An Overview of the Western Anatolian Early Bronze Age

30 Pages·2016·1.16 MB·English

by  Fidan E.

EuropeanJournalofArchaeology18(1)2015,60–89
An Overview of the Western Anatolian
Early Bronze Age
ERKAN FIDAN, DENIZ SARI AND MURAT TÜRKTEKI
Department of Archaeology, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Turkey
For a long time, assessments and evaluations of the western Anatolian Early Bronze Age (EBA) have
only been based on the excavation results of Tarsus, Karatas-̧ Semayük, Beycesultan, Demircihüyük, and
Troy. However, excavations and surface surveys carried out in the last two decades have increased our
knowledge enormously. In particular, the excavations of Liman Tepe, Küllüoba, and Seyitömer have
made an immense contribution to the establishment of a reliable West Anatolian EBA chronology. The
surface surveys have also made it possible to define better the borders of the cultural areas and pottery
zones of the region. Based on these new data, new theories are presented here on the cultural and
socio-political development of the region, as well as on regional and inter-regional relationships during
theEBA.
Keywords: westernAnatolia,EarlyBronzeAge,Küllüoba,BithynianandPhrygianculturalregions
RESEARCH HISTORY excavations, this period was divided into
three phases: EBA I, II, and III, and for
This paper offers an overview of the the first time, these periods were com-
western Anatolian Early Bronze Age in pared with the chronology of
light of research carried out in recent Mesopotamia (Goldmann, 1956). Mellaart
years. Although Central Anatolia was a later adapted this periodization to the
culturally integral part of western Anatolia Beycesultan EBA stratigraphy (Figure 1;
in this period, the results of current inves- Mellaart, 1954: 189).
tigations carried out there have not yet After the first excavations at Demirci-
been sufficiently published, and are there- höyük, Bittel (1942) wrote, for the first
fore not considered here. time, of different cultural groups and their
The first scientific excavations in distribution areas, providing a general
western Anatolia were carried out between assessment of the Anatolian EBA. In
1930 and 1960; these were the first connection with this interpretation,
important steps towards determining the Goetze (1957: 20) stressed that a cultural
characteristics of the region’s prehistory. entity of its own existed in Anatolia by
The term Early Bronze Age (EBA) in comparing Anatolian cultures with those
relation to the excavations of Troy II was of the eastern Mediterranean. Goetze also
first used by Blegen (Blegen et al., 1950: differentiated certain subgroups with some
22). After the Tarsus-Gözlükule local differences within this unity. In the
©EuropeanAssociationofArchaeologists2015 DOI10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000070
Manuscriptreceived23February2014,
accepted20June2014,revised9May2014
Fidanetal.–AnOverviewoftheWesternAnatolianEarlyBronzeAge 61
Figure1. Sitesmentionedinthetext.
1960s, Mellaart and French provided (Korfmann, 1983) and ‘Great Caravan
important clues, particularly in terms of Route’ (Efe, 2002), were also put forward
EBA pottery groups and their distribution regarding general settlement patterns and
areas in the light of surface surveys carried trade relations between western Anatolia
out in a vast geographical area of western and Mesopotamia. With the third round
Anatolia (Lloyd & Mellaart, 1962; of Trojan excavations, Korfmann also
French, 1969b). With the Karatas-̧ introduced the definition of the ‘Maritime
Semayük excavations, Mellink also made Culture of Troy I–III’, based on the distri-
some important contributions to the bution area of the Trojan EBA pottery
interpretation of the western Anatolian (Korfmann, 1997, 1998). The excavations
EBA and to providing answers to existing at Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe (Figure 1)
questions (Mellink, 1989, 1992). not only provided firm data on the
The second Demircihöyük excavations relations between the Aegean coastline of
took place between 1975 and 1978 and Anatolia, the Aegean islands, and main-
provided a clear stratigraphic sequence for land Greece, but also gave important
the first half of the EBA (EBA I–II) in information on early metalworking in the
northwestern Anatolia for the first time. Aegean coastal areas of western Anatolia
Thanks to these excavations, important (Kaptan, 1998a, 1998b; Şahoğlu, 2008).
