Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:04:26.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prehistoric ceramic assemblage from Horum Höyük

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Alexandra Fletcher
Alexandra Fletcher
Affiliation:
The British Museum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The site of Horum Höyük is located on the Euphrates, near the modern town of Nizip. It was excavated in advance of the flooding caused by the Birecek dam. The prehistoric ceramic assemblage contains stylistic elements that relate to the Halaf, northern Ubaid and earliest Late Chalcolithic periods. Studies of the Late Chalcolithic in the region of the Syro-Turkish border have tended to take a Mesopotamia-centric focus, as characterised by the so-called Uruk Expansion. Recently, however, research has begun to examine Syro-Anatolia as a discrete entity. The precise chronology for the Late Chalcolithic period remains an issue of discussion. The main source of chronological evidence in the region is the pottery from the Amuq sequence, which exhibits a hiatus in the crucial Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic phases (E–F). Most of the prehistoric assemblage at Horum Höyük falls within this period and therefore has the potential to contribute to the debate. Three issues will therefore be addressed, namely, the chronological relationship between ceramic ware types, Horum Höyük's regional stylistic relations and the pottery assemblage's overall chronological position.

Özet

Horum Höyük, Fırat nehri üzerinde, bugünkü Nizip kasabası yakınlarındadır ve Birecik Barajının suları altında kalmadan önce kazılmıştır. Buradan ele geçen prehistorik dönem keramik buluntuları, Halaf, Kuzey Ubeid ve Geç Kalkolitik dönemin en erken evrelerine ait keramiklerle üslup bakımından benzer özellikler gösterirler. Suriye-Türkiye sınır hattında yürütülen Kalkolitik dönem araştırmaları, durumu Uruk Yayılımı ile karakterize edilen, Mezoptamya merkezli bir bakış açısı ile değerlendirilme eğilimindedir. Fakat yakın zaman önce Suriye-Anadolu'yu ayrı bir bütünlük içinde ele alan bir araştırma başlamıştır. Geç Kalkolitik dönem kronolojisindeki kesinlik hala tartışma konusudur. Bölge kronolojisi için başlıca kaynak, Ubeid ve Geç. Kalkolitik (E–F) evreleri arasında kesintiye uğramış olan Amuk keramik dizisidir. Horum Höyük'te bulunan prehistorik keramik buluntularının büyük çoğunluğu bu döneme aittir ve bu nedenle de süregelen tartışmalara katkıda bulunması olasıdır. Bu bağlamda burada üç noktaya değinilecektir; mal grupları arasındaki kronolojik ilişki, Horum Höyük'le bölge arasındaki üslup ilişkileri ve keramik buluntularının bir bütün olarak kronolojik durumu.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 57 , December 2007 , pp. 191 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2007

