Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T08:36:16.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Second Millennium Chronology of Beycesultan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

James Mellaart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although Beycesultan III; the Late Bronze Age is in the course of preparation, it would appear from a number of reviews of Beycesultan II, London, 1965, that some of our colleagues still maintain the erroneous view that Beycesultan was uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age. It is the purpose of this article to show that this view is not supported by the evidence; on the contrary Beycesultan has a rich and well stratified sequence of Late Bronze Age building-levels (III–IA), that run parallel to the Hittite New Kingdom deposits of Central Anatolia.

In the absence of epigraphic material or radiocarbon dates, the dating evidence from Beycesultan consists primarily of a stratified pottery sequence, for which occasional typological parallels can be found at other sites in Anatolia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 20 , December 1970 , pp. 55 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mellink, Machteld in BiOr, XXIV, nos. 1–2, 1967, pp. 3–9Google Scholar; Canby, Jeanny Voris in A.J.A., 70, 1966, 379–80Google Scholar, cf. also Mellink, Machteld in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (edited by Ehrich, R. W.), Chicago, 1965, pp. 120, 122Google Scholar; Hachmann, R. in Fischer, F., WVDOG, 75, Berlin, 1963, p. 88Google Scholar, note 79 (on the Early Hittite character of the pottery of Beycesultan II), and F. Fischer, ibid., pp. 88–9.

2 “One hopes (and suspects) that his (i.e. Mellaart's) rejection of the chronological significance of ceramic similarities (Beycesultan, II, p. 71Google Scholar) is merely an emergency thesis maintained to protect his L.B.A. date for Levels III–II, which appear M. B. to most observers” (MrsCanby, in A.J.A., 70, 1966, 379Google Scholar). I quote this as a sample of premature criticism. Dating in archaeology is based on evidence, not on majority decisions.

3 The coarse ware platters, tall-necked jugs, bottles, etc., which have Büyükkale III (c. 1265–1200 B.C.) parallels date Beycesultan I, not the bathtubs that have Kültepe I B parallels, or the seals of similar type, see Chronologies, p. 120.

4 How can Beycesultan I be dated to the M.B.A., when Beycesultan III contains a well-stratified Mycenaean III B sherd? cf. Chronologies, p. 120.

5 Lamb, W. in Archaeologia, 86 and 87, 1936, 1937Google Scholar, Chronologies, p. 122, where we read under L.B.A., “in the west, Kusura does not continue”. Yet Kusura “C” includes Beycesultan III, II and I pottery, as anyone can see. Miss W. Lamb had no doubts about period “C” covering the entire second millennium, and not only the M.B.A. The Beycesultan excavations have clearly proved her right.

6 WVDOG, 75, p. 88Google Scholar, note 79. One does not sweep unwelcome evidence under the carpet in archaeology. If Mr. Hachmann had bothered to write to the excavators of Beycesultan, his problem could have been solved in a less discourteous way.

7 A.J.A., 70, 1966Google Scholar, “M.'s technical discussion seems rather inexact, the terms slip and wash being used interchangeably”.

8 BiOr, XXIV, 1967, p. 9Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 9.

10 Chronologies, p. 122.

11 A.J.A., 70, 1966, pp. 276–77Google Scholar.

12 Ist. Mitt., 16, 1966, 51, 52Google Scholar.

13 Justly criticized in BiOr and A.J.A., op. cit.

14 Özgüç, N., Seals and Seal Impressions of Level 1B from Karum Kanish, Ankara, 1968, p. 61Google Scholar.

15 A.J.A., 70, 1966, 380Google Scholar.

16 Koşay, H. Z., Alaca Höyük, 1940–1948 Kazısı, Ankara, 1966Google Scholar. Abbreviated Alaca, 1966.

17 While she admits that M.B.A. “palace ware” occurs in the form of “Kultnäpfchen” in the Miletus transitional level of c. 1600 B.C., roughly her division between M.B.A. and L.B.A., she would nevertheless have to admit that not less than four main building-levels (Beycesultan III–I A) follow this Beycesultan “Middle Bronze Age”, extending therefore presumably into the following Late Bronze Age. Yet, in her chapter in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago, 1965, p. 122Google Scholar, she states that “the L.B. occupation of Beycesultan may at least be considered questionable and incomplete”. No reasons are given for this ex cathedra statement, except that on p. 120, after having erroneously dated the heterogeneous assemblage called “Kusura C” to the Middle Bronze Age, she concludes that “In spite of the geographical distance between Beycesultan and the Central Anatolian sites, it would seem unlikely that MB age pottery types continued to be made in the Beycesultan region to the end of LB”.