in regional surveys showing the highest numbers during ЕВ І—П, and a sharp decline in ЕВ Ш.
Aceramic Ceramic Early Late
Neolithic Neolithic Chalcolithic Chalcolithic EB I-II EB III
8000-7000 BC 7000-6000 BC 6000-4500 BC 4500-3000 BC 3000-2500 BC 2500-2200 BC
Konya Plain, 6 1 15 15 38 7
Carjamba Fana
Lakes District, 0 3 6 5 12 0
Sagalassos Hinterlandb
Lycia, Elmali Plainc 0 3 0 8 11 4*
The Troadd 30+ 1
* Boyer et al. 2006: graph 2.
b Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003: graph 2.
c Eslick2009: 214, pl.l.
d Bieg et al. 2009: p 1.1; S. Blum, pers. comm.
* Including Karatas which was abandoned early in EB III.
reduction in oak woodland is observed, contemporary
with the proliferation of several anthropogenic species.
The approximate dating of this event (4500-4000 Cal BP)
(Roberts et al. 2001: 731)is roughly contemporary with EB
III in Anatolia and reveals anthropogenic impact on wood­
land (Roberts etal. 2001: 732-33).
The crowding of ЕВ I—II settlements in Anatolia's allu­
via would have exerted pressure on indigenous forest (see
above, Figure 8.1b and Table 8.2), in particular through
increased demands on timber for fuel, construction mate­
rials and land for cultivation and pasturage (see below).
Woodland clearance and the subsequent instability in the
landscape may have been one variable in the unstable set­
tlement patterns (Boyer et al 2006), although I am wary
of replacing Mellaart's extreme cultural-historical model
with an environmentally determinist one that does not
take into account the material culture of these societies.
Abandonment was surely a more complex development
and needs to be addressed with a more socially informed
understanding of ЕВ I—II and EB III communities.
Ceramic Technology and the
Consumption of Food and Drink
Philia Significance
Early observations about the Anatolianising elements figure 8.2. Beak-spouted pitcher from Karata§ settlement
of Philia material culture within Cyprus focused on Red deposit, from Eslick (2009: pi. 90e). Courtesy, Bryn Mawr College
Polished pottery (Dikaios 1961: 13-15), in particular on Excavations in Lycia.
a beak-spouted and handled pitcher form. These ele­
gant pitchers became one of the emblematic vessels of
Philia material culture, in part because they were origi­ European invasions across Anatolia. Various pottery
nally thought to have been quite different from anything types in Philia tomb assemblages were used to identify
observed in earlier periods in Cyprus, and also because either the arrival of splinter groups of these same waves
they find good comparanda with EB I-II Anatolian forms of Indo-Europeans, or of Anatolian migrants fleeing to
(Figure 8.2). Interpretations drew on Mellaart’s Indo- Cyprus from the disruptions caused by the Indo-European
142
THE ANATOLIAN CONTEXT OF PHILIA MATERIAL CULTURE IN CYPRUS
invaders (Frankel et al. 1996: 39). Similar kinds of migra­ Yumuktepe Levels XXIX-XXVI; Balossi 2004: 137-39).
tion scenarios continue to inform some interpretations of Similar techniques and surfaces are observed in Late
Philia material culture (Kouka 2009: 36). Chalcolithic assemblages from the southern (e.g. Kuru^ay
It was against the Indo-European narratives of the 1950s Levels 6-3; Duru 1996: 121) and southwestern regions (e.g.
and 1960s that the processual ideological struggle began in Beycesultan Levels XXXIX-XX; Lloyd and Mellaart 1962:
Cyprus. In critiquing migrations and related perspectives 71-103). In all regions across Anatolia, dark burnished
on ethnicity and material culture, archaeologists began and / or polished traditions continued into the EBA.