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

Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1988: ‘An updated chronology for the northern Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic periods in Syria: new evidence from Tell Hammam et-Turkman’ Iraq 50: 109–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1988a: ‘The period IV pottery’ in Van Loon, M.N. (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I. Report of the University of Amsterdam's Excavations in Syria I. Istanbul: 181–285Google Scholar
Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1988b: ‘The period V pottery’ in Van Loon, M.N. (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I. Report of the University of Amsterdam's Excavations in Syria I. Istanbul: 287–349Google Scholar
Algaze, G. 1990: ‘Chapter 6. Period VIII: Middle–Late Halaf’ in Algaze, G. (ed.), Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia Volume II: The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Chicago: 219–34Google Scholar
Algaze, G. 1990a: ‘Chapter 8. Period VI: Late Chalcolithic’ in Algaze, G. (ed.), Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia Volume II: The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Chicago: 243–80Google Scholar
Algaze, G. 1993: The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Balossi, F. in press: ‘Post-Ubaid occupation on the upper Euphrates: Late Chalcolithic 1–2 at Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey)’. Paper delivered at the Fourth International Congress of the Ancient Near East 28 March – 3 April 2004, BerlinGoogle Scholar
Bernbeck, R., Pollock, S., Coursey, C. 1999: ‘The Halaf settlement at Kazane Höyük. Preliminary report on the 1996 and 1997 seasons’ Anatolica 25: 109–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidwood, R.J., Braidwood, L.S. 1960: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Contenson, H. de 1992: Préhistoire de Ras Shamra I–II Texte, Figures et Planches. ParisGoogle Scholar
Cruells, W. 1998: ‘The Halaf levels of Tell Amarna (Syria) first preliminary report’ Akkadica 106: 1–21Google Scholar
Cruells, W. 2004: ‘The pottery’ in Tunca, Ö., Molist, M. (eds), Tell Amarna (Syrie) I La Période de Halaf. Leuven: 41–199Google Scholar
Esin, U. 1972: ‘Tepecik Excavations, 1970’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1970 Activities. Ankara: 149–58Google Scholar
Esin, U. 1976: ‘Tülintepe excavations, 1972’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1972 Activities. Ankara: 147–63Google Scholar
Esin, U., Arsebük, G. 1982: ‘Tülintepe excavations, 1974’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1974–1975 Activities. Ankara: 127–33Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 1993: ‘Local components in the development of centralised societies in Syro-Anatolian regions’ in Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P., Mellink, M. (eds), Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata. Rome: 133–61Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 1998: ‘Changes in upper Mesopotamia/Anatolian relations at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC’ Subartu 4/1: 195–218Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 2000: ‘The Late Chalcolithic/EB I sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and cultural remarks from a frontier site’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 439–71Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 2001: ‘Centralization processes in greater Mesopotamia. Uruk “Expansion” as the climax of systematic interactions among areas of the greater Mesopotamian region’ in Rothman, M.S. (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors. Santa Fe: 307–47Google Scholar
Frangipane, M. 2002: ‘Non-Uruk developments and Uruk-linked features’ in Postgate, N. (ed.), Artefacts of Complexity. Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Warminster: 123–48Google Scholar
Frangipane, M., Marro, C. 2000: ‘Concluding remarks’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 503–08Google Scholar
French, D. 1972: ‘Aşvan excavations, 1970’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1970 Activities. Ankara: 57–62Google Scholar
French, D. 1985: ‘Mersin and Tell esh-Sheikh’ in Liverani, M., Palmieri, A., Peroni, A. (eds), Studi di Paletnologia in onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi. Rome: 265–68Google Scholar
French, D. 1990: ‘Gaziantep ve Hatay Müzelerinde Bulunan Sakçagözü ve Tell esh-Sheikh Kazıları Malzemesi’ Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 7: 435–41Google Scholar
French, D. et al. , 1974: ‘Aşvan excavations 1971’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1971 Activities. Ankara: 43–58Google Scholar
Garstang, J., Pythian-Adams, W.J., Seton-Williams, V. 1937: ‘Third report on the excavations at Sakje-Geuzi, 1908–1911’ Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 24/3–4: 119–40Google Scholar
Giannessi, D. 2000: ‘Area E: I livelli del tardo Calcolitico’ in Mazzoni, S., Gianessi, D., Felli, C., Venturi, F., Ceccini, S.M., Affanni, G., Canuti, O., Magazzù, G., Pucci, M., Oggiano, I., D'Amore, P., Merluzzi, E., de Gregorio, C., Wilkens, B., Boschian, G. (eds), Tell Afis (Siria) 1999. Pisa: 10–12Google Scholar
Giannessi, D. 2002: ‘Tell Afis: the Late Chalcolithic painted ware’ Levant 34: 83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gülçur, S. 2000: ‘Norşuntepe: Die Chalkolithische Keramik (Elaziğ/Ostanatolien)’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 375–418Google Scholar
Gustavson-Gaube, C. 1981: ‘Shams ed-Din Tannira: the Halafian pottery of area A’ Berytus 29: 9–182Google Scholar
Hammade, H., Koike, Y. 1992: ‘Syrian archaeological expedition in the Tishreen Dam basin, excavations at Tell al-'Abr 1990 and 1991’ Damaszener Mitteilungen Band 6: 109–75Google Scholar