steps were taken towards determining the With the aim of filling the gaps in the
positions of the ceramic groups of the stratigraphy of Demircihöyük, and thus in
region in the chronology. New theories, the EBA chronology of the region, Efe
such as the ‘Anatolian Settlement Plan’ later carried out a surface survey between
62 EuropeanJournalofArchaeology18(1)2015
the years 1988 and 1995 in the area such as figurines and idols, as well as
encompassing today’s provinces of certain architectural traditions. They
Kütahya, Bilecik, and Eskisȩ hir. Right might demonstrate the influential areas of
after this project, in 1996, he began exca- certain political entities that eventually
vations at Küllüoba near Seyitgazi. Here, developed into the mighty kingdoms of
the ‘Transitional Period into the Early the EB III period of western Anatolia. It
Bronze Age’ and ‘Early Bronze Age III’, is most likely that these kingdoms are pre-
which are not represented in the Demirci- decessors of the Luwic lands of the second
höyük stratigraphy, were stratigraphically millennium mentioned in the Hittite texts
revealed, thus providing an uninterrupted (Sarı, 2013b).
and reliable EBA chronology for the
region. Furthermore, new clues to support
the theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’ GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WESTERN
were obtained (Efe & Ay Efe, 2000; Efe, ANATOLIA BEFORE THE EARLY
2007; Türkteki, 2012). BRONZE AGE
New excavations and surface surveys
carried out in western Anatolia in recent Architecture
years have enabled us to make new assess-
ments, particularly regarding the cultural Western Anatolian architecture in the
regions and pottery zones of the region, Late Neolithic reveals some regional
and also to establish more precisely their differences (Bittel, 1971; Özdoğan, 1979;
distribution areas. The most important of Roodenberg, 1999, 2008; Duru, 2008;
these were the surface survey projects Çilingiroğlu et al., 2012; Sağlamtimur &
carried out in the provinces of Manisa Ozan, 2012: 228–34). Of the settlements
(Akdeniz, 2009, 2010), Denizli (Abay & within the distribution area of the Fikir-
Dedeoğlu, 2005, 2007; Dedeoğlu, 2008), tepe Culture, which covers the area
and Afyon (Koçak & Bilgin, 2005). After stretching from the eastern Marmara
Bittel, Goetze, Mellaart, and French, Efe shores as far as the Sivrihisar range in the
provided a new interpretation of the EBA east, the type-site of Fikirtepe yielded
cultural regions in the Anatolian peninsula round huts with sunken floors, while
in the light of recent investigations. single-roomed rectangular houses were
According to Efe (2003b: 89), in the first uncovered at the settlements of Mentesȩ
half of the third millennium bc (EBA and Ilıpınar. Ulucak, located in the
I-II) in western Anatolia, there existed Aegean coastal region, has structures
‘cultural regions’, the borders of which rectangular in plan on either side of
were mainly determined by pottery. streets, and round- and rectangular-shaped
Within each of these cultural regions there structures built around a courtyard. In the
were also closely related ‘local pottery Lakes District, groups of attached single-
zones’. Efe states that these may indirectly roomed houses with empty spaces
show us the influential areas of the in-between are attested in Hacılar VI. At
regional political powers (Efe, 2003b, Kuruçay, where more limited information
2004: 23–24). These EBA cultural regions is available regarding house plans, a defen-
and pottery groups do not always have sive wall with horseshoe-shaped towers
clear-cut boundaries; often buffer zones was uncovered. The architecture of the
existed on the borders. These borders have area in the Early Chalcolithic Period
been primarily determined by pottery and, evolves towards a radial plan consisting of
to a lesser degree, by some small finds, mud-brick houses surrounding a courtyard
Fidanetal.–AnOverviewoftheWesternAnatolianEarlyBronzeAge 63
(Mellaart, 1970: 88, 89; Cookson, 2008; period almost the whole of the Anatolian
Karul, 2009: 5, fig. 8). peninsula was dominated by dark-faced,
However, in the Middle Chalcolithic well-burnished pottery; black-burnished or
(from c. 5500 bc) the general settlement white-on-black painted pottery was par-
plan of the eastern Marmara region is ticularly characteristic (Lloyd & Mellaart,
made up of very simple, round-planned, 1962; French, 1969a; Schoop, 2005). Due
independent huts. This contradicts the to insufficient research, it is not possible
natural development of the local architec- to drawany concrete conclusionsregarding
ture and therefore can be considered as a whether the cultural boundaries of the
turning point in architecture. Excavations Neolithic were preserved in the Late Chal-
of Late Chalcolithic sites in the region colithic. However, from the final quarter
have been limited. Kuruçay, excavated of the fourth millennium bc onwards, the
horizontally in large areas, yielded one or EBA cultural regions, the distribution
two-roomed houses surrounded by open areas of which more-or-less correspond to
areas and streets (Duru, 2006). Kuruçay is the pottery-based cultural groups of the
so far the only site that gives information previous Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic
about the general characteristics of archi- periods, began to form. Efe (2007: 252)
tecture of this period. This situation claims that the same cultural boundaries
makes it difficult to determine the may have been preserved in the intermedi-
relationship between the architectures of ary Middle and Late Chalcolithic periods
the Late Chalcolithic and EBA in western about which we so far know very little.