to interpret the Philia phenomenon as a local develop­ The innovations that distinguish EB I-II assemblages
ment and a result of stimulus diffusion (e.g. Knapp 1990; from earlier traditions include greater experimentation
Manning 1993). The Red Polished wares gained a new kind with forms and plastic decoration, an evocation of metal­
of significance - representing innovative drinking behav­ lic shapes and surfaces (Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 117) and
iour that was focused on the production and consumption unprecedented concern for the presentation and pour­
of alcohol (Manning 1993: 45; Webb and Frankel 2013: ing of liquids. The latter is manifested in a wide range of
62, 70). Alcohol consumption has been interpreted as one new pitcher forms, including those that inspired the Philia
way for groups to consolidate and convert agricultural pitchers (see Figure 8.2).
resources into a kind of social capital in contexts of hos­ Nevertheless, Mellink (1991: 173) first noted that Philia
pitality and conviviality, something purportedly learned pitchers are not exact replicates of known Anatolian forms.
through contact with Anatolian communities. Variations between Cypriot and Anatolian forms, however,
Pottery from subsequent excavations of settlements are comparable to variations between examples from dif­
with Philia material culture (Marki Alonia; Frankel and ferent EB I-II sites and regions across Anatolia (Figure 8.2)
Webb 2006: 90-104) and Late Chalcolithic settlements just (see also Efe 2003: fig. 5). Late Chalcolithic and Philia pot­
predating the Philia phenomenon (Kissonerga Mosphilia; tery traditions in Cyprus fit within a mosaic of broadly sim­
Bolger et al. 1998) have diminished both the Philia asso­ ilar albeit localised ceramic traditions that should include
ciation of ceramic innovations in Cyprus, and the utility western and southern Anatolia during EB I-II.
of linking the Philia ceramic repertoires to elite contexts Settlement contexts for the consumption of food and
of pottery use. Regarding the former, two fundamental drink are better illustrated in EB I-II Anatolian domestic
features of the proposed Anatolianising phenomenon in assemblages than in Philia ones. A glance at a few swiftly
Philia pottery have been argued to predate the Philia phase: destroyed buildings in western Anatolia shows these kinds
dark monochrome burnished surfaces and extravagantly of elaborated vessels in situ, together with a remarkable
spouted pouring forms (Bolger 2007: 173-75). The Late density and diversity of vessels related to the storage, prep­
Chalcolithic origin of these innovations in Cyprus chal­ aration and consumption of food, normally associated
lenges reconstructions of migrating Anatolians to explain with hearths (Figure 8.3).
the transfer of pottery technology in Philia material cul­ Hospitality that included the preparation and presenta­
ture (e.g. Frankel 2000; Webb and Frankel 2007: 200-201). tion of food and drink on a relatively large scale in elab­
An improved understanding of the contexts of pottery orated or otherwise attractive vessels was of premium
use in Philia settlements has also complicated the relation­ importance for EB I-II communities, and was likely
ship between Red Polished pottery and elite activities. Until related to increasingly robust grain storage strategies
recently, studies of Philia pottery have been necessarily con­ (see below) and commensurate investments of agricul­
fined to mortuary assemblages (e.g. pitchers, bottles and tural surplus. Perhaps this new concern for hospitality
bowls; Webb and Frankel 1999: 8-12). Subsequent settle­ also relates to an EB I-II horticultural innovation: the first
ment excavations at Marki have shown that no distinction cultivation of the grape vine. The earliest seeds of vitis
can be made between potentially elite activities of Philia vinifera in Anatolia have been preserved in EB I-II botani­
pottery use (e.g. a mortuary event) and day-to-day, non­ cal assemblages from Level XV at Beycesultan (Lloyd and
elite ones (Webb and Frankel 2007: 201). Mortuary events, Mellaart 1962: 45), and EB I-II levels at Kaman Kalehoyuk
however, appear to have been a focus for alcohol consump­ (Fairbairn 2002: 205).
tion rather than eating (Webb and Frankel 2008: 289).