Hammade, H., Yamazaki, Y. 2006: Tell Al-'Abr (Syria) Ubaid and Uruk periods. Leuven, Paris, Dudley (MA)Google Scholar
Hauptmann, H. 1972: ‘Die Graubungen auf dem Norşuntepe 1970’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1970 Activities. Ankara: 103–17Google Scholar
Hauptmann, H. 1976: ‘Die Graubungen auf dem Norşun-tepe 1972’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1972 Activities. Ankara: 71–90Google Scholar
Hauptmann, H. 1979: ‘Die Graubungen auf dem Norşun-tepe 1973’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1973 Activities. Ankara: 61–78Google Scholar
Hauptmann, H. 1982: ‘Die Graubungen auf dem Norşun-tepe 1974’ in Pekman, S. (ed.), Keban Project 1974–1975 Activities. Ankara: 41–70Google Scholar
Hauptmann, H. 2000: ‘Zur Chronologie des 3 Jahrtausends V. Chr. Am Oberen Euphrat Aufgrund der Straigraphie des Norşuntepe’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 419–38Google Scholar
Helwing, B. 2000: ‘Regional variation in the composition of Late Chalcolithic pottery assemblages’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 145–64Google Scholar
Helwing, B. 2002: Hassek Höyük II. Die Spätchalolithische Keramik (Istanbuler Forschungen, Band 45). TübingenGoogle Scholar
Hood, S. 1951: ‘Excavations at Tabara el Akrad 1948–1949’ Anatolian Studies 1: 113–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irving, A. 2001: A Contextual Study of Ceramic Evidence for Social Relations and Change During the Halaf-Ubaid Transition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
Marro, C. 2000: ‘Vers une chronologie compare des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millénaires’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 473–94Google Scholar
Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds) 2000: Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de L'Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millenaires. IstanbulGoogle Scholar
Marro, C., Tibet, A., Ergeç, R. 1997: ‘Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük. Premier rapport préliminaire’ Anatolia Antiqua 5: 371–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marro, C., Tibet, A., Ergeç, R. 1998: ‘Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük (Province de Gaziantep): Deuxième rapport préliminaire’ Anatolia Antiqua 6: 349–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marro, C., Tibet, A., Ergeç, R. 1999: ‘Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük (Province de Gaziantep): Troisième rapport préliminaire’ Anatolia Antiqua 7: 285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marro, C., Tibet, A., Bulgan, F. 2000: ‘Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük (Province de Gaziantep): Quatrième rapport préliminaire’ Anatolia Antiqua 8: 257–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzoni, S. 1998: ‘Materials and chronology. Area E, Late Chalcolitic, Early, Middle and Late Bronze I Ages’ in Cecchini, S., Mazzoni, S. (eds), Tell Afis (Siria) The 1998–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis. Pisa: 9–100Google Scholar
Mazzoni, S. 2000: ‘From the Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I in northwest Syria: Anatolian contact and regional perspective’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth-IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 97–109Google Scholar
Mellink, M.J. 1956: ‘Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery’ in Goldman, H. (ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Princeton: 65–91Google Scholar
Niemeier, W.-D., Greaves, A.M., Selesnow, W. 1999: ‘Die Zierde Ioniens’: Ein archaischer Brunnen, der jüngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstorung’ Archäologischer Anzeiger 1999: 373–413Google Scholar
Oates, J. 1993: ‘Trade and power in the fifth and fourth millennia BC: new evidence from northern Mesopotamia’ Ancient Trade: New Perspectives. World Archaeology 24/3: 403–22Google Scholar
Özgen, E., Helwing, B., Engin, A., Niewenhuyse, O., Spoor, R. 1999: ‘Oylum Höyük 1997–1998 Die Spätchalkolithische Siedlung auf der Westterrasse’ Anatolia Antiqua 7: 19–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. 2000: ‘The Late Chalcolithic sequence at Hacınebi Tepe, Turkey’ in Marro, C., Hauptmann, H. (eds), From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the IVth–IIIrd Millennium BC. Istanbul: 115–43Google Scholar
Plat-Taylor, J. du, Seaton Williams, M.V., Waechter, J. 1950: ‘The excavations at Sakce Gözü’ Iraq 12: 53–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, M.S. 2001: Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors. Santa FeGoogle Scholar
Thuesen, I. 1988: Hama Fouilles et Récherches 1931–1938 I. The Pre- and Proto-historic Periods. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
Thissen, L.C. 1985: ‘Pottery from Hayaz Höyük’ Anatolica 12: 75–130Google Scholar
Trufelli, F. 1994: ‘Standardisation, mass production and potters’ marks in the Late Chalcolithic pottery of Arslantepe (Malatya)’ Origini 18: 245–88Google Scholar
Trufelli, F. 1997: ‘Ceramic correlations and cultural relations in IVth millennium eastern Anatolia and Syro-Mesopotamia’ Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 39/1: 5–33Google Scholar
Whallon, R., Wright, H.T. 1970: ‘Fatmalı-Kalecik excavations preliminary report’ in Acaroğlu, I. (ed.), Keban Project 1968 Activities. Ankara: 67–71Google Scholar
Wickede, A. von 1984: ‘Bericht über die survey auf dem Çavi Tarlası 1982’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34: 112–33Google Scholar
Wickede, A. von, Herbordt, S. 1988: ‘Çavi Tarlası Bericht über die Ausgrabungskampagnen 1983–1984’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38: 5–35Google Scholar
Woolley, C.L. 1955: Alalakh. An Account of the Exacavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay 1937–1949 (Report of the Research Committees of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). OxfordGoogle Scholar