Anatolia.
Metal
Pottery
Anatolia played an important role in the
The oldest known cultures established in emergence and development of metal-
western Anatolia, described mainly working. According to the current state of
according to the pottery characteristics, research, the oldest metal artefacts in the
began to take shape towards the end of world were produced in Anatolia. They
the Early Neolithic. Mainly preserving come from certain sites in southeastern
their distribution areas, these cultures Anatolia dated to the Pre-Pottery Neo-
survive—with certain developments and lithic, where people gradually set up
innovations—until the end of the Early permanent settlements and began to prac-
Chalcolithic (Efe, 2004). In the succeed- tice agriculture (Yalçın, 2013).
ing Middle Chalcolithic, important The early traces of metalworking in
changes occurred in pottery throughout western Anatolia are found in Hacılar VI,
the peninsula, in what could be considered which is dated to the Late Neolithic
a turning point. In this period, red slipped (Mellaart, 1970: 153). Here, ceramic
or red-on-cream painted pottery of the pieces with traces of copper slag were
Neolithic tradition was replaced by dark- uncovered. The first metal artefacts in the
faced burnished pottery with impressed or region were found in the same settlement.
grooved decoration (Efe, 2003a). The fol- Two copper beads and pieces of awls or
lowing Late Chalcolithic period, in which needles were uncovered in Layers Ia and
metalworking began to gain in impor- IIa, which date to the Early Chalcolithic.
tance, is a period that has been little Firmer evidence on metalworking in the
investigated in western Anatolia. In this area comes from the Late Chalcolithic.
64 EuropeanJournalofArchaeology18(1)2015
The earliest known finds in inland north- (Figure 2). This period is an important
western Anatolia are a double-spiral turning point in the cultural development
headed pin and an awl from Layer VII of of western Anatolia. Besides pottery,
Orman Fidanlığı (Figure 1; Ay-Efe, 2001: architectural data also show that a new
105–06, fig. 8). Furthermore, a crucible cultural and possibly political entity began
found in the same layer shows that to take shape (Efe, 2003b: 88).
melting was carried out here and that the
production of metal objects in moulds had
begun (Ay-Efe, 2001: 107, fig. 8). The Architecture
hoard of metal finds from Beycesultan
XXXIV, corresponding roughly to Orman Aside from Küllüoba and Kaklık Mevkii,
Fidanlığı VII, includes mainly daggers, the Transitional Period into the EBA in
chisels, and flat axes that are known to western Anatolia is known from the settle-
have been produced by pouring molten ments of Bakla Tepe and Besi̧ktepe
metal into moulds. Daggers, chisels, and (Figure 2). While in the Early Chalco-
flat axes recovered in the Ilıpınar cemetery lithic the central courtyard settlement
(Phase IV) dated to the end of the period model was present in the inland areas of
are likewise shaped in moulds. They show the region at centres such as Ilıpınar,
the sophistication of metal working in the Aktopraklık, and Hacılar, it is difficult to
region (Stronach, 1962: 281, fig. 8; Roo- speak of any homogeneity in terms of
denberg et al., 1990; Begemann et al., settlement plans in the coastal areas. In
1994). At Kuruçay, metal objects such as this period, when EBA architecture was
needles, awls, and axes were found (Duru, beginning to take shape in western Anato-
2008: 143–44, figs. 286–88). The dating lia, it is understood that the megaron plan
of the spearhead that is said to have been was not yet dominant. Instead, single-
found in the Late Chalcolithic deposit is roomed rectangular structures seem to
open to discussion. These metal objects have been more characteristic in the
found at Beycesultan, Kuruçay, Bağbası̧ region.
(Figure 1), Orman Fidanlığı, and Ilıpınar, The most concrete information about
some of which show a quite developed this period comes from the settlement of
technological level, give the impression Küllüoba situated in the close vicinity of
that metalworking had started to gain Eskisȩ hir (Fidan, 2012a: 8, fig. 7). The
importance in the Late Chalcolithic in settlement was encircled by a
western Anatolia. zigzag-running mud-brick defensive wall,
to which the back walls of houses were
attached. It was found that the houses
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD INTO were placed so as to lie between the two
THE EARLY BRONZE AGE zigzags and that they opened onto the
(3200–3000/2900 BC) courtyard in the centre of the settlement.
This plan represents the oldest known
After the last quarter of fourth millennium EBA example of a settlement with a
BC, in other words, during the ‘Transi- central courtyard. Afyon-Kaklık Mevkii,
tional Period into the Early Bronze Age’ another central western Anatolian settle-
(a term introduced by Efe (1994)), the ment of the Transitional Period into the
EBA cultural regions began to emerge, EBA, has predominantly rectangular
largely overlapping those of the previous house plans. The adjacent houses with
Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods shared walls probably open up onto a
Fidanetal.–AnOverviewoftheWesternAnatolianEarlyBronzeAge 65
Figure 2. Early Bronze Age settlement plans: 1, Bakla Tepe (Erkanal & Özkan, 1997: fig. 2); 2,
Liman Tepe (Kouka, 2010: fig. 3); 3, Küllüoba; 4, Demircihöyük (Korfmann, 1983, abb. 343); 5,
Karatas-̧ Semayük (Mellink, 1974: fig. 1); 6, Troia (Mellaart, 1959: fig. 2); 7, Küllüoba; 8,
Keçiçayırı; 9, Bademağacı (Duru & Umurtak, 2010: fig. 2); 10, Karaoğlan Mevkii (Topbaş et al.,
1998:fig.2);11,Troia(Mellaart,1959:fig.6);12,Seyitömer(Bilgen,2011a:565).
central courtyard (Efe et al., 1995: 360– black-burnished pottery (except in south-
61, fig. 3). In the coastal areas of western western Anatolia) gradually gave way to
Anatolia, for which information on the red-slipped and burnished pottery; groov-
architecture of the period is more limited, ing, fluting, and relief decoration—with
Izmir-Bakla Tepe is the most important regional variations—became popular
settlement so far excavated. Here, inde- instead of white paint; and Late Chalco-
pendent structures in a grill/channel plan lithic forms gradually began to disappear.
have been revealed (Erkanal & Özkan, Beak-spouted jugs and cups, developed
2000: 270). from Late Chalcolithic jugs and cups,
began to appear (Efe et al., 1995: 376).
The beak-spouted jug is the most charac-
Pottery teristic pottery form of the EBA in
western Anatolia. In northwestern Anato-
In this period, EBA pottery appears with lia, this period is represented by the
certain common characteristics throughout ‘Kumtepe IB Culture’. The Kumtepe IB
western Anatolia. However, the lack of layer dates to 3300–2970 BC according to
research for the period in question makes radiocarbon dating. Thus, the Kumtepe
it impossible to accurately determine IB culture corresponds to the Transitional
any cultural regions. In this period, Period into the EBA, just before early
66 EuropeanJournalofArchaeology18(1)2015
Figure3. CulturalregionsinthewestAnatolianEBI.
Troy I (Korfmann et al., 1995: 260, abb. profile bowls, beak-spouted cups, jugs,
21a). This culture is characterized by dark- amphorae, and tripod cooking pots (Efe
faced burnished wares and bowls with an et al., 1995). The architecture and pottery
interior-thickened rim, and tubular lugs or traditions of the Transitional Period into
knobs on the rim (Sperling, 1976). the EBA in the Phrygian cultural region
We can speak of two different pottery have been identified stratigraphically at
traditions in inland western Anatolia: one Küllüoba. Black-burnished wares, typical of
in the Büyük Menderes and Upper Porsuk the Late Chalcolithic, increasingly gave way
River Basins, the other in inland northwes- to the red-slipped and burnished wares of
tern Anatolia (Phrygia). There are certain later phases. Simple-profiled, loop-handled
differences between them as well as a close bowls, necked pots and jars, jugs and
relationship. In Kaklık Mevkii in the Afyon beak-spouted jugs are very characteristic
Plain, the black- or red-burnished, thin- (Efe&Ay-Efe,2000).
walled pottery with broad, shallow fluting,
typical of the Beycesultan EBA I culture of
the following period, began to appear Metal
among the Late Chalcolithic pottery of the
region. Among the new characteristic Great progress was made in metalworking
forms of the period, we can cite simple- at the end of the fourth millennium and
Fidanetal.–AnOverviewoftheWesternAnatolianEarlyBronzeAge 67
beginning of the third millennium BC, Transitional Period into the EBA, the
particularly in Mesopotamia and its coastal and inland areas had distinctly sep-
neighbouring areas. However, we are not arate general settlement patterns. While
well informed on the development on the settlements with central courtyards
metalworking in western Anatolia at this gained importance in inland western Ana-
time. Few metal finds have been recovered tolia, house blocks (insula) separated from
in the layers dated to the Transitional each other by streets prevailed in the
Period into the EBA at the settlements of coastal settlements. What should be
Kumtepe in the coastal region and Kaklık emphasized at this point is that, from this
Mevkii and Küllüoba in inland western period on, the megaron plan became
Anatolia (Efe, 2002: 51). At Bakla Tepe characteristic throughout the region.
various types of weapons as well as tools It is the settlement of Demircihöyük,
mainly used in daily life were found close to the city of Eskisȩ hir, that provides
(Keskin, 2011: 145). Furthermore, the dis- us with the most detailed information on
covery of a large number of slag pieces and an EBA I settlement plan. This settlement
pieces of crucibles and truyers is extremely was surrounded by a zigzag-running
important in terms of showing the level defensive wall, and the two-roomed trape-
that metalworking had reached in this zoid long-houses which adjoined this wall
period. at the back opened onto a large central
courtyard (Korfmann, 1983: fig. 343).
Similarly, Hacılar Büyük Höyük
EARLY BRONZE AGE I (Figure 1), which has been under exca-
(3000/2900–2700 BC) vation since 2011, yielded single-roomed
megara, the back walls of which are
During this period, in which megaron attached to the zigzag defensive wall.
buildings prevailed all over western Anato- They might have opened up onto a central
lia, the Aegean coastal region, and inland courtyard yet to be excavated (Umurtak &
western Anatolia exhibit different features Duru, 2013: 9, fig. 13). On the Aegean
in terms of general settlement patterns coastline, on the other hand, as witnessed
(Düring, 2011: 263–70). In this period, at Bakla Tepe and Liman Tepe, the settle-
the boundaries of cultural regions became ments surrounded by a defensive wall had
more clearly established and local pottery house blocks separated by streets (Erkanal,
zones became more apparent within these 2000: 259, fig. 2; Erkanal & Özkan,
cultural regions. As figurines and idols 2000: 274, fig. 3). A defensive wall was
were now more diversified in shape, style, constructed for the first time in Troy Ic,
and decoration, they also contributed to but we know very little of the settlement
the establishment of these boundaries plan of this phase (Ünlüsoy, 2006: 133–
(Sarı, 2013a: 227–31). 35, fig. 4). In consideration of the defence
systems of these three sites, we can say
that the coastal settlements now began to
Architecture be encircled by more impressive fortifica-
tion walls.
As more research has been carried out in The Neolithic way of life gradually
western Anatolia on the EBA I period in began to change from this period on. The
comparison to the Transitional Period into most important sign of this was the
the EBA, we are more informed on the gradually emerging public buildings in
architecture of this period. Just as in the settlements. The Karatas-̧ Semayük EBA I
68 EuropeanJournalofArchaeology18(1)2015
As seen in the settlements of Troy,
Liman Tepe, Demircihöyük, Küllüoba,
Beycesultan, Hacılar Büyük Höyük, and
Karatas-̧ Semayük from this period, megara
became increasingly common in western
Anatolia. We would like to underline that
the megaron in Beycesultan XVII that was
said to have been a temple (Lloyd & Mel-
laart, 1962: fig. 9) should be reinterpreted
as a dwelling. The architecture of this
phase has only been excavated in a limited
area and the position of the megaron in
relation to the other probable structures in
the settlement is unclear. Also, it has no
exceptional architectural characteristics to
distinguish it from contemporary simple
houses.
Pottery
Figure 4. The main EBA I ware groups of the
Phrigian cultural region. (A) Küllüoba Red
For this period, it is possible to more
Slipped and Burnished Ware; (B) Demircihüyük
clearly define the borders of the cultural
Black-ToppedWare
regions that continue from the previous
period (for research on western Anatolian
pottery zones and recent assessments, see
settlement at Elmalı Ovası is a good
Bittel, 1942; Lloyd & Mellaart, 1962:
example. Here, a building was uncovered
French, 1969a; Efe, 1988, 2003b, 2007;
that may have belonged to the ruler of Üstün-Türkteki, 2012; Sarı, 2013a). There
the settlement (Mellink, 1964: 269–78,
is important evidence to suggest that in
1965: 241–51, 1969: 293–307). This rec-
this period there were also pottery zones
tangular, independent structure, which is
within these cultural regions (Efe, 2003a).
thought to have had two stories, has a These are Troy–Yortan Bithynia, Phrygia,
central location in the settlement and is
Büyük Menderes-Upper Porsuk, and
monumental in comparison with the
Lycia-Pisidia (Figure 3A). This time, the
other structures in the settlement. The
Troy-Yortan and Bithynian cultural
houses that line up inside the palisade
regions were formed within the distri-
encircle this structure and belong to the
bution area of the earlier Kumtepe IB
upper town. The round houses outside
culture, which was dominant in the
the palisade from the earlier layers,
majority of northwestern Anatolia in the
together with megara built in the early
previous period.
and middle phases of the EBA I, may
belong to the lower town (Warner, 1994:
167, fig. 17). This settlement layout may Troy I-Yortan cultural region
be taken as an indication of the gradual Dark-faced burnished wares, anti-splash
emergence of social stratification in the bowls with an interior-thickened rim, and
settlement. tubular lugs were the most important
Fidanetal.–AnOverviewoftheWesternAnatolianEarlyBronzeAge 69
characteristics of the Troy-Yortan Cultural Lycia-Pisidia cultural region
Region (Figure 3B). The local pottery (Figure 3A)
zones within the Troy I-Yortan cultural This region’s pottery is characterized by
region include Troas, Limni, Izmir, and red and brown burnished wares; simple-
Yortan. profile bowls with a flaring rim and a ver-
tical handle reaching from the rim down
the body. Relief decoration, grooves, and
Bithynian cultural region
white paint are characteristic. The borders
Characterized by grey-brown burnished
of the local pottery zones within this
wares and bowls with outflaring lips, the
region have also not yet been clearly
Bithynian cultural region held the position
defined.
of a transitional region that bore both the
characteristics of the Troy-Yortan cultural
region and the Phrygian cultural region.
Metal
Phrygian cultural region
In EBA I, the Phrygian cultural region
The repertoire of metal finds of this
retained its borders from the Transitional
period is almost the same as the previous
Period into the EBA and was character-
Late Chalcolithic and the Transitional
ized by red-slipped and burnished wares
Period into the EBA (Efe & Fidan, 2006:
(Figure 4A) and black-topped wares 19–20). The only difference worth men-
(Figure 4B), loop handles, horseshoe-
tioning in terms of the metal types of this
shaped handles, simple-profile bowls,
period is the appearance of a different
bowls with painted red crosses on the
variety of daggers (Fidan, 2006).
interior, and baked clay idols (Figure 3C).
The metal objects from this period in
There were two distinct local pottery
inland western Anatolia are known only
zones in this region: the Demircihöyük
from a few sites. Demircihöyük yielded
and Upper Sakarya pottery zones. The
tools, weapons, and jewellery. Various
main difference that distinguishes these
types and sizes of daggers were found at
zones is the ratio of black-topped ware:
Beycesultan, but only a few needles are
while it is seldomly represented in the
known from Kusura (Efe & Fidan, 2006:
Upper Sakarya group, it forms more than 19–20). Sites such as Iasos, Liman Tepe,
half of the ware groups at Demircihöyük. Bakla Tepe, and Besi̧ktepe, situated on
the Aegean coastline of Anatolia, on the
Büyük Menderes-Upper Porsuk other hand, have yielded various pieces of
cultural region jewellery as well as weapons and tools
This cultural region, also known as the (Keskin, 2011: 146).
‘Beycesultan EBA I Culture’, had a very Our knowledge of EBA I metal pro-
wide distribution area and is characterized duction is mainly based on the
by brilliantly burnished bowls with thin investigations carried out in the coastal
walls (perhaps imitating metal bowls), areas of western Anatolia (Keskin, 2011).
strap handles and groove decorations, as The best data, in this context, come from
well as stone idols with round bodies and the Liman Tepe excavations. The settle-
pointed heads (Figure 3D). The distri- ment contains long houses built adjacent
bution areas of the local pottery zones to the defensive wall, and finds related to
within this cultural region have not yet metal production were recovered in some
been clearly defined. of these houses. Crucible pieces, truyers,