Transition to EB III
Early Bronze I-II
Concern for hospitality culminated in EB III, manifest­
The high firing and monochrome dark burnish and polish ing itself in the homogenisation of ceramic tastes across
mat characterises Late Chalcolithic and Philia assemblages Anatolia that included the popularity of specific kinds of
in Cyprus has a long tradition in Anatolia beginning in the forms. EB III is marked by the rapid uptake of a wheel-
Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic (e.g. in Cilicia, Mersin- made, normally red-slipped repertoire dominated by
143
CHRISTOPH BACHHUBER
figure 8.3. Reconstruction of in situ pottery sealed in the destruction of an ЕВ I—II building at Beycesultan, after Lloyd and Mellaart
(1962: fig. 16). Courtesy, British Institute at Ankara.
plates, platters and one- and two-handled tankards - The Production, Exchange and
including the emblematic depas cup. This type of vessel
Consumption of Metal
is known from the Greek mainland and Thrace across
the length of Anatolia to the upper Euphrates. The red- Philia Significance
slipped ware assemblages excavated from the citadels of
Troy II—III, Levels 12-11 at Kiiltepe in Cappadocia and EB Metallurgical innovations are a fundamental aspect of the
III Tarsus in Cilicia are notable examples (e.g. Ozgiig 1986; newness of Philia material culture. Tomb assemblages
Mellink 1989). The late ЕВ I—II origins of this repertoire of early excavations on Prehistoric Bronze Age (PreBA)
have been placed convincingly in the region of Eski^ehir Cypriot sites revealed unprecedented volumes of metal
(Efe and Ilasli 1997; this region is highlighted as a rectangle deposited in burials (mostly from northern Cyprus), in a
in Figure 8.1a, above). wide range of new forms of purportedly Anatolian inspi­
The large diameters of the platters and the double han­ ration - including toggle pins, spiral ‘earrings’, and blades
dles of tankards are both EB III pottery innovations and with a raised mid-rib (for an overview of objects, see Webb
may point to a greater emphasis on sharing table wares and Frankel 1999: 31-33; 2007: 199; for recent discussion
in feasting contexts (e.g. double handles would have facil­ of production and use of metal objects throughout the
itated passing the goblet; large plates would have been PreBA of Cyprus, see Knapp 2008: 74-87; 2013: 298-303).
shared at the table; Eslick 2009: 234-45). Greater formal­ Several spiral ‘earrings’ from tomb assemblages at Sotira
ity might also be observed in the intentional deposition of Kaminoudhia, as well as three Philia tin-bronze objects
the red-slipped repertoire in Troy II contexts (Bachhuber likely to have come from Vasilia, represent the earliest tin-
2009: 2-6), with objects like celts, toggle pins, metal ves­ bronze objects in Cyprus (Swiny 2003: 376-90; Webb et al.
sels and carbonised faunal and organic matter. The most 2006).
striking disconnection between the third millennium BC Focus on the production, exchange and consumption of
in Cyprus and the Anatolian peninsula is the total absence metal has opened additional approaches to understanding
of any representative pottery form from the EB III reper­ the Philia phenomenon and its relationship with Anatolia.
toire (Mellink 1991: 173). By the middle of the third millennium BC, communi­
ties in Cyprus were engaging with metal in innovative
ways. Settlements like Marki were founded in previously
144
THE ANATOLIAN CONTEXT OF PHILIA MATERIAL CULTURE IN CYPRUS
uninhabited areas of the Troodos foothills, reasonably Early Bronze I-II
close to copper ores. The new concern to mobilise finished
In the past two decades, research on metallurgical produc­
metal may be glimpsed in the axe / ingot mould identified
tion has eclipsed typological studies of metal objects in the
in the earliest Philia settlement at Marki, which finds good
archaeology of EBA Anatolia. The most evocative metal­
comparanda in metal objects from Philia tomb assem­
lurgical research to date focuses on the EB I-II Kestel mine
blages (Frankel and Webb 2001: 35-36; 2006: 216-17).
and its associated mining settlement of Goltepe, 2 km dis­
Intensifying production and exchange of metal was
tant in the central Taurus north of Cilicia (Figure 8.1a).
both a cause and effect of increasing social complexity on
In its earliest phases (IV—III), Goltepe was architecturally
Cyprus. For example, Keswani (2005: 391) has suggested
insubstantial, with wattle and daub superstructures cov­
that a relationship emerged between inland settlements
ering ovoid floors cut into bedrock (Yener 1994: 33). The
such as Marki that mined metal, and communities in
floors of all these structures were littered with industrial
regions such as the north coast of Cyprus that benefited
metallurgical debris, including clear evidence for a work­
from its display and consumption, e.g. in the large, Philia-
shop in one of the structures with a stone-covered cruci­
phase cemetery at Vasilia. The competitive desire to
ble, ground-stone ore crushers and kilos of ore powder
deposit or otherwise destroy metal in mortuary displays in
and ore nodules. Additional structures were littered with
these northern coastal communities may have been a cru­
moulds (including a mould for bar-shaped ingots; Yener and
cial stimulus for the production of metal from the Troodos
Vandiver 1993: 221), crucible fragments and ore powder.
sources. The public consumption of metallurgical wealth
In Phase II, Goltepe underwent an architectural trans­
in extramural cemeteries is also a salient feature of ЕВ I—II
formation, although industrial activities continued.
societies across western and southern Anatolia (see below),
Construction was on a larger and more permanent scale,
a factor that joins the north of Cyprus and these regions
with stone foundation buildings similar to a megaron in
in a meaningful koine where status and resources such as
form, terracing to accommodate the expansion of the set­
metal were negotiated during public events in extramural
tlement and the construction of the larger buildings, and
cemeteries.
the erection of an enclosure wall with a gated entrance
The koine requires an explanation, particularly in light
leading onto a street through the settlement (Yener 1994:
of innovations on Cyprus. One approach explores the rela­
34-36). The floors of the buildings were scattered with
tionship between metallurgy and the movement of popu­
mortars and grinders, kilos of powdered ore and crucible
lations to Cyprus. By the middle of the third millennium
fragments. A lead ingot and silver-tin alloyed beads were
BC, Cyprus was probably incorporated in a network of
also recovered from the floors (Yener 1994: 34).
(seaborne) metal circulation with Anatolia, the Aegean
The material investment in the settlement during Phase
and perhaps the Levant (§ahoglu 2005; Webb et al. 2006).
II was likely related to the increased demand for metal in a
From this perspective, information flows between Cyprus
period of intensifying inter-regional communication, vis­
and Anatolia are thought to have been established initially
ible in the identification of Syrian-inspired bottle forms
by Anatolian agents who visited Cyprus to procure cop­
(Yener 1995:180, pi. ЗА), and in the ingot and ingot moulds
per (Mellink 1991: 173; Webb and Frankel 2007: 198; cf.
noted above. The construction of the enclosure wall is the
Knapp 2013: 271-72), followed by a 'leapfrogging' of eth­
most striking architectural feature of Phase II, intimating
nically distinct Anatolian migrants to Cyprus along these
concerns with restriction and perhaps defense in this iso­
paths of information and metals’ flow (Frankel et al. 1996:
lated mining community. Perhaps the monumentality is
49). The initial communication of Anatolianising ceramic
related to a more economically and politically dependent
technology to Cyprus during the Late Chalcolithic (early
relationship between Goltepe/Kestel and an emerging EB
ЕВ I—II Anatolia; see above, Table 8.1) might be explained
I-II regional centre, such as neighbouring ЕВ II Tarsus,
by these intermittent contacts (Peltenburg 2007). Such a
which has revealed so many pottery comparanda with
reconstruction also moves the impetus for migration away
Goltepe (see above, Figure 8.1a) (Yener and Vandiver 1993:
from the cultural-historical events caused by invasions of
216-22). Goltepe and Kestel were abandoned in the tran­
Indo-Europeans towards a more socially oriented develop­
sition to EB III. ЕВ II Tarsus was also violently destroyed,
ment related to the exploitation of metal. Metal prospec-
and rebuilt in EB III, when its pottery repertoire was domi­
tion is nevertheless debatable as an initial impetus for visits
nated by the wheelmade, red-slipped types discussed above
to Cyprus, not least because the tectonic landscapes of
(Goldman 1956: 61).
Anatolia are filled with copper ores (as well as silver and
The existence of a specialised mining community at EB
gold ores; de Jesus 1980). Metal flow between Anatolia and
I-II Goltepe/Kestel may highlight regional production
Cyprus was probably more of an effect than a cause of
hierarchies in and around Cilicia. For example, no slag
social change (see further below).
145
CHRISTOPH BACHHUBER
and not a single crucible or mould was identified at ЕВ I—II The new emphasis on metal during ЕВ I—II Anatolia
Tarsus. This accords with Yal^m’s (2000: 26) suggestion speaks to increased metal circulation in this period. Another
that regional production centres emerged in the EBA. This ЕВ I—II innovation facilitated metal flow: standardised ingot
situation can be distinguished from production during the forms. A lead ingot and ingot moulds have been identified
Chalcolithic, when ores were transported over distances at Goltepe (as above), and ingot moulds have been recov­
and worked in settlements. During the EBA, it would ered from Liman Tepe (Erkanal 2008a: 180), Bakla Tepe
seem that ores were smelted at sites such as Goltepe, and (Erkanal 2008b: 168) and Cukiri^i Hoyiik (Horejs 2009:
metal was circulated to consumers in a more finished 364-65). A related innovation of the ЕВ I—II period involves
ingot form. the earliest use of metrological devices, including pan bal­
This neat picture is complicated by additional evidence ance weights (Cukiri^i Hoyiik - Horejs 2009: 365-66; Troy
for metallurgical production in western Anatolia. The I - Bobokyan 2009: 29) and balance beams (Troy I, ЕВ II
identification of slag, for example, in contexts with cru­ Kiilliioba and Boziiyiik - Rahmstorf 2006). Beginning in
cibles and/or moulds at ЕВ I—II Limantepe (Erkanal 2008a: ЕВ I—II, finished metal circulated in standardised ingot
180), Bakla Tepe (Erkanal 2008b: 168), Qukuriip Hoyiik forms and was being weighed and exchanged with increas­
(Horejs 2009) and EB III Troy (Miiller-Karpe 1994: 46-49) ingly standardised values (for metrology, see Rahmstorf
illustrates initial stages of metallurgical production in 2006; Bobokhyan 2009). Metal objects had thus acquired
settlements that were not directly associated with mining. new significance as objects for display. This is also illus­
Whether or not divergent production strategies and hier­ trated in the large volumes of metal consumed in ЕВ I—II
archies existed between the regions of Cilicia and western mortuary contexts in southern and western Anatolia, such
Anatolia is difficult to discern until better evidence for EBA as the Sariket Cemetery at Demircihoyuk to the far north
mining and mining communities is identified in the west of western Anatolia (see above, Figure 8.1a) (Seeher 2000),
(see Pernicka et al. 2003 for surveys in western Anatolia or in the cemeteries at Karata§ to the far south (Bordaz
that have located EBA mining activities but no specialised 1978).
mining settlements). The Sariket cemetery was founded late in the EB 1-І I
During ЕВ I—II, societies across Anatolia were experi­ settlement at Demircihoyuk (Phase K, see Table 8.1,
menting with ‘polymetallicism and polychromatic effects' above), and raises one of two possibilities. Either the
(Yener 2000: 68). The least innovative alloys during EB Demircihoyuk community used different cemeteries in
I-II were copper-arsenic ones that regularly appear in the the earlier phases that have yet to be identified, or this
fourth millennium (e.g. Begmann et al. 1994). Copper- mortuary behaviour was innovative to Demircihoyuk in
arsenic alloys are also the most frequent metal types in Phase K. If the Sariket cemetery was indeed innovative,
the assemblages of EBA Anatolia (de Jesus 1980: cat. A). it is worth considering a profound social reorientation in
Arsenic-alloyed copper was attractive both for its greater this community. Chapman (1990: 83-87) has addressed a
mechanical strength and for its silvery sheen when com­ similar problem in the earliest contexts of metal deposi­
pared with unalloyed copper (Yener 2000: 68). Arsenic tion in the eastern Balkans (fifth-millennium BC cemetery
often occurs in copper ores; whether arsenic was alloyed at Varna). He suggests that the earliest use and circula­
separately with copper, or was mined as a ready-made tion of gold and copper were potentially disruptive to the
alloy, is still debated (Begmann et al 1994: 204). egalitarian (village) societies living on tells. New oppor­
Tin began to be widely used as an alloy in Anatolia in tunities were created for social groups involved in the
ЕВ I—II;1 unlike arsenic, however, tin does not occur as production and exchange of copper and gold that could
a ready-made alloying agent in copper ores. It has also not be reconciled with daily life. A new arena - a mortu­
been observed that tin does not provide more mechani­ ary one - was created in the eastern Balkans for conspic­
cal strength or malleability to copper than arsenic (e.g. de uously consuming gold and copper in self-aggrandising
Jesus 1980: 58-59). The choice to alloy copper with tin had gestures of display.
other motivations, including colouring copper with dis­ Perhaps these new conceptions of wealth and power -
tinctive reddish to golden hues (Yener 2000: 68). Tin need rooted in the expansion of metallurgical, agricultural and
not have been imported from central Asia or some other pastoral industries - were disruptive to village societies like
distant place during this period. In addition to the trace ЕВ I—II Demircihoyuk (see below, and Figure 8.4), which
elements of cassiterite (a source of tin) identified in the EB then attempted to resolve these contradictions in the mor­
I—II Kestel mines and in crucibles from Goltepe (Yener and tuary arena of the Sariket cemetery, some 370 m distant
Vandiver 1993), sources of tin in Turkey have been identi­ from the settlement. The metallurgical wealth consumed
fied in geological prospection and described in historical in several contemporary and large extramural cemeteries in
accounts of tin mining in Turkey (de Jesus 1980: 51-56). ЕВ I—II western Anatolia, such as Karatag in Lycia (Bordaz
146
THE ANATOLIAN CONTEXT OF PHILIA MATERIAL CULTURE IN CYPRUS
FIGURE 8.4. Reconstruction of a later phase of the Demircihoyiik settlement, from Korfmann (1983: fig. 345). Courtesy, Deutsches
Archaologisches Institut, Istanbul.
1978), Gondiirle Hoyiikin the Lakes District (Ozsait 2003), behaviour and the kinds of objects deposited at Troy and
or Bakla Tepe near Izmir (Erkanal 2008b: 166-68) might be Alacahoyiik were unprecedented in western and central
similarly interpreted, as well as the extramural cemeteries Anatolia. Extravagant investments of metal objects in EB
in contemporary northern Cyprus (noted above).The sim­ III citadel contexts can also be observed at Eskiyapar near
ilarities in mortuary behaviour between the two regions Alacahoyiik (Ozgiit) and Temizer 1993) and at Poliochni in
are not fortuitous, and I offer an interpretation of them the northeast Aegean (Bernabo-Brea 1964: 284-92).
below. The elaboration of metal objects in EB III assemblages
represents some of the most exquisitely crafted and semi-
otically potent metal forms from the Bronze Age in west­
Transition to EB III
ern Asia and the eastern Mediterranean. Decoration in
The best known sites from EBA Anatolia are also those repousse, filigree, granulation, joining through soldering
where the largest volumes of metal objects were discov­ and lost wax casting reached a pinnacle of sophistication
ered: the 'royal tombs’ at Period III Alacahoyiik and the in EB III (Yalcm 2000: 26; Yener 2000: 67-68). Innovative
treasure deposits on the Late Troy II—III citadel (EB III). alloying is another feature of these assemblages. Greater
Emergent elites chose to invest remarkable volumes of percentages of tin were invested in metal objects (Esin
metal objects and other valued materials in depositional 1969: 121-46), and there was freer experimentation with
contexts - one defined by a cemetery and attendant asso­ alloys and polychromatic effects. Metal objects from con­
ciations with ancestors (Alacahoyiik - Bachhuber 2011), texts such as the late Troy II—III treasures and a hoard at
and the other by an ideologically charged citadel context Mahmatlar in north central Anatolia include zinc and sil­
(Troy - Bachhuber 2009). The negotiation of both sta­ ver alloys (Yener 2000: 68). Metal objects from mortuary
tus and resources through the conspicuous deposition/ assemblages at Resuloglu in north central Anatolia include
destruction of metallurgical wealth in cemeteries was alloys of three metals (silver, copper and gold) and silver
already widely practiced during ЕВ I—II, but the scale of this and copper (Zimmermann and Yildinm 2008), the latter